Citation
Forgiveness

Material Information

Title:
Forgiveness a correlational study between the spirit of forgiveness and physical health in senior citizens
Creator:
Connery, Thomas J
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
vii, 202 leaves : ; 29 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Anger ( jstor )
Diseases ( jstor )
Empathy ( jstor )
Forgiveness ( jstor )
Healing ( jstor )
Morality ( jstor )
Older adults ( jstor )
Physical health ( jstor )
Reconciliation ( jstor )
Resentment ( jstor )
Counselor Education thesis, Ph.D ( lcsh )
Dissertations, Academic -- Counselor Education -- UF ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2002.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 168-201).
General Note:
Printout.
General Note:
Vita.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Thomas J. Connery.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright [name of dissertation author]. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
028808346 ( ALEPH )
50511738 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text










FORGIVENESS: A CORRELATIONAL STUDY BETWEEN THE SPIRIT OF
FORGIVENESS AND PHYSICAL HEALTH IN SENIOR CITIZENS














By

THOMAS J: CONNERY


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2002














ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I have been blessed to receive the guidance and help from so many individuals.

First and foremost is my chairperson, Dr. Mary Howard-Hamilton, who, despite a

relocation to Indiana, has guided and directed me with love and patience. I am indebted

to my committee members, Dr. Silvia Echevarria-Doan, Dr. James Archer, and Dr. David

Miller, for giving me their time and expertise. I am indebted also to my dear friends who

wanted the degree almost as much as I did: Gert and Marcia King; Theresa Hand; Dr.

Anthony and Pat Cardinale, who painstakingly recorded, typed, and organized my work;

Kathleen Nonnenmacher, who encouraged me and spent countless hours in the library

assisting me; and Jong- hyo Park, whose expertise in statistics was a God-send. I am

grateful to Dr. Robert Enright, who initially put me on this track of forgiveness, for his

encouragement. I thank Dr. Sid Sarinopolous, whom I constantly consulted for advice,

direction, and clarification; I remain indebted to him and thank him for his patience. I

also thank Dr. Jerry Goldberg, who, though a stranger, willingly offered insight and

clarification; Mary Jane Schaer, who did an excellent job preparing my work; and Candy

Spires, who was most helpful in keeping my classes straight. I want to express my

gratitude to my mom and dad who, though they may not have had the opportunity to

further their education, encouraged me to be the best that I can be.

Finally, this is dedicated to Helen Smorto, who was called home to heaven and is

unable to rejoice with me. I miss her, and I thank her.















TABLE OF CONTENTS



ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................. ii

ABSTRACT ......................................................... vi

CHAPTERS

1 INTRODUCTION ................................... ..............1

Statement of the Problem .............................................. 1
The Role of Forgiveness ............................................ 7
Definition of Term ............ ...................................... 8
The Purpose of the Study ..............................................9
Hypotheses ............ ............................................ 9
Significance of the Study ............... ........................... 10

2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE ...................................... 11

Why Now Forgiveness? .............................................. 14
What Is Interpersonal Forgiveness? ................ ................... 16
Philosophical Perspectives of Forgiveness .............................. 24
The Unforgivable ....................................................26
The Possibility of Forgiveness ............... ....................... 28
Conflicting View of Forgiveness ................ ..................... 33
The Parameters of Forgiveness ..................................... 34
What Forgiveness Is Not ............................................. 37
Definition of Forgiveness ............... ........................... 45
What Is Forgiveness? .............. ................. .............. 46
Foundational Definition .............. ............................ 51
Challenge of Forgiveness ............... ........................... 57
The Process of Forgiving ............................................. 61
How Do People Forgive ................. ............................ 62
Anger and Forgiveness .............................................. 71
The Model of Forgiveness Based on Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development... 74
The Forgiveness Model .................. .......................... 78
Uncovering ........... ............................................ 85
Work ................. ............................. 87
Outcome ................................ ...................88


iii









The Role of Empathy ................................................ 89
How Does One Know When Forgiveness Has Taken Place? .................. 92
What Are the Benefits in Forgiving ................ ................... 93
Hostility, Anger, and Physical Health ................. .............. 99
The Role of Anger ................................................. 105
Theoretical Claims On the Physical Health Enhancing Potential of Forgiveness .. 108
How Forgiveness Might Influence Health ............................. 112
Possible Physiological Mechanisms ................................ 117
A Theoretical Framework ................ ......................... 122

3 METHODOLOGY ................................................ 126

Overview .................. .......................... 126
Definitions ...................................................... 127
Participants ...................................................... 128
Procedure ....................................... ................. 128
Psychological Variable Instruments .................... .............. 129
Descriptive Statistics for the Normative Samples .......................... 132
Anger Expression and Anger Control ................................... 132
STAXI-2 Scales and Subscales ........................................ 133
The 27-Item Version of the Cook and Medley Hostility Scale ................ 133
Physical Health Status ............... ............................ 135
Health-Risk Variables .............. ............................ 136
Study ............................................. 137

4 RESULTS ............ .... ....................... ...... 138

Descriptive Data ............. ..................................... 138
Results .........................................................139

5 DISCUSSION ...................................... .......... 151

Research Implications ................ ............................ 155
Practical Implications .................. .............................156
Limitations ................ ..................... .............. 156
Future Research ................................... ............ 158

APPENDICES

A VOLUNTEER INVITATION LETTER AND CHURCH BULLETIN NOTICE .. 161

B INFORMED CONSENT ................... ....... ...............163

C BASIC INFORMATION QUESTIONNAIRE ............................ 164

D ACTIVITIES AND HABITS QUESTIONNAIRE ....................... 166









REFEREN CES .................................................... 168

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ............... ......................... 202














Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

FORGIVENESS: A CORRELATIONAL STUDY BETWEEN THE SPIRIT OF
FORGIVENESS AND PHYSICAL HEALTH IN SENIOR CITIZENS

By

Thomas J. Connery

Chair: Mary Howard-Hamilton
Major Department: Counselor Education

Clients who seek counseling are often motivated by the desire to move beyond or

overcome past hurts and injustices. Though the desire may be there, the skill to do so is

lacking. As counselors, we facilitate the process by our knowledge and expertise. One

strategy to recover from past injustices is forgiveness. Forgiveness can be the catalyst for

healing and regaining one's peace of mind. Clients are reluctant to choose forgiveness for

it carries the stigma of defeat. Knowing that forgiveness is connected to improved

outcomes may be the appeal to select forgiveness.

This study involved 203 senior citizens, male and female, whose ages ranged

from 65 to 82. Sixty-six percent were between 65 and 75, 47% ranged from 76 to 79

and 22% were 80 and older. The volunteers were primarily from a Central Florida

Catholic Church. The following instruments were given to each participant: Enright

Forgiveness Inventory, The Anger Expression Scale, The 27-Item Version of the Cook

and Medley Hostility Scale, and the Physical Health Status and Health-Risk Variables.









Separate correlation analyses were performed for the EFI and anger and EFI and

hostility, EFI Anger and hostility and predictor variables and physical health measures.

Multiple regression analyses were performed with predictor variables and physical

health. Unlike previous research, these results did not show any significant correlation

between forgiveness and physical health.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Statement of the Problem

Health-related quality of life or the capability to function in the physical,

psychosocial and sociological domain of health is of growing interest in the field of aging

(Badger, 2001). Today, there are 78 million American baby boomers-persons between

ages 35 and 53--comprising nearly one-third of the total U.S. population. According to

psychologist and entrepreneur Den Dychtwald (1999), the 20t century had been in the

domain of the young, but the 21" century will belong to the "new-old." Two-thirds of all

the people who have ever lived past age 65 in the entire history of the world are presently

alive today. He predicts that this population, the aging baby boomers, will crave vigor,

vitality, and life extension. The irony of past medical successes, he believes, is that they

have produced legions of long-lived elders who wrestle with the very problems that the

American health care system is ill-equipped to handle, such as heart disease, cancer,

arthritis, osteoporosis, and Alzheimer's.

These are the health risks that elderly face as they are graced with longevity. A

severe problem, often unmentioned, that plagues the senior years is the struggle with

depression. Depression is a serious problem among persons aged 65 and older and often

is missed in primary care practice (Butler, Cohen, Lewis, Simmons-Clemmons, &

Sunderland, 1997). Though the prevalence of major depression among people age 65 and

over in community surveys stands at 15%, another 15% suffer from some degree of







2

adjustment disorder, chronic depression, and other forms of minor depression (Diagnosis

and Treatment, 1991). Prevalence in nursing homes is 12% to 22% for major depression

disorder and over 15% to 30% for minor depression (American Psychiatric Association,

1994).

This is noteworthy because depression is linked with physical health problems

(Koenig, 1999). Depression, along with anxiety, in medically ill seniors both increases

the morbidity and mortality and burdens not only the individual but society with higher

health costs and utilization. It is also linked to a poorer functional status and outcomes

for patients (Kim, Braun, & Kunick, 2001). Ormel and colleagues (1998) noted that

depressive symptoms contribute more to functional disability, poor health perception,

and poor well-being than most chronic medical conditions. In persons aged 65 and older,

the incidence of depression increases with the degree of physical health problems. Higher

levels of mortality among depressed patients may have as a contributor psychological

stress, which triggers the production of cortisol by the adrenal glands and thereby

adversely affects the immune system. Unfortunately 70% to 90% of late-life depression

is undiagnosed (Koenig, 1999).

Untreated depression among older people can be deadly. The suicide rate in old

age is the highest of any age group: 67.6 suicides per 100,000 in persons age 85 and

older, five times the national rate for all ages of 12 per 100,000 (Butler, 1997). An

estimated one out of six patients seen by a primary care physician is suffering from

depression. In about 25% of cases of depression, a contributing factor may be chronic

physical illness such as heart disease, stroke, cancer, lung disease, arthritis, and

Parkinson's disease (Butler, 1997). Depression, especially in older adults, is prevalent but

often unrecognized in patients with other medical disorders. If left untreated, comorbid







3
depression may lead to a worsening of certain medical conditions such as coronary artery

disease (Evans, 1997).

Depressed patients suffer from symptomatic and fatal ischemic heart disease at a

higher rate than nondepressed patients. Alterations in sympathetic and parasympathetic

tone possibly make depressed patients more vulnerable to ventricular fibrillation.

Comorbid depression and cardiac disease are commonly encountered by any clinician

treating older patients. Furthermore, depressed patients have poorer outcomes than

nondepressed patients with similar degrees of heart disease. Depressed patients have a

higher than expected rate of sudden cardiovascular death. Patients with depression

develop symptomatic and fatal ischemic heart disease at a higher rate when compared

with a nondepressed group (Roose, Devanand, & Suthers, 1999).

Depression in older persons is associated with significant decrease in physical

mobility and increase in disability associated with activities of daily living. Depression

can adversely affect biological processes that may enhance susceptibility to disease or

cause neuromuscular factional decline (Penninx & Leveille, 1999). People who are

depressed have significantly greater mortality following a myocardial infarction (MI) and

are more likely to have a reinfarction. Senior citizens suffering from myocardial

infarction often present with restless agitation or confusion. Congestive heart failure can

produce anxiety, fatigue, or poor concentration. Hypertension, which affects 40% of the

elderly, is often treated with medication that has a high potential of causing depression

(Vickers, 1988) Depression puts enormous stress on a person's psychological system.

Serotonin levels are decreased in the brain of anyone who is depressed. It has been

reported that serotonin levels in platelet cells also might be decreased in depressed

people, making platelets more coagulable and increasing the risk of MI (Koenig, 1999).









Besides depression, another disorder confronting not only the senior population

but also all Americans is cardiovascular disease. Cardiovascular disease is the leading

cause of illness and death in the United States. An estimated 14 million Americans have

a history of MI with costs to the health care system reaching $60 billion per year. The

three risk factors that can be modified to lower the risk of cardiovascular disease and

death are hypercholesterolemia, hypertension, and cigarette smoking (Pennington &

Tecce, 1997).

These are just two striking examples of a myriad of illnesses that affect, in

particular, the senior population. Understandably, depression is not solely linked to a lack

of forgiveness as there are many causes and factors, yet learning to forgive can be an

important antidote. Forgiving is effective in resolving feelings of remorse, guilt, anger,

anxiety, and fear (Cerney, 1988; Fitzgibbons, 1986) The field is now ripe for innovative,

challenging treatment with increased potential to positively impact the lives of senior

citizens with psychiatric symptoms and disorders (Stanley, 2001) Considering the high

rate of incomplete response to antidepressants, the negative effects on the quality of life,

and costly increases in health care, it poses a challenge to the medical fields to find a

suitable option (Scogin et al., 2001). Using psychosocial treatments as adjuncts to the

antidepressant medication is an appealing option. Psychotherapy is designed to get to the

root of the problem, which medicated treatment is unable to target. Psychosocial

treatments can present coping strategies to utilize when facing stressors and the means

for dealing with demoralization and feelings of hopelessness and despair (Scogin et al.,

2001). Forgiveness can be a major component in the healing process. Forgiveness

interventions have been related to reductions in anxiety (Al-Mabuk, Enright, & Cardes,

1995; Coyle & Enright, 1997; Freedman & Enright, 1996), reductions in anger (Coyle &









Enright, 1997), and reductions in depression (Freedman & Enright, 1996). Evidence has

emerged that positive emotional states, such as love, and conditions that foster positive

emotions, such as intimate relationships, have health-enhancing effects (Medalie &

Goldbourt, 1996; Medalie, Strange, Zyzanoki, & Goldbourt, 1992; Seeman & Syme,

1987). Forgiveness quite possibly can have an empirically discemable positive influence

on physical health.

Forgiveness involves the affective, cognitive, and behavioral systems. When one

forgives, certain elements are subtracted from each system. A key benefit is that negative

emotions, such as anger, hatred, resentment, hostility, sadness and/or contempt, are given

up (Richards, 1988). In the cognitive system, one gives up condemning and blaming

judgment and the plotting of revenge where this was occurring. In the behavioral system,

one chooses to no longer act out of revenge (North, 1987).

When one forgives, certain elements are added to each system. In the affective

system, the negative emotions are replaced by more neutral emotions and eventually by

positive acts, such as unselfish love (Cunningham, 1985; Downie, 1965; North, 1987).

On the cognitive system, the offender may realize he or she has a right to negative

emotions, yet is most willing to give them up (North, 1987). Positive thoughts now

emerge toward the offender (Smedes, 1984). There is the promising potential for the

forgiver to experience both inner release and healed relationship (Augsburger, 1981).

Although the relationship between forgiveness and positive emotions has yet to

be investigated empirically, present correlational data have shown significant positive

relations between forgiveness and a sense of well being (Ashleman, 1996; Nousse, 1997).

When one sincerely forgives, emerging positive emotions may greatly influence the







6

quality of the relationship between the two parties. Consequently, forgiveness may have a

substantial and lasting impact on the physical health of the offended.

The benefits from the effort to forgive outweigh the struggle to achieve it.

Significant among them are a decreased level of anger and hostility and increased

feelings of love and compassion (Medalie & Goldbourt, 1996; Seeman & Syme, 1987;

Shapiro, Schwartz, & Aston, 1996), improved ability to deflate anger (Coyle & Enright,

1997; Huang, 1990; Sarinopoulos, 1996), enhanced capacity to trust, and freedom from

the subtle control of individuals and events of the past. Of particular importance is the

decrease of the feelings of anger and hostility.

Although not entirely consistent, there is striking evidence for a relationship

between hostility and coronary heart disease (CHD). Miller and colleagues (Miller,

Smith, Turner, Guijarro, & Hallet, 1996) noted that hostility was independently

associated with objective evidence of CHD, for example, confirmed myocardial

infarction. Some evidence is beginning to emerge on some of the dire effects that

hostility might possibly have on the cardiovascular system. Hostility was found to be

associated with angiographic coronary stenosis (Barefoot et al., 1994; Williams et al.,

1980) and silent ventricular dysfunction (Burg, Jain, Soufer, Kerns, & Zaret, 1993).

Further, hostility has been connected to other life threatening illnesses and mortality

(Chesney & Rosenman, 1985; Friedman, 1992; Johnson, 1990; Matthews et al., 1986;

Smith, 1992). Schekelle, Gail, Ostfelt, and Paul (1983) found hostility scores to predict

mortality from not only CHD but from other illnesses as well. Impressively, Barefoot,

Dahlstrom. and Williams (1983) and Barefoot, Dodge, Peterson, Dahlstrom, and

Williams (1989) found that hostility singularly predicted all-cause mortality over 25-

and 28-year follow-up periods.








An impressive body of evidence has been gathered on the relationship between

anger expression and hypertension. Not only suppressed (Diamond, 1982; Harburg,

Blakelock, & Roeper, 1979; Harburg et al., 1973; Julius & Johnson, 1985; Thomas,

1997) but expressed anger (Engebretson, Matthews, & Scheier, 1989; Gentry, 1985;

Gentry, Chesney, Gary, Hall, & Harburg, 1982; Schalling, 1985; Spielberger et al., 1985)

have been found to be significantly related to elevated blood pressure and hypertension.

Links between stress or distress and immunity may have even more potent health

consequences for older adults because immune function declines with age, particularly

functional aspects of the cellular immune response (Murasko, Weiner, & Kaye, 1988;

Wayne, Rhyne, & Garry, 1990; Yoshikawa, 1983). Among adults over 75 years of age,

pneumonia and influenza together are the fourth leading cause of death (Yoshikawa,

1983).

Besides hostility, anger has also been shown to affect other common health

problems. Arena, Bruno, Rozantine, and Meador (1997) found that tension headache

sufferers stored significantly more suppressed anger compared to nonpain controls. In a

national sample of Black adults, Johnson and Broman (1987) found that increased levels

of outwardly expressed anger was associated with a greater number of health problems

(e.g., ulcers, cancer, hypertension, and diabetes). Supporting this premise, Vandervoort,

Ragland, and Syme (1996) found that both suppressed and expressed anger aggravated

health problems ranging from gastrointestinal to musculoskeletal health complaints.

The Role of Forgiveness

Forgiveness is closely, though not solely, connected to a religious/spiritual

outlook. Many elders turn to their religiousness to help cope with physical and emotional

problems (Koenig, 1999). Religiously committed older adults are notably healthier,









happier, and enjoy greater life satisfaction and are less depressed, anxious, and lonely

(Koenig, 1999). Religious coping has been related to lower rates of depression in both

cross-sectional (Idler, 1987; Koenig, Cohen, Blazer, Kudler, Krishnan, & Sibert 1995;

Pressman, Lyons, Larson, & Strain, 1990) and longitudinal studies (Idler & Kasl, 1992;

Koenig et al., 1992). A number of studies have demonstrated that religiously active older

adults have lower blood pressure (Larson et al., 1989), fewer strokes (Colantinio, Kasl, &

Ostfeld, 1992), fewer deaths from coronary heart disease (Goldbourt, Yaari, & Medalie,

1993), and longer survival overall (Gartner, Larson, & Allen, 1991; Zuckerman, Kasl, &

Ostfeld, 1984)

Definition of Term

Enright and the Human Development Study Group [HDSG] (1991a) developed

their definition from a threefold approach: how one thinks, feels and acts toward the

offender. The definition includes judgments (how the forgiver thinks about the offender)

emotions (how one feels toward the offenderr, and behavior (how the forgiver acts

toward the offender) in the forgiveness process. This definition has been operationalized

in the Enright Forgiveness Inventory (Subkoviak, Enright, & Wu, 1992), which provides

the means for quantitatively measuring levels of interpersonal forgiveness in the

affective, behavioral, and cognitive domains.

The definition is as follows:

Forgiveness is the overcoming of negative affect and judgment toward the
offender, not by denying ourselves the right to such affect and judgment but by
endeavoring to view the offender with benevolence, compassion, and even love,
while recognizing that he or she has abandoned the right to them. (Subkoviak et
al., 1992, p. 3)









The Purpose of the Study

This study is an investigation of the relationship between forgiveness and

physical health in senior citizens that has yet to be empirically investigated. The

scientific evidence that anger and its related concept of hostility are health hazards has

grown rapidly over the past few decades (e.g., Friedman, 1996; Kranz, Baum, & Singer,

1983; Stone, Cohen, & Adler, 1979; Williams & Williams, 1993) and will be analyzed.

As well, there is evidence that indicates that wholesome emotions such as love and

healthy relationships with those close to us have health-enhancing effects (e.g., Coleman,

1989; Omish, 1998).

As forgiveness is a process in which negative emotions are replaced by positive

emotions and wounded relationships can be healed (Hope, 1987), forgiveness might have

an empirically discernable positive influence on physical health. Thereby, the main goal

of the present study is to access the relationship of forgiveness, hostility, and suppressed

and expressed anger with physical health while taking into account the impact of a

number of demographic and health risk factors (e.g., sex, body mass, smoking, alcohol,

salt, caffeine, and exercise).

Hypotheses

The following hypotheses were investigated in this study.

1. Forgiveness will be positively related to physical health. High scorers on
forgiveness will have fewer physical health problems, and vice versa.

2. Hostility and both suppressed and expressed anger will be negatively
related to physical health. High scorers on anger and hostility will have
more physical health problems, and vice versa.

3. Forgiveness, anger and hostility will remain significantly related to
physical health after controlling for age, sex, smoking, liquor, caffeine,
body mass, exercise, and salt.








4. Forgiveness will remain significantly related to physical health after
controlling for anger and hostility.

Significance of the Study

Forgiveness can play a major role in the healing process. A number of mental

health professionals have suggested the expression of anger as a more appropriate way to

deal with negative emotions (Freud, 1963; Janov, 1970; Novoca, 1975; Rubin, 1970).

The expression of anger is not only important but salutary; but when solely relied on for

relief, it is inadequate to prevent serious complications because of the degree and

strength of unresolved anger from previous disappointments encountered in childhood,

adolescence, and adult life (Fitzgibbons, 1986). Forgiveness may fulfill that vital role for

healing.

The goal of the therapeutic process is to help people resolve painful and self-
defeating patterns of behavior. All therapists are confronted in their work with the
facts of injustice, the abuse of the weak by the strong, betrayer of trust, loyalty,
and innocence. One sees the results of these actions in adult clients in the patterns
of self-punishment and self-limitation in their distorted images of the social world
in the rage directed inward acted out against other or anesthetized with
substances. (Hope, 1987, p. 241)

As clients may resist or be hesitant to change or employ the paradoxical act of

forgiveness, the hope of enhanced physical health may prove to be an invaluable

incentive. If forgiveness can be seen as a gift that we give ourselves (Freedman &

Enright, 1996), clients may be more willingly to avail themselves of this salutary act,

leading to freedom and healing of the mind, body, and emotions.














CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Without forgiveness, resentment builds in us, a resentment which
turns into hostility and anger. Hatred eats away at our well-being.
(Archbishop Tutu, 1995)

Forgiveness as a psychotherapeutic goal was virtually untapped until the 1980s.

If one would examine the published voices examining interpersonal forgiveness, the

likely conclusion would be that the psychological treatment of forgiveness has been

overlooked until recently (McCullough, Worthington, & Rachal, 1997). Besides the

theological circles, forgiveness appears to have been ignored throughout all of academia,

not just in the social sciences (Enright & North, 1998). The major theories of personality

appear to have not been interested in the process of forgiveness (Shontz & Rosenak,

1988). It has been a long time since Augustine's City of God (413) discussed

interpersonal forgiveness, and it is from that date in history that forgiveness between

people fell deafly silent in published literature (Augustine, 397/1963).

From this dormant state, forgiveness now claims a reputable place in the main

stream of psychotherapeutic literature from many and diverse perspectives. Looking over

the past 15 years, forgiveness has crossed over from its acknowledged domain in

religious literature and practice into the scientific community. Empirical research has

shown impressive results, and practitioners are developing both an enthusiasm and

interest for its wide angle potential (Lampman, 1999). Once relegated to religious circles

and considered as the extra mile of mercy toward the offender that is required from a







12
"believer," forgiveness is now a viable tool for those striving to overcome estrangement

and negative emotions (Smedes, 1996). Forgiveness is now emerging in philosophy

(North, 1987; Richards, 1988), psychotherapy (McCullough, Pargament, & Thoresen,

2000), marital counseling (Boon & Sulsky, 1997), family therapy (DiBlasio & Proctor,

1993) and developmental psychology (Enright & HDSG, 1991a) as an important

component for positive health outcomes (Coyle & Enright, 1997; Freedman & Enright,

1996; Kaufman, 1984) and even inner healing for HIV/AIDS patients (Childs, 2001;

Redfield, 2001) and physical health (Sarinopoulos, 1999; Luskin et al., 2001; Witvliet, in

press).

Forgiveness has been rare in the empirical literature possibly because it has been

so closely tied to theology, not science (Fitzgibbons, 1986; North, 1987; Shontz &

Rosenak, 1988). Understandably, forgiveness has always been recognized as important

for the healing process in biblical literature, particularly in Christian literature. Most

likely due to its strong religious connotation, forgiveness was ignored in psychotherapy

with only two professional articles before 1988 (Fitzgibbons, 1986). Fitzgibbons (1986)

speculates that the absence of forgiveness studies in psychology is likely due to the

concept's identification with theology.

Secular psychology has not dealt adequately with the topic. Seemingly, this has

been in the past due to the "paranoia" of secular psychology concerning its much-desired

"scientific" status. Psychologists historically have not wanted to address any topic that is

philosophical or religious (Van Leeuwen, 1982). No doubt, this belief is partially rooted

in the historical separation between the therapeutic professions and religion (Denton &

Martin, 1998). DiBlasio and Benda (1991) found that there is a strong bias in the

psychological community against using concepts that have religious connotations. They









point out that religiously oriented concepts are frequently presented in highly abstract

ways without practical application to everyday problems. Even counselors with a

religious background similar to that of their clients may believe that religious issues

belong outside the secular counseling session (Worthington, 1989). Wulff(1996) wrote

that the psychology of religion is rather descriptive (documenting the varieties and types

of religious experiences) or explanatory (seeking the origins of religious experience and

psychological, biological, or environmental events). The explanatory approach

(harboring such distinguished names as Sigmund Freud, James Leuba, and B. F. Skinner)

typically has been hostile to religion seeing it as a cause of pathology. This separation

has been said to reflect humanistic values thought to underlie therapeutic systems and

therapists (Bergin, 1980; McMinn, 1984). Writers such as Ellis (1960, 1980) have

emphasized their perspective that religion is a clear source for pathology and that

humanism can supply all the values of religion with none of the neuroses. It is no wonder

that forgiveness with its strong religious connections had gone virtually ignored until the

mid-80s. This lack of acceptance towards forgiveness due to its close connection to

spiritual principles is also its source of strength. It is its connection to spiritual principles

that adds to, rather than subtracts from, its strength. There is a spiritual reality and

spiritual experiences make a difference in our behavior (Bergin, 1988).

A major contribution of a spiritual perspective is that it anchors value in universal

terms. This is important because therapeutic interventions are not value-free. Values

determine the goals of the treatment. They also play a vital role in the selection of

techniques and in the evaluation of outcomes (London, 1986; Lowe, 1976). What values

determine the goals of treatment? How do we set those goals? All goals, whether they are

goals for symptom relief or goals to modify a lifestyle, are supported by value systems.









Rather than being a stumbling block, forgiveness' spiritual roots should enhance, rather

than subtract, its favor in the psychological field.

Another possible reason that there has been no investigation of forgiveness in the

psychoanalytic literature is that psychoanalysis resolves conflict by excusing. When, for

example, clients work through childhood injuries, they develop insight into why their

parents might have treated them as they did. Instead of judging their parents with

primitive standards, they learn to interpret their parents in more moderated and mature

ways (Gabbard, 1990). This new understanding explains their parents' behavior in a way

that makes them helpless victims of their own conditioning. Rather than remain trapped

in the patterns that trapped their parents, patients choose to find new ways of living for

themselves. They go forward on their own rather than go back to work things out with

their parents who are excused rather than forgiven (Veenstra, 1992). As well, the

paradoxical nature of forgiveness leaves it vulnerable, not to be understood or

appreciated as a helpful healing element. It appears on the surface as too simple,

impractical, or not applicable to the serious problems of life (Hope, 1987).

Why Now Forgiveness?

To what can one attribute this relatively new interest and respect for the role of

forgiveness in the field of mental health? Two movements may have heralded the role of

forgiveness. First, the Alcoholics Anonymous approach expanded to assist the adult

children of alcoholic parents grappling with the emotional aftermath of their childhood

abuse (Ackerman, 1987; Middleton-Moz & Divinell, 1986), and secular abuse began to

uncover the importance of forgiveness in releasing their patients from destructive

relationships with their abusive parents (Bass & Davis, 1988; Farmer, 1989). This insight

provided a crack in the defensive wall against forgiveness. Along with this, the 1980s








saw an appreciation toward issues of care and responsiveness as ways to solve moral

dilemmas (Gilligan, 1982). Notably absent from the discourse of moral psychology has

been the issue of mercy, on how people deal with injustices that have already taken place.

Mercy, as a new area of research within moral development, emphasizes a person's

willingness to go beyond duty, a willingness to go beyond the requirements of justice

toward beneficially aiding someone who may not deserve the kindness. Forgiveness calls

for such an attitude and approach (Hebl & Enright, 1993).

Up until the 1980s, the field of moral development was primarily based on the

Kohlbergian emphasis on justice. The former field has broadened its parameters to

include constructs such as caring (Brabeck, 1989; Gilligan, Ward, & Taylor, 1988) and

forgiveness (Enright & HDSG, 1991b). By employing such constructs of care and mercy,

it has now been recognized by physicians working with cancer patients (Phillips &

Osbore, 1989) and by therapists interested in anger reduction in clients (Fitzgibbons,

1986; Hope, 1987; Kaufman, 1984).

This overdue recognition of the salutary effects of forgiveness has long been

awaited. Justice has dominated the study of moral development since Kohlberg's (1985)

landmark work. Yet, it is forgiveness, not justice, that is frequently labeled divine,

sublime (Morrow, 1984), humanizing (Calian, 1981), courageous (Cunningham, 1985;

Kaufman, 1984), healthy (Droll, 1984; Hope, 1987), restorative (Murphy, 1982), and

fulfilling (Beck, 1988). Psychiatrists (Kaufman, 1984), pastoral counselors (Cunningham,

1985), counseling psychologists (Eastin, 1988; Hebl, 1990), clinical psychologists (Cole,

1998; Fitzgibbons, 1986; Hope 1987), humanistic writers (Jampolsky, 1985), and

developmental psychologists (Enright, Santos, & Al Mabuk, 1989) all have begun

discussing and extolling the advantages of interpersonal or person-to-person forgiveness







16
within the helping professions. Philosophers such as Frankena (1973), however, are quick

to point out that a more complete view of morality must encompass not only justice but

mercy as well. The basic moral principle underlying justice is equality, whereas the

moral principle underlying forgiveness is the more challenging and noble task of love

tempered by its moral sense (Enright, Gassin, & Wu, 1992).

What Is Interpersonal Foreiveness?

Ancient Concepts

There are a number of ancient philosophical systems, which may not mention

forgiveness by name such as Buddhism and Confucianism but do emphasize the

constructs of mercy and compassion. These are the two key components in forgiveness.

Forgiveness is embedded in discussions of compassion, magnanimity, and altruism,

without sharp or even subtle distinctions among them. This approach is part and parcel to

its philosophy. From the many religious accounts of forgiveness, it is most thoroughly

and succinctly articulated by the world's great monotheistic faiths-Judaism,

Christianity, and Islam (McCullough & Worthington, 1999). These ancient systems, most

notably Judaism and Christianity, offer perhaps the most specific and clear cut ideas on

interpersonal forgiveness. Looking at these ancient religions along with Hinduism will

help contribute to our understanding and knowledge of the roots of forgiveness. Their

perspectives on forgiveness offer insight on how religion both influences and forms the

understanding and application of the psychological processes in forgiveness.

Pargament and Rye (1998) have proposed several ways in which religion can

contribute insight toward forgiveness. Forgiveness properly offered can be sanctified, or

imbued, with divine-like qualities. In theistic religions, forgiveness becomes the primary

means for imitation of God, fulfilling God's plan, or enhancing one's personal









relationship with the divine. In addition, religion provides numerous role models of

individuals who have forgiven despite profound injustices and who invite imitation.

Religion also offers world views that may be absent to help victims to reframe their

attitudes toward their offenders. Furthermore, religious faith can help individuals cope

with the uncertainty surrounding the choice to forgive.

The Hebrew Bible and the subsequent Jewish tradition represent the first

thorough expositions of divine and interpersonal forgiveness. The primary Hebrew word

salah occurs 46 times in the Hebrew Bible and is translated as "to forgive" (Vine, 1985).

In this religious context, it refers to God removing sin from the people. According to

Landman (1941), salah has both a spiritual and a moral connotation. It represents a

totally free act of God's removing sin or a person's removing of trespasses of another by

placing them out of sight. One of God's primary attributes is God's willingness to forgive

sinful individuals (Exodus 34:66-7), provided there are adequate repentance and a desire

to improve one's conduct (Landman, 1941). Two other words that incorporate

forgiveness in their range of meanings are kapar, to cover or atone for wrongdoing, and

nasa, to lift up a sin and carry it away (Vine, 1985). In Ancient Hebrew culture, there was

the well-defined practice of animal sacrifices, which was accompanied by repentance in

the removing of sin by the divine authority.

Forgiveness restores the offender to the relation once formerly enjoyed with the

other person and community. Such a relation in the Hebrew community demands

reciprocal love (Leviticus 19:18). Love here includes all psychological systems of affect,

cognition, and behavior (Deuteronomy 6: 5). Peace of mind is also restored (Landman,

1941). Forgiveness in Jewish tradition is not an option but a moral duty based on the









doctrine of "imitatio dei," the imitation of God as supreme forgiver (Newman, 1987;

Shapiro, 1978).

One of the most important and distinguishing elements of early Judaism was the

core belief that God was capable of forgiving humanity for its transgressions (Klassen,

1966; McCullough, Sandage, & Worthington, 1997; Telfer, 1960). What now perhaps

seems expected of God-forgiveness was so innovative that it became the distinguishing

mark between Judaism and the other religious traditions in the region of Palestine

(McCullough & Worthington, 1999). The possibility of teshuvah (Hebrew for "return" or

"repentance"), which could lead to the gift of forgiveness from God, became the focal

point of Jewish moral life (Dorf, 1992, 1998; Neusner, 1997; Telfer, 1960). Judaism

holds that God forgives on the basis of repentance and that people should be so inspired

to forgive repentant transgressors as well (Dorf, 1992, 1998; Neusner, 1997). Thereby,

forgiving one's offenders following sincere repentance is not a moral prerogative or

expectation within Judaism but a religious duty (Enright, Gassin, & Wu, 1992; Neusner,

1997; Newman, 1987).

In Jewish thought, forgiveness signifies that the very violation itself is removed.

The injured parties who forgive may still remove the transgression and retain the right to

take some precautions to make sure that they will not suffer that way again. By forgiving

the perpetrator, they now accept the individual and are open to a possible ongoing

relationship (Dorf et al., 2000). Forgiveness is a core element of the Jewish tradition. The

10 days between Rosh Hoshana and Yom Kippur are holy days in which Jews search

their hearts for the wrongs they have committed and ask one another for forgiveness.

They desire to begin the new year with a clean slate initiated by the cleansing power of

forgiveness. Indeed, forgiveness is the primary work for the Day of Atonement. The








Talmud states that God created repentance before he created the universe (Rodden,

1997).

Forgiveness in New Testament Literature

Hannah Arendt, one of the foremost philosophers of the 20th century, attributes

the discovery of the role forgiveness in the realm of human affairs to Jesus of Nazareth

(Arendt, 1958). The theological understandings of forgiveness discussed below are

rooted in the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures, both of which provide numerous

examples of interpersonal forgiveness (Gladson, 1992; Pingleton, 1989). Interpersonal

forgiveness is understood theologically within the context of divine forgiveness and in

reference to the problem of evil. Forgiveness may be understood as something one

discovers rather than something one does or an attitude one has.

The predominant theological understanding of interpersonal forgiveness, as it is

depicted in the Christian scriptures, first and foremost in the teachings of Jesus, is that

interpersonal and divine forgiveness are inextricably related. One cannot be separated

from the other. Theologically, one cannot consider the forgiveness of another person

outside unless viewed through the context of God's forgiveness. Soares-Prabhu (1986)

states that the reason the Christian Scriptures consistently relate forgiveness to God's

forgiveness is because our openness to forgive others is not "just a happy trait of

character or an acquired psychological disposition. It is a religious attitude rooted in the

core Christian experience of an utterly forgiving God" (p. 59). Rubio (1986) further

emphasizes that every experience of forgiveness has God as its ultimate foundation and

can only be explained in reference to God. God always plays the leading role in

forgiveness.

A second predominant feature in our understanding of forgiveness is from the

theological perspective of sin and evil. Sobrino (1986), in his sober analysis of Latin








America as a place of both sin and forgiveness, states that sin is a physical evil for the

victim and a moral evil for the perpetrator. The role of forgiveness is to free the sinner

(the perpetrator) from this evil and convert and recreate him/her. For Sobrino, the

fundamental message regarding forgiveness is that for the radical healing of the sinner to

take place, it can be only accomplished through the power of love expressed through the

context of forgiveness (Sobrino, 1986). He compares this to how Jesus acted and how

many Christians are challenged to act: "Forgive with love in the hope that this love will

transform the sinner" (p. 51). Dumortier (1993) describes forgiving as being able to

envision a future that would not be a continuation of the past but at the same time, not

ignoring the transgressions that occurred in the past and acknowledging that it is part of

one's life. In the strength of the present and the strength of forgiveness coexists a tension

between the unerasable past and the promise of the future. In his view, forgiveness opens

one to the hope of a better future through a God of mercy and a God of forgiveness.

The New Testament writings preserved the terminology and carried over the

concepts and metaphorical images of forgiveness in the Old Testament and reapplied

them directly to the efficacious results of Christ's death, which provided sinners the

righteous basis for divine forgiveness. Human forgiveness resulted from the realization

that one has received the unmerited gift of divine forgiveness (Colossians 3:13). A

composite picture of God's forgiveness in the New Testament was gained by combining

the definitions of the 12 main Greek terms used by writers of the New Testament. As the

Lamb of God, Christ came to take away, or bear away, the sin of the world (John 1: 29; 1

John 3: 5). Those who repented and put their faith in Christ had their sins forgiven,

blotted out, or obliterated (Col. 2: 14) from their personal record. This action of blotting

out, or covering sin (1Peter 4: 8), flowed from God's love and mercy for the sinner.







21

Rather than treat the sinner in the way he deserved, as an act of unconditional favor, God

graciously forgave him (Col.l: 13; Luke7: 42, 43), canceled his debt (Coll: 14),

pardoned him, and removed his guilt; and he was discharged (Mark 2: 5), set free from

further obligation Matt 18: 27). Forgiveness resulted in the sinner being loosed from his

sins and washed clean from its stain (ICor 6:11). Preeminently, it is Christ's command to

his followers that they are to forgive as God has forgiven them (Lukel 1:4). This remains

the guide and model on how we are to forgive. Christians are to offer their enemy

forgiveness in return for a transgression. Through forgiveness one becomes like the

"heavenly Father" (Matt. 5:48) and is the means to obtain peace.

In the New Testament, the most common words denoting forgiveness in the

original Greek are (a)eleao (and cognate nouns), show mercy (78 times) and (b) aphiemi-

release, discharge, put away (64 times). It signifies that sins are sent away, divine

punishment is removed, and a harmonious relationship between God and the formerly

sinful person is now restored (Vine, 1985). Another word used, though infrequently but

in a striking way, is splanchnizomai. This term is commonly understood as "feeling sorry

for" or "having a compassionate perspective for someone." Its origin is from the word

"intestines." A literal translation would be to pour out one's insides (Williams, 2000).

Three other Greek words that include forgiveness in their scope of meanings are

charizomai, to bestow a favor unconditionally; apouo, to release as quasi judicial act or to

give up negative judgments and/or behavior toward an offender; and agape, to

unconditionally love in a charitable or benevolent fashion (Strong, 1984; Vine, 1985).

Forgiveness possesses the dual qualities of God's casting away our sin (conditionally on

repentance and acceptance of Christ's sacrifice) and drawing the person in love (without

condition).









Interpersonal forgiveness in Christianity is to be strictly analogous to the divine

form, similar to the mentioned "imitatio dei" (Matthew 18:21-22, Vine, 1985). As one is

forgiven, the individual has the duty to practice forgiveness toward others. The forgiver

is exemplifying agape by unconditionally drawing the other in love. As in the Hebrew

community, love is an addition of elements to affect (positive feelings), cognition

(positive thoughts), and behavior (giving back to or serving the community). Similar to

the Jewish teachings, both the forgiven and forgiver are restored to a sense of peace and

well being (Galatians 5:22). Most Christian theologies still emphasize the constant need

to seek forgiveness from people and from God. It is expected of Christians to grant

forgiveness to one another as an exercise in the learning to live as brothers and sisters in

God's kingdom (MacKintosh, 1927).

The Hebrew and Christian conceptions of forgiveness are more developed than

the ancient systems. Some notable differences are (a) they do not embody the concept

into general discussions of mercy, (b) they clearly see forgiveness as occurring in the

face of considerable injustice, (c) they specify the interpersonal and the interpersonal

quality of forgiveness, (d) they consciously bring forgiveness into the arena of ethics by

postulating moral love as the foundational principle, and (e) they expound on the precise

outcomes (inner peace, communal harmony) through its practice (Enright, Eastin,

Golden, Sarinopoulos, & Freedman, 1992)

Islam

God's desire and ability to forgive all sins is an essential quality of God's

character in Muslim theology (Ayoub, 1997). Islamic scriptures and piety similar to

Christianity encourage its inherents to forgive others to the same extent that they

themselves desire to be forgiven (McCullough & Worthington, 1999). In the eyes of









some scholars, the desire to be more forgiving is more virtuous and endearing to God

than is the pursuit of justice (Hathout, 1997). Those who forgive instead of gaining

revenge can expect a special blessing from God (Rye et al., 2000).

The concept of forgiveness in the Qur'an is expressed primarily in three terms: (a)

'afw, used 35 times; (b) safhu, used 8 times; and (c) ghafara, used 234 times. 'Afw means

to pardon, to excuse a fault, an offense, or a discourtesy, waiver of punishment, and

amnesty. Examples of usage in the Qur'ran are verses 42:40, 2:187, and 5:95. Safhu

means to turn away from a sin or a misdeed. Examples of such usage in the Qur'an are

verses 2:109, 15:85, and 43:89. Ghafara or maghfira means to convert, to forgive, and to

remit. Examples of usage in th Qur'an are verses 2:263, 42:37, and 43:43 (Asad, 1980).

The God Allah is the ultimate power who can forgive. One of Allah's 99

attributes is Al-Ghafoor, the Forgiving One. Forgiveness means "closing, an account of

offense against God or any of his creation"(Ali et al., 2000, p. 21). However forgiveness

must meet the criteria of sincerity. An offense may be against (a) a person; (b) a group of

persons or society; (c) other creations of God such as animal, plants, land, atmosphere,

and bodies of water and the life therein; and (d) God, Allah. Muslims understand that an

offense against the creation of God is an offense against God (Ali et al., 2000, p. 21)

Like Christianity, those who desire to be forgiven for their own offenses must

learn to forgive others (Luke 11:4). Especially if they seek forgiveness from God, they

should learn to forgive others for their offenses. If they desire that God overlook their

weaknesses, they should learn to overlook the weaknesses of others. Forgiveness is

important for two reasons:

1. It is very important, for the afterlife. We forgive to gain forgiveness. Seeking
forgiveness exemplifies humility, and forgiving others is a sign of magnanimity.







24

2. Seeking forgiveness and granting forgiveness brings happiness in the present life.
Further, forgiving improves relations with people by bringing good reputation and
gaining respect. (Ali et al., 2000)

Hinduism

Ksama, or ksamata, is the word most commonly used to signify forgiveness. It is

usually joined with words for mercy such as kripa, prasada, daya, or compassion, karuna.

The far-reaching concepts of forgiveness, duty, righteousness, forbearance, compassion,

and patience are explored in the epics and the dharma sastras (treatises on righteousness).

It is paramount to put these virtues into practice. Through karma (principle; role of cause

and effect), individuals deal with the consequences of their actions in subsequent

reincarnations. Therefore, one can presume that if one fails or refuses to forgive the

negative feelings and unresolved issues along with the hostility and seething anger,

negative karma is destined to spill over into future births. Those who desire to follow the

path of dharma must follow the path of forgiveness, compassion, and forbearance.

Forgiveness holds great importance in the Hindu tradition (Beck et al., 2000).

Philosophical Perspectives of Forgiveness

Moral philosophers have largely ignored the concept of forgiveness, certainly

when one compares it to attention received by the related concept of punishment.

Plausible reasons may be that forgiveness is viewed as supererogatory, possessing an

ethical significance but yet standing peculiarly outside the range of moral obligation or

fault. From this framework, the pedestrian conception of forgiveness as the prerogative

of someone wrongly harmed by another might be understood to imply that forgiveness is

like a favor or a fortuitous act. As a favor, it cannot be demanded. At a farther extreme

still, one could imagine the ideal of forgiveness as harmful or an outright wrong, by

analogy. For example, Spinoza's rationalist criticism of repentance, often understood to







25

be a condition for forgiveness--"He who repents what he did is twice miserable" (Ethics,

Part IV, Prop. 54, 1994), suggests that someone who forgives a person who repents may

be worse off than before.

Most of the great moral philosophers of the past have recognized the intrinsic

worth of retribution as a response to wrongdoing. Kant (1964) tied retribution in the

framework of the moral law by arguing that the desire for retribution arises from the

perception that one's rights have been violated by the wrong doer, and these rights

belong to us in virtue of our rational nature. Kant held that all persons are of equal

intrinsic worth. As a consequence, we ought to punish the wrongdoer for the willful

disregard for us as ends in ourselves. Further, Kant not only regards forgiveness as

problematic but literally impossible. Once wrong has been committed, it cannot be

undone, even by God. God is a Divine Judge against whose law the wrongdoer has

consciously and willfully transgressed (North, 1987). On one hand, Kant is correct. The

wrong can never be erased, but the effects it has on us can be defused to the point that it

has no effect on us. It no longer has to ensnare and control the victim. Hegel (North,

1987) proposes that the violator has freely chosen violence and pain as the maxim of his

action and therefore has a right to be punished. Punishment is an act of respect for the

wrongdoers. Forgiveness does not demand that there be no accounting of justice.

Equitable punishment is permissible, even when another forgives. Forgiveness frees the

individual from the chain of hostility and hate. The offender may have freely chosen to

inflict violence as Hegel suggests, but only forgiveness puts an end to the cycle of

mistrust and hatred and brings peace of mind and healing to the wounded (North, 1987).









The Unforgivable

Golding (1984) posits the question of whether there are wrongs that are so

heinous, so atrocious that they cannot or should not on moral grounds be forgiven. He

implies by example the holocaust, and perhaps now we can imagine the bombing of the

Twin Towers, that certain acts are beyond forgiveness. He states "granting forgiveness to a

malefactor who is not regretful often seems tantamount to condoning the wrong" (p. 22).

This is the great challenge of forgiveness that can easily, at times, tax our human

capability. This is the great inner struggle to suggest forgiveness or to hold onto the scars

of hate and vengeance. It is foolhardy and destructive to suggest forgiveness as a means

to mental health if by forgiving are we condoning or tacitly complying with the evil. We

may not only be unable to forgive but would be prudent and wise not to forgive all

misdeeds if simply overlooking or condoning acts of evil on whatever scale they may be.

The book The Sunflower (1976) wrestles with this very dilemma. The book

relates how a German soldier on his deathbed asks Simon Wiesenthal, a prisoner, to

forgive him for the atrocities he has committed against the Jewish people. As the prisoner

clasps Wiesenthal's hand, he walks away refusing to offer any forgiveness, despite the

fact that the soldier, who is clearly about to die, seems remorseful and is pleading for his

forgiveness. Golding a philosopher who responds to the book, argues that Wiesenthal's

conduct is correct because the only people who could possibly forgive the German for

killing Jews are the victim themselves, but they are in no position to render forgiveness.

Furthermore, Golding says, despite the deep regret apparently felt by this German

soldier, the wrongs "may be" of such a magnitude that they lie beyond the scope of

forgiveness. These wrongs (and by implication those who committed them) exemplify

unforgivable acts.









The moral dilemma described by Wiesenthal cannot be resolved or simply

dismissed by maintaining that Wiesenthal was in no position to forgive. The fundamental

question is whether the Nazis are unforgivable because their deeds were so atrocious that

they owe an unpayable moral debt or, despite the atrocity, can be forgiven. To argue his

position, Golding presents four factors that would count toward establishing deeds as

unforgivable:

1. The only people who could appropriately forgive the atrocity are dead.
2. The deed is clearly inexcusable.
3. The deed is of such great magnitude that direct or indirect victims could never
appropriately be compensated for it in one's lifetime life.
4. The deed is so atrocious that resentment of it will forever be justified. (Govier,
1999)

The philosopher Lang (1994) concurs with Golding-there are such deeds that

are unforgivable. He offers his five features of acts relevant to their status as

unforgivable. These are

1. voluntarism, especially if evidenced over a prolonged time;
2. the violation of an important, valued moral principle;
3. the magnitude of the consequences;
4. the lack of acknowledgment or repentance by the offender for the evil of the act
or acts; and
5. the inability or refusal of the offender to provide compensation to the victim.

Lang (1994) holds that there can very well exists unforgivable deeds and that these

conditions would justify for holding a deed or deeds as unforgivable.

All these claims link the unforgivability of wrongdoers to the unforgivability of

their deeds at times horrendous beyond description (Govier, 1999). Admittedly, if people

have committed barbaric acts of atrocity, it is far more difficult to forgive, or even to

have the desire to forgive them, than those acts which, though wrong, are not as severe.

The psychological obstacle, the emotional stumbling block that prevents forgiveness or

the desire to forgive, is that the deeds are appalling and that the victims have suffered so









much. The insult to both humanity and to moral principles is just too profound. In this

context, it would appear nearly impossible, if not impossible, to envision the wrongdoer

as a person and, just as challenging, to comprehend why anyone would commit such acts.

These and similar acts make it nearly impossible to feel empathy with, or compassion

for, the offender (Govier, 1999). It would appear beyond the capability of the ordinary

individual. In the face of such evil, forgiveness is nearly if not impossible.

The Possibility of Foreiveness

Despite the difficulty, the possibility of offering forgiveness still remains

plausible. Working through this innate resistance and maintaining that the principle of

forgiveness remains a viable option, the result is that objections to the gift of forgiveness

are no longer infallible. Forgiveness is offered to a person, not an act. The insistence that

some people cannot reform is objectionable. By clarifying this position, it may allow one

to overcome the major obstacle to the gift of forgiveness and have the confidence in

utilizing it as ajustifiable and honorable tool. One errs if one stubbornly insists that some

people have become so indelibly evil that there is no possibility of their moral change.

One can, and does, admit that there exist deeds that are "unforgivable" as a way of

making our strong and intense moral disapprobation for them. At its essence, it is people

who are the recipients of forgiveness or the lack of forgiveness, not the deed. People can

change. Many persons have, do, and will change, and even those who have been guilty of

horrendous acts have changed.

In an experimental study at a drug rehab where the residents have struggled with

addictions for years and where some had resorted to a life of crime, homelessness, and

violence, some were introduced to forgiveness as a counseling variable while the control









group received only their normal drug treatment. Those who received forgiveness in

conjunction with the drug treatment showed a marked decrease in anxiety, hopelessness,

and depression. Despite years of addiction and failure, change was possible (Enright,

2001).

I wrote about a man who had murdered a 7-year-old girl. I asked, can such a man
be forgiven? In the months since I first met him, this man has undergone a
remarkable change. Whereas at first he was emotionally numb and saw his crime
as the inevitable, if awful, result of society's ills, he has now begun to accept full
responsibility for his own actions. And he has begun to agonize over his need for
repentance-to weep for others, not for himself. Can such a man be forgiven? If
we truly believe in the power of forgiveness, we will be certain that he can. We
will never condone his crime, but we will not deny him God's grace either, and
we will not doubt that even he can repent and be changed. (Arnold, p. 158, 1997)

To dismiss cavalierly and dogmatically reject these possibilities, to treat some

person as forever and necessarily incapable of moral change is in the final analysis to be

blind to acknowledge and recognize the innate and moral capacities of people to choose

another path. To regard a perpetrator of evil as conditionally unforgivable because they

have not acknowledged and do not wish nor make any effort to separate themselves from

the evil acts is morally justifiable. It expresses our innermost conviction that those acts

are what they are-evil- and our profound alienation from them and any individual that

willingly and knowingly partake in them. But to regard a perpetrator, even a perpetrator

of the worst atrocities imaginable, as absolutely unforgivable is another matter. By that

position one is declaring that no one should ever forgive an individual-no matter how

they feel, no matter what one says and does. That attitude is morally indefensible

(Govier, 1999).

Margaret Holmgren (1993), based on her unwavering belief for the respect for the

individual, upholds the position of unilateral forgiveness. She claims that victims of

transgressions must work through the delicate process of responding to unjust acts in









order to attain a state of genuine forgiveness. This process remains central to the

restoration of a victim's self-respect, and forgiveness is both psychologically and

ethically inappropriate whenever it is incomplete. Holmgren takes the courageous stand

that forgiveness is always appropriate, whether the offender repents or not. Holmgren's

views stem from a respect-for-person's theory. All human persons are capable of choice

and thereby are autonomous. All, she holds, have intrinsic value, and equal intrinsic

value. Grounded on this framework, the morally appropriate attitude to extend toward all

human beings-wrongdoers included-is an attitude of sincere goodwill. For these

ultimate moral reasons, attitudes of resentment, hatred, and ill-will are morally

objectionable and ultimately inappropriate responses to a wrongdoer. Sustained and

festered anger and ill will presume that the wrongdoer's character and potential are

immutable and limited to his wrongdoing. Consequently, the wrongdoer as a person is

nothing more than his wrongful deeds and is incapable of reform or for any morally

autonomous transformation. In its attribution of moral fixativity and inability or

unwillingness to recognize the offender's capacity for moral change, the unforgiving

attitude amounts to a staunch attitude of disrespect for the wrongdoer as a person.

Robin Casarjian (1992) believes that within everyone is an essence. When people

act in abusive ways, we do not see the totality of that individual but only the fear-based

fragments of them. Forgiveness helps us see beyond the limits of their persona to the

potential of their essence that is worthy of respect and love. Gerald Jampolsky (1985)

said forgiveness is a choice to see the "light instead of the lampshade" (p. 76). According

to Calian (1981), "forgiveness is an attitude of lavishness and utter openness where we

refuse to be bound by the brokenness of our life together" (p. 441). Forgiveness does not

permissively condone violence, but it is our option of freeing ourselves from our need to









judge others and ourselves (Borysenko, 1990). Forgiveness allows us to absorb the full

impact of the evil committed while not losing sight of the perpetrator's common

humanity (Gartner, 1988).

To forgive someone is to overcome our resentment or anger toward that person

and to be willing to regard the individual again as a member of the moral community.

Forgiving the individual is overcoming the toxic emotions of anger, resentment, or moral

hatred towards the individual. To adamantly refuse to forgive is to make no effort to

overcome such feelings. It is to stubbornly cling to them, perhaps even to cultivate them,

and perhaps to harbor visions of revenge. This hardness of heart and frame of mind can

only lead to stagnation and the continuance of pain for the individual.

Forgiveness is either something we extend or do not extend toward a person, and

it fundamentally affects the core of the relationships between persons. And yet it remains

the deeds, not the individual, that are said to be unforgivable. Persons are clearly distinct

and separate from their actions and remain capable of choice, originality, deliberations,

autonomy, and moral reform. These are core tenets of existentialism, humanistic

psychology, and respect-for-persons ethical theory and hold viable not only in theory but

even in the face of human injustice. We may hate, despise, and decry the wrongdoing

without at the same time and in the same way hating, decrying, and refusing to forgive

the wrongdoer. There lies the challenge of forgiveness.

A person who has murdered is a murderer, one who has stolen is a thief, and one

who has tortured is a torturer. In a deeper and real sense, a human and existentialist one,

such people are not only murderers, thieves, or torturers. Their essence cannot be defined

by their works. They are first and foremost human beings, whose past lives have included

evil but whose future remains open to the possibility of new and more noble choices. It is









always persons, the moral agents not their deeds, who are forgiven or held bound

(Govier, 1999).

Jean Hampton defines forgiveness as "a change of heart toward the wrongdoer in

which one drops any emotion of hatred or resentment toward them and their deed, takes a

pro-attitude toward them, and is disposed to make the offer of reconciliation" (Murphy &

Hampton, 1988, p. 84). Hampton cautions about an unwillingness to forgive or even

consider the option because it is much too easy to be unfair in evaluating others or

naively presume that we can see into their hearts and fully comprehend what they are

doing and why. Hampton observes that wrongdoers are too often pathetic, frustrated, and

abused. Moral hatred blinds us. If we were to come to know their desires and emotions,

their pained past, we may alter our thinking. We may come to regard even the

perpetrators of atrocities as human beings, like ourselves, and not as brute monsters. We

may come to understand that perpetrators may have serious problems and feel

compassion, empathy, and benevolence toward them (Murphy &Hampton, 1988).

Supporting this position is Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Chairman of South

Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Objecting to a newspaper column in

which perpetrators of atrocities under apartheid were referred to as moral monsters, Tutu

(1997) said

However, monstrous deeds do not turn the perpetrators into monsters. A human
person does not ultimately lose his or her humanity, which is characterized by the
divine image in which every individual is created. The premise underlying the
commission is that it is possible for people to change, insofar as perpetrators can
come to realize the evil of their actions and even be able to plead for the
forgiveness of those they wronged ... the scales can fall from the eyes of those
who believed firmly in apartheid, and they can in fact see that what they believed
was wrong. (p. 3)







33
Who, in reality, can forgive the most heinous atrocities committed against another

individual and race of people? Simon Wisenthal, the prisoner in a Jewish concentration

camp, struggled with the same dilemma, when asked by a dying Nazi soldier for

forgiveness. Simon could not and would not offer forgiveness but still remained troubled

by his decision. The book, The Sunflower (1976), asks prominent citizens what they

would have done in the same situation. There is no consensus. Some would forgive,

others not. In a study conducted in Israel (Mazor, Gampel, Enright, & Orenstein, 1990)

where the subjects were Holocaust survivors, many felt an obligation not to forgive their

Nazi perpetrators. They reasoned that this would be the same as forgetting and, therefore,

tacitly condoning the atrocities, which would be condemnatory.

A crucial point is the distinction that must be made between the deeds and the

agents. Forgiveness, and hence unforgivability, applies to the agents and not deeds.

Based on this premise, no moral agents are ever absolutely unforgivable (Govier, 1999).

Forgiveness is virtuous because one's anger is relinquished but without abandoning

correct judgment about the severity and perhaps cruelty of the offense and the culpability

of the offender (Roberts, 1995).

Conflicting View of Forgiveness

The basis for the reluctance and fear of forgiving an offender who is guilty of a

serious crime (especially an unrepentant offender) is the supposition that, by forgiving,

we are essentially agreeing with the claim that we do not deserve a full measure of

respect. In effect, we are saying "That's okay, it doesn't matter that you mistreated me.

I'm not that important." The refusal to forgive may be based not so much on a motive for

revenge but on a healthy desire to maintain one's own self-respect (Holmgren, 193).

Paradoxically, it is in forgiving that one not only maintains but increases in self-respect







34

or rises above the base drive for retribution. To accomplish this, one begins by looking at

the incident from one's own perspective. One must recognize that the wrongdoer is/was

mistaken about the individual's worth and status as a person. One must be unwavering in

this conviction, in our worth, and value. The individual acknowledges feeling intense

grief and anger about the incident and that each person is not only owed but deserves

restitution. Accomplishing this, one can acquire a more objective point of view.

Once accomplished, the person now views the offender now in a different light.

The individual acknowledges and honors sharing the same human condition. That

individual can recognize the offender as a valuable human being, as is the victim who

struggles with the same needs, pressures, and confusions. The individual can then ponder

the circumstance and come to understand it, though not necessarily agreeing with why

the perpetrator did what was done. In doing so, one will recognize that the incident really

may not have been about oneself in the first place. Instead it was about the wrongdoer's

misguided and painful attempt to meet his/her own needs. Regarding the offender from

this point of view (regardless of whether the perpetrator repents and regardless of what

was done or suffered), one places oneself in a position to forgive the wrongdoer. This

true self-respect leads to genuine forgiveness of the offender. When one acts out of self-

respect, one's self-respect increases. Every action taken toward forgiveness increases the

individual's self-respect (Holmgren, 1993).

The Parameters of Forgiveness

What Needs to Be Forgiven?

Veenstra (1992) holds that not every problem that occurs between two people

requires forgiveness. Sometimes there are just difficulties that merely require mutual

problem solving. However, acts that are injurious and unjust usually create a sense of







35

being wronged, offended, or insulted and seek a more salutary method to heal and mend

the wound and initiate the necessary corrective process.

Who Can We Forgive?

O'Shaughnessy (1967) claims that forgiveness can exist only in relationships that

are preexisting, close, and loving ones, as it would be inappropriate and improbable for

strangers. Kolnai (1973-74) restricts forgiveness only to interpersonal equals. It is the

opinion of this author and others (Cunningham, 1985; North, 1987) that forgiveness is far

broader, for it is a gift freely bestowed upon anyone who has offended another.

A Skeptical View of Forgiving

Nietzsche (1887) claimed that forgiveness is a sign of moral weakness and that

those who forgive are weak and unable to assert their right for a just solution. On the

contrary, forgiveness is performed by the strong, not the weak. Acceptance or absorption

of pain without counteracting with similar emotions, thoughts, or behavior is at the very

heart of forgiveness. The offended person soaks up the pain, as a sponge does water, so

that they do not transfer that pain back to the offender or others. This highlights the gift

like quality of forgiveness, as the forgiver puts an end to the cycle of revenge that

otherwise may harm or destroy the offender and others. "To be able to forgive, you must

have the guts to look at the wrongness, the hardness, the wickedness of what somebody

did to you. We cannot camouflage, we cannot excuse, we cannot ignore, we eye the evil

face to face and we call it what it is" (Smedes, 1996, p. 7). This task is not for the weak

but rather for the strong.

A modem psychological study (Trainer, 1981) elucidates why perhaps this view

is not uncommon. Trainer found various approaches to forgiveness, one of which he

labeled role-expected, which coincides to Nietzsche's viewpoint that forgiveness is not









chosen but forced upon another. In this approach, the forgiverr" senses a moral or

religious imperative from an outside authority to forgive even though he or she neither

desires nor is convinced of it merits. Unable to retaliate against the superior who

offended, the forgiverr" grudgingly forswears justice all the while harboring resentment

and low self-esteem. This, though falling under the heading of forgiveness, is a

description of pseudo, or false, forgiveness. Genuine forgiveness, in contrast, is centered

in a courageous free act of giving as North (1987) defends. North maintains that

forgiveness is truly an act of courage, not cowardice, involving time and demanding

emotional struggle, which is hardly characteristic of the weak. Holmgren (1993) further

advanced North's position by arguing that forgiveness is an act of self-respect. In

contrast to the Nietzchian position, others claim that "forgiveness" rather than

subjugating the forgiver, puts the individual in a one-up position, thus dominating the

"forgiven" (Augsburger, 1981; Cunningham, 1985; Smedes, 1984).

Droll (1984) impressively believes that forgiveness might separate us from our

lower nature as aggressive beings. Initially, retaliation is more natural. Many in the

helping profession claim that it is the deep and long lasting anger, not the gift of

forgiveness, that can be alienating to self and others (Brandsma, 1982; Fitzgibbons, 1986;

Hunter, 1978). Forgiveness. rather than destroy our regard for self and the other, restores

positive evaluation and affect toward the other and self. It has the subtle potential to

restore relationships, which is the antithesis for alienation.

Another negative view against forgiving is that it may not only work against

justice but even perpetuate injustice. This points to another misconception of forgiveness.

Forgiveness does not require that we forgo punishment altogether or that we should, in

forgiving, attempt to annul the existence of the wrong done (North, 1998). Rather,









forgiveness entails the cessation of negative affect and replacing it with positive affect,

such as compassion and love. Forgiveness puts an end to condemning judgments and

allows for the presence of more positive judgments. If present, there also can be the

cessation of negative behaviors (e.g., revenge) and the presence of positive behaviors

(helpfulness, overtures toward reconciliation) (Enright & HDRG, 1991a). There remains

the fear that the abuser, if forgiven, will continue to abuse as long as the recipient of

one's mercy. This fear is based on a false notion of forgiveness. To forgive does not

mean to easily acquiesce blindly to harsh demands. To forgive first demands an inner

conversion and to begin seeing the other in a new way, as a member of the human

community rather than as evil incarnate. This enlightenment and the offer of a gift of

forgiveness leaves open the possibility of the other's transformation, which may lead to

not only negotiation but also for heartfelt mutual respect, understanding, and goodwill.

"What is annulled in the act of forgiveness is not the crime itself but the distortion effect

that the wrong has upon one's relations with the wrongdoer and perhaps with others"

(North, 1987, p. 500).

What Forgiveness Is Not

Before defining forgiveness, it is perhaps wise and better suited if first we

distinguish what forgiveness is not. Too easily, forgiveness is misinterpreted, associated,

or confused with similar but distinct terms, which impedes an adequate understanding

and appreciation for it.

Forgiveness Is Not Condonation

To condone an evil is simply to ignore it, not acknowledge it or to pretend as if it

were good (Smedes, 1984). Condoning involves refusing to label a given act as

objectionable; condoning may be viewed as refusal to acknowledge that a debt exists.









Forgiveness, in contrast, first and foremost requires recognition that harm did occur,

along with a conscious decision to release the perpetrator from the debt (Exline &

Baumeister, 2000). Those who condone injustice overlook the unfairness. Philosopher

Robert Roberts (1995) pointed out that condoning is double-minded. When we condone,

we admit that an action is morally wrong but then at the same time deny the seriousness

of the action. Condoning moral offenses does not lead to character development,

adequate solution, or mental health (McCullough, Sandage, & Worthington, 1997). The

forgiving person in contrast, open to perhaps a harsh reality, acknowledges the injustice

but determines to no longer judge the person exclusively in terms of what they did. The

forgiver sees beyond the immoral action and discovers a person who possesses inherent

worth (Al-Mabuk, Enright, & Cardis, 1995).

Forgiveness Is Not the Same as Excusing

To excuse is to judge the seemingly harmful event as not worth a quarrel (Kolnai,

1973-74). In forgiveness one does acknowledge the right to a quarrel, but willingly

abandons it (Enright, Gassin, & Wu, 1992).

Forgiveness Is Not Indifference

The forgiver does not minimize or negate the harm done by the act by dismissing

the injury as unimportant, but recognizes the harm done and chooses to overcome it,

which at times can demand great effort and energy (Eastin, 1988).

These first three misconceptions of forgivingness-condoning, excusing, and

indifference-are theoretically not really forms of forgiveness. In all of these, the

injuring person has done nothing wrong. There has been only a misunderstanding, a

difference of opinion, or a disagreement that has created the conflict between the two

people. Where there is no wrongdoing, there is no need for the forgiveness. No doubt







39

these three concepts are often called forgiveness but, in truth, are false representations of

it (Veenstra, 1992).

The moral development of forgiveness takes place in the context of a serious

injustice that is recognized as serious. Those who condone injustice choose to overlook

the unfairness. Forgiveness, in contrast, is not blind to but acknowledges the injustice, for

the forgiver no longer judges the person exclusively in terms of what they did. The

forgiver looks beyond the action to discover a person who possesses inherent worth

(Enright & Human Development Study Group [HDSG], 1994). Because a forgiver

acknowledges the other's injustice, forgiveness cannot be equated with condoning or

excusing the other's actions. To condone is to put up with the injustice because of

mitigating circumstances, fear of confrontation perhaps while still smoldering with

resentment (Enright et al., 1992). Whereas condonation denies resentment, forgiveness

strives to overcome it with compassion and love (North, 1987).

Forgiveness Is Not Forgetting

Calian (1981) considers the cliche "forgive and forget" and states that it is not

humanly possible, humanly or even biblically sound. He believes that precisely because

we are asked to forgive without forgetting, forgiveness becomes more the challenge

involving possibly a painful, lengthy process.

Elizondo (1986) contends that the real virtue of forgiveness reveals itself not

when the sting of the injury may etherized in the recesses of one's memory but in

forgiving precisely while remembering and still feeling the hurt. For Elizondo, to forgive

is not to forget but while still conscious of the wrong, one chooses to be liberated from

the inner anger, resentment, and desire for vengeance that consumes an injured person.

Deeds forgiven need not require to be forgotten. When we forgive we may certainly still







40
remember wrongs that were done, and we are more than likely to remember them if these

wrongs were serious. It is hardly plausible, if not impossible, to think that someone like

Nelson Mandela (1999) can forget his 27 years in prison and afterward forgive his

oppressors, whose apartheid regime had put him there. Poignant are his words regarding

healing from the wounds of injustice.

We recall our terrible past so that we can deal with it, forgiving where forgiveness
is necessary-but not forgetting. By remembering, we can ensure that never again
will such inhumanity tear us apart, and we can eradicate a dangerous legacy that
still lurks as a threat to our democracy. (1999, p. 2)

To forgive is not to be overcome by some peculiar form of amnesia regarding the

wrongs suffered but rather to regard ones' perpetrators and the wrongs themselves in the

moral light of acceptance and compassion rather than in sting of resentment and hatred

(Govier, 1999). Father Lawrence Jenco, a hostage in Beirut in 1980 for 19 months,

admitted that though he had forgiven his captors, he has not forgotten. Admittedly, he

would have to suffer some grand blackout to forget such a wrenching painful ordeal.

Clearly a deep psychological trauma is rarely wiped from memory (Kolnai, 1973-74;

Smedes, 1984) unless other psychological defenses come into play, which is never a cure

or healing but a quick entrance to other emotional and psychological scars.

Forgetting ignores the justified needs of the offender by driving the sense of being

wronged deep into one's own being where resentment awaits to do its slow destructive

work. Whereas forgetting is negative, passive, forgiving is positive and creative

(Augsburger, 1988). "Forgetting is dangerous. To forget is to repress and deny what

happened, which is self-destructive. It allows you to suffer the same hurt repeatedly"

(Smedes, 1996, p. 7).









Forgiveness is not simply a slow diminishing of angry feeling across time

(Horsbrugh, 1974). Forgiveness demands action and ownership and requires energy

(Fitzgibbons, 1986; Horsbrugh, 1974). It is a constant struggle to release the other while

you are still in the grips of hurt and anger (Enright, Gassin, & Wu, 1992).

Forgiveness Is Not Tolerance

Tolerance can only eventually lead to pain and turmoil. Tolerate everything

someone does, and you will be in for a lot of bad trouble (Smedes, 1984). Forgiveness

confronts the evil rather than be dominated by it; it overcomes its toxin through love.

Forgiveness Is Not Self-centering

Forgiving another is not solely motivated by the desire to be rid of strong

negative emotions (Richards, 1988). The forgiver also looks toward the other, with an

openness and willingness to join in community with him or her (Enright & HDSG,

1991b). Forgiveness is both a gift to oneself and to the other.

Forgiveness Is Distinct from Justice

Justice involves reciprocity of some kind, whereas forgiveness is an unconditional

gift given to one who does not deserve it (Enright, Gassin, & Wu, 1992). The objective of

justice is to restore equality where inequality exists. In forgiveness, the offended person

does not restore equality (nor do they seek its restoration from the other-this is the

realm ofjustice). Instead, in forgiveness the offended, relative to the offender, recognizes

the equality of their commonly shared humanity. This equality existed before, during,

and after the hurtful event. Thus, we do not restore what was never taken away--our

humanity, our basic worth. Forgiveness helps us recognize that such equality has existed

unconditionally toward another. In sum, the equality we strive for injustice concerns







42

how we treat one another. The equality implied in forgiving others concerns who we are

regardless of how they treat us (Enright, Gassin, & Wu, 1992).

Forgiveness Is Not Pardonine

Forgiveness is an inner personal choice. Pardon is usually thought of as a public,

behavioral release, such as where a prisoner is set free from jail (Hunter, 1978) Yet, one

can forgive even as the other is serving a judicial sentence (Enright, Gassin, & Wu,

1992). Forgiveness is not incompatible with punishment. Forgiveness can follow

punishment. In fact, it may lead to a reconciliation as a result of the punishment. The

offender, through the punishment, may be led to acknowledge and feel remorse for one's

wrongdoing (Govier, 1999). Forgiveness demands the renunciation of vengeance, but it

does not require the abandonment ofjustice. Pope John Paul II, who forgave his would-

be assassin, never suggested that he should go unprosecuted or be released from prison.

There remains a consensus in the philosophical literature that pardon involves the

world of jurisprudence, not interpersonal relations (Downie, 1985; Hunter, 1978; Kolnai,

1973-74; Lauritzen, 1987; Murphy 1982; Murphy & Hampton, 1988; Smart, 1968;

Twambley, 1976). Forgiveness is separate from the judicial system. No court or law can

enforce forgiveness. A judge who deliberates on the fate of a criminal should never be

the one directly hurt by the breaking of the law. Forgiveness is a personal response to

one's own injury. We can still offer forgiveness and still bring legal justice to bear as

required by the situation. Cases of pardon usually involve a just authority overseeing

laws by which the degree of punishment is established for each violation. The authority

that commutes the sentence is rarely, if ever, the one personally hurt by the defendant

(Enright & HDSG, 1991b).








To exonerate by applying a statute of limitations (primarily a legal concept) has

practical consequences similar to those of forgiveness but also excludes a number of the

latter's conditions. It entails neither acknowledgment of wrongdoing nor offers assurance

of altered conduct in the future; it requires no assent on the part of the person harmed and

may in fact be contrary to the individuals wish. When a statute of limitations wipes the

legal slate clean, it cannot on its own clear the moral slate. It must come from the

individual. If anything, it possibly may add weight to the latter as the injury nullified

legally remains morally unrequited, leaving the person responsible for inflicting the

injury unmoved, untouched, and unrepentant by the judgment (Lang, 1994).

Forgiveness Is Not Reconciliation

Perhaps the most common misconception of forgiveness is to equate it with

reconciliation. A common argument against forgiveness is that it potentially leaves the

forgiver open to further abuse. This is invalid because it confuses reconciliation with

forgiveness. Forgiveness is a single individual's or group's stance toward another.

Reconciliation, though predicated on forgiveness, is distinct from it. Reconciliation

occurs when two people come together in a behavioral way. In the case of continual

abuse from an offender, a forgiver may realize that the other still does not wish or is

unable to offer respect and, under these circumstances, does not reconcile. The forgiver,

however, on his own volition can still reduce negative thoughts and behaviors and

increase positive ones toward the other and wait with expectant hope that the other

changes. Those who forgive are not blind to the other's faults but take steps to protect

themselves from any future harm (Enright & HDSG, 1996).

Forgiveness and reconciliation are occasionally confused even in the published

literature (e.g., Lauritzen, 1987) Forgiveness is an internal release; reconciliation is a









behavioral coming together again. Forgiveness may be a necessary prerequisite for

reconciliation, but reconciliation demands more. Forgiveness is not reconciliation or a

coming together again (Trainer, 1981). One may be able to forgive but not able to

reconcile with his/her transgressor. In fact, in certain contexts this distinction works in

favor of the victim. When a feeling of having been violated or victimized by another, or

when one senses that something unfair or unjust has transpired, one may be incapable to

consider reconciliation. In these contexts, therapeutic efforts that deliberately make the

distinction between forgiveness and reconciliation might facilitate the client's willingness

to address one's anger or hurt, which they may have previously resisted doing because to

do so would have seemed to imply that they were willing to contemplate reconciliation

(Fow, 1996).

Though reconciliation may be the result of forgiveness, forgiveness can be

obtained without the aid of reconciliation. Though there may not be reconciliation, there

is always the openness and willingness for that to take place (Smedes, 1984). While

forgiveness is an internal, psychological response to injury, reconciliation is a behavioral

coming together again, often following negotiation. It is possible for someone to forgive

without reconciliation, but one who forgives has the hope that the other may change

(Piaget, 1932). Forgivers leave open the door to reconciliation, but no one can compel the

offender to walk through it. In order for reconciliation to take place the offender must be

willing to change one's harmful behavior (Eastin, 1988).

Reconciliation can only occur if the offender is fully aware of the reality of the

wrong committed and is able to listen without defenses. The offender promises never

intentionally to hurt the forgiver again (Smedes, 1984). Forgiveness does not mean that

you knowingly or naively lay yourself open to certain abuse. You can forgive and then







45

limit or even end the relationship. The one who is forgiven is placed under no obligation

to the forgiver as a condition for forgiveness. Forgiveness is not a quid pro quo but rather

it is a gift freely bestowed. If there is to be an ongoing relationship, then the one forgiven

must try to learn from the mistakes and not reinjure anyone who has offered the gift of

forgiveness (Coleman, 1989). A forgiver extends loving acceptance, but the recipient

may either reject the offer or change and be willing to enter again into a relationship for

reconciliation to take place. Forgiveness occurs internally within a person, whereas

reconciliation occurs behaviorally between two people (Horsbrugh, 1974; Kolnai, 1973-

74; Enright et al., 1992).

These inadequate definitions of forgiveness warrant a suspicious attitude toward

forgiveness. This may be the reason why forgiveness is not viewed as a healthy option.

When one behaves from these false conceptions of forgiveness or even denies that one

had been offended or wounded, the individual has chosen a path that leads to unhealthy

responses. An individual certainly may choose to "be nice" and avoid confrontation in

the name of forgiveness, but this is definitely not forgiveness. Such tactics, rather than

heal, can ultimately result in seething anger, resentment, hatred, and grudge bearing that

ultimately leads to visions of revenge. Rather than change and improve the situation, it

can lead to a greater harm under the ideal of mercy and kindness. This surrendering or

"giving in" is a false type of forgiveness and likely will produce just the opposite effect.

Taken to its extreme, "giving in" may lead to a masochistic martyrdom that undermines

and severely damages one's self-esteem and personal integrity (Cunningham, 1985).

Definition of Forgiveness

It is by clarifying this concept of forgiveness that it can be better understood that

learning to forgive can be an important and perhaps core element in the therapeutic







46
process (Hope, 1987). Individual researcher's conceptualizations of forgiveness are quite

diverse. In particular, no consensual definition of forgiveness exists (Worthington, 1998).

In fact, some interpret the lack of consensus in definition to be one of the most glaring

drawbacks for promoting this counseling tool (Elder, 1998; Enright & Coyle, 1998;

Enright, Freedman, & Rique, 1998; Enright, Gassin, & Wu, 1992). That stated, the

following are offered as commonly understood definitions of forgiveness, concluding

with the operational definition for this study. All of the existing definitions seem to be

built on one core feature: When people forgive, their responses toward (or in other words,

what they think of, feel about, want to do to, or actually do to) people who have offended

or injured them become more positive and less negative. One moves from the negative

toward the positive.

Although a specific interpersonal offense (or a series of offenses) caused by a
specific person (or a group of persons) once elicited negative thoughts, feelings,
motivations, or behaviors directed toward the offender, these responses have
become more prosocial over time. (McCullough, Pargament, & Thoreson, 2000,
p. 9)

What Is Forgiveness?

Forgiveness is simply a special case of mercy directed at an injuring person.

Clinicians who help clients forgive agree that the forgiving journey may take time and

can be quite an ultra psychic struggle (Coleman, 1989; Enright & HDSG, 1991a;

Fitzgibbons, 1986; Hope, 1987). Despite the necessary effort, forgiving and receiving

forgiveness may be positively transforming and benefiting for self, the injurer, and the

communities (Gentilone & Regidor, 1986).

The philosophical literature is in general agreement that forgiving another person

occurs in the face of deep, unjust hurt (Kolnai, 1973-74; Murphy & Hampton, 1988). In

forgiving such an offense, the individual who forgives freely relinquishes the resentment,









hatred, and/or anger toward the other and replaces it with a stance of love and

compassion (North, 1987). The forgiver, well aware that the offender has no right to such

benevolence, offers it nonetheless (Piaget, 1932).

To clearly understand and appreciate the gift that is forgiveness, clarification is

given by the following four concepts, which are often are mistaken for the true gift of

forgiveness (Enright et al., 1998).

First, forgiveness is far more than a mere accepting or tolerating the injustice. In

contemporary culture, people talk about "moving on" or "putting the past behind us," but

this is not forgiveness. It falls short because the attitudes involved (benevolence,

goodwill, empathy) need room in our lives or hearts for the offender. When we forgive,

we make room in our lives or hearts for the perpetrator. North clarified forgiveness as

"outward-looking and other-directed" (North, 1998, p. 19).

Second, forgiveness is not the same as forgetting. A deep injustice suffered is

rarely, if ever, wiped from one's consciousness. When someone forgives, he or she still

remembers but in different ways from those before forgiveness occurs.

Third, forgiveness is more than holding back our anger toward the injurer. A

complete forgiveness position includes not only the cessation of the negative, most

notably the anger, but also the inclusion of the gift-like positive qualities, such as

compassion, goodwill, and empathy.

Forgiveness demands more than a neutral stance toward our perpetrator. It is not

enough to no longer desire retribution or revenge. One must be willing to extend a

positive outreach toward the offender. This challenging task is not embraced by all.

McGary (1989), representative of this position, believes that a forgiver need do nothing

more than cease resentment for the good of self and to others with whom one interacts.







48
Fourth, forgiveness is more than a self-remedy, a prescription to make oneself as

forgiver feel better. Forgiveness is outside focused and is a gift to others. The paradox is

that when a forgiver abandons the focus on self and gives this gift to the injurer, the

forgiver commonly experiences psychological healing (Enright et al., 1998).

In examining the psychological literature, one discovers that forgiveness is

described as a powerful therapeutic intervention and as an intellectual exercise in which

the injured makes the decision to forgive (Fitzgibbons, 1986). Forgiveness is a voluntary

act and decision about how one will positively deal with the past (Hope, 1987). It is an

erasing of the record of wrongs and a need for vengeance and resentments, as one

relinquishes the seat of condemnation and/or judgment of the offender (DiBlasio, 1992).

As Holmgren (1993) clarified, our intrinsic worth is not commensurate with some

imaginative score on a moral scale. All people are capable of error and good; and because

all people have this capacity for good, even the malefactor, we can then respect all

people, including the offender. Forgiveness displays respect toward the offender as a

moral agent.

The failure to understand this point of separating the person from the deed often

prevents forgiveness from taking place. Holmgren (1993) confirms that this thought is

based on Augustine's (397/1963) dictum of separating the offenders and offenses. We

continue to view realistically an unjust offense for what it is, wrong. Yet we still retain

good will toward the offender, not because of the unjust act but because he or she is a

person capable of good will. The forgiver, therefore, is showing respect for morality by

judging the offense as wrong, but the offender as at least capable of committing good

acts in the future.








Philosopher J. Kellenberger (1995) holds that forgiveness is morally possible

because of the inherent value of all persons. Kellenberger notes that the moral status of

an offender may be troublesome and difficult, but that does not diminish or eradicate his

or her inherent worth as a person. Forgiveness is a relational stance of acceptance and

belief in the unchanging inherent worth of another person even after judging the action

wrong. This arduous task of mastery over a wound and the process through which an

injured person first fights off, then embraces, then conquers a situation that nearly

destroyed him/her (Flanigan, 1992), both intrapsyhically and interpersonally (Benson,

1992), and giving up one's right to hurt back proceeds through forgiveness (Pingleton,

1989).

Forgiveness is a broad topic whose definition encompasses many facets. There

are many angles that one may focus on in defining the term. A truly comprehensive

definition of forgiveness needs to integrate not only the cognitive, affective, and

behavioral components but also the volitional, motivational, spiritual, religious, and

interpersonal aspects of forgiveness (Gorsuch & Hao, 1993). Pingleton (1989) holds that

the spiritual dimension of forgiveness is an important and essential component of

forgiveness as well as the volitional element. Monbourquette (1992) stresses how

forgiveness encompasses the whole person, for in forgiving all our faculties are

mobilized: intellect, judgment, imagination, and faith.

Studzinski (1986) defines forgiveness as a willful process in which the forgiver

chooses not to retaliate but rather respond to the offender in a compassionate way.

Walters (1984) sees forgiveness as a voluntary process that usually demands courage and

multiple acts of the will to complete. He views forgiveness as a needed and essential

process due to the destructiveness of not forgiving, and he asserts that to forgive is to







50

give up all claims on the offender, including letting go of the emotional consequences of

the hurt. In Walters' stringent view, the offended has two alternatives in dealing with the

hurt: to be destroyed by resentment leading to death psychologically, emotionally, or

even physically or to forgive which leads to healing and life. This sense of forgiveness as

eradicating the negative consequences of the offender's injustice and a merciful reaching

out to the offender is consistent with ancient Hebrew, Christian, Islamic, and Confucian

texts.

Cunningham (1985) views forgiveness as more than an act of the will in changing

one's heart to one's offender:

Forgiving is an act of the will that seeks wholeness and opens one's self to the
expensive process of change and transformation. It is a process of willing that
allows one to be less willful, less demanding, and less dogmatic. Forgiving is a
process whereby one is restoring a relationship with God that gracefully comes as
a harmony with life and a renewed courage to be vital and live in risk It is an
experience that confirms us in the knowledge that as we forgive, we are forgiven
(p. 149)

The process of forgiveness enables one to change, grow, and evolve into a more

mature individual characterized by an enlightened self-awareness. Forgiving another

requires that a person confront one's feelings, values, motives, and needs as well as one's

own inclinations toward pride and self-righteousness. The forgiver challenges his/her

own demands for perfection, both for oneself and others as well as the unrealistic

demands for others to relate perfectly to oneself and to meet and fulfill one' needs.

Forgiveness involves the humble task of confronting one's own level of immaturity, state

of sinfulness, imperfection, and irresponsibility (Cunningham, 1985).

Augsburger (1981) defines forgiveness as "a release from a whole spectrum of

negative emotions like fear; anger, suspicion, loneliness alienation, and mistrust" (p. 68).








Pargament (1997) offers a rather lofty, metaphysical definition of forgiveness:

Forgiveness is a process of re-creation a transformational method of coping, often
religious in nature, that involves a basic shift in destinations and pathways in
living. Through this process, the individual departs from a life centered on pain
and injustice and begins to pursue a dream of peace. Toward this end the person
starts to think, feel, and act in very different ways about him- or herself, the
offender, and the world more generally. (p. 303)

From these definitions we process five essential points in understanding

forgiveness (Enright & HDSG, 1996):

1. The one who forgives has suffered a deep hurt, which elicits resentment.
2. The offended person has a moral right to resentment, but overcomes it
nonetheless.
3. A new response to the other emerges, including compassion and love.
4. This loving response occurs despite the realization that there is no obligation to
love the offender (Hebl & Enright, 1993).
5. We realize the other person has no moral right to that love, but we nevertheless
freely give it (North, 1987).

Foundational Definition

The foundational definition of forgiveness is shaped primarily from North's

(1987) perspective. She defines forgiveness in the following passage: "Forgiveness is a

matter of a willed change of heart, the successful result of an active endeavor to replace

bad thoughts with good, bitterness and anger with compassion and affection" (p. 506). It

should be noted that North acknowledges two psychological characteristics of a

forgiver's affect: a cessation of negative affect (e.g., resentment, anger) and the presence

of positive affect (e.g., compassion, love). The same holds true for judgments or

cognitive components. There is the letting go of condemning judgments and the presence

of more favorable judgments (Enright & HDSG, 1991a). There also can be the cessation

of negative behaviors (e.g., revenge, for example) and the presence of positive behaviors

(e.g., helpfulness, overtures toward reconciliation). This process of forgiveness includes

six key components: absence of negative affect, judgment, and behavior toward an








offender and the presence of positive affect, judgment, and behavior toward the same

offender. These occur in the face of deep, unwarranted hurt (Enright & HDSG, 1991b).

It is from this foundation that Enright and the Human Development Study Group

developed their working definition adhering to those same core elements: a change in

cognition and affect but now including behavior, how one acts toward one's offender, as

well. It is this definition of forgiveness that involves the three key components,

cognition, affection and behavior that is the basis for this research and is arguably the

most comprehensively formulated and clearly articulated definition in the psychological

literature. In addition, this definition has been operationalized in the Enright Forgiveness

Inventory (Subkoviak et al., 1992) thus providing a means for quantitatively measuring

levels of interpersonal forgiveness in the affective, behavioral, and cognitive domains.

The definition is the following:

Forgiveness is the overcoming of negative affect and judgment toward the
offender, not by denying ourselves the right to such affect and judgment but by
endeavoring to view the offender with benevolence, compassion, and even love,
while recognizing that he or she has abandoned the right to them. (Subkoviak et
al., 1992, p. 3)

This process is quite involved and complex when we realize that forgiveness

involves the total person's affective, cognitive, and behavioral systems and spiritually.

When one forgives, certain elements are subtracted from each system. Negative

emotions, such as anger, hatred, resentment, sadness, or contempt, are given up

(Richards, 1988). Often this may occur slowly, but it is eventually accomplished if

pursued diligently. In the cognitive system, one ceases condemning judgments and the

planning of revenge where this was occurring. In the behavioral system, one no longer

acts out the primordial motive of revenge (if such were occurring, however subtle)

(Enright & HDSG, 1991b).








When one forgives, certain elements are added to each system. In the affective

system, the negative emotions are replaced by more neutral emotions and eventually by

positive affect, such as agape (see Cunningham, 1985; Downie, 1965; North, 1987). The

latter includes the willingness, through compassion and love, to help the other. In the

cognitive system, the offender may feel justified in holding onto the negative emotions,

yet is willing to forego them (North, 1987). Where there once were negative thoughts,

now positive thoughts emerge toward the other, such as wishing them well (Smedes,

1984) and viewing them respectfully as a moral equal (Cunningham, 1985). In the

behavioral realm, there is a willingness to join in "loving community" with the other,

with the hopes of possible friendship. There may even be steps taken to initiate and

foster a friendship. Such overtures will depend on true change in the other. There is the

potential for the forgiver to experience not only an inner release but a healed relationship

(Augsburger, 1981).

This description of forgiveness can be further deepened and clarified by the

following 13 points (Enright & HDSG, 1991a).

1. Interpersonal forgiveness is between people, not between a person and an
inanimate object (Kolnai, 1973-74; Lambert, 1985; Murphy, 1982;
Smedes, 1984).

One does not forgive hurricanes or floods. The willingness to join again in loving

community with a hurricane most certainly would be absent.

2. Forgiveness follows a deep, personal, long lasting injury or hurt from the
other person.

The injury will vary; it might be psychological, emotional, physical, or moral

(Kolnai, 1973-74; Murphy, 1982; Murphy & Hampton, 1988; Smedes, 1984). In real life

a deep injury may very well involve all of these areas at once (Eastin, 1988).







54

O'Shaunghnessy (1967) claims that the relationship must be personal, which would then

exclude those who hurt us but are strangers to us. The forgiver, therefore, does not

forgive the Nazis for the Holocaust unless he or she was personally involved (Gingell,

1974). Nevertheless, we acknowledge personal, indirect involvement, for example,

children whose parents are Holocaust survivors. On their part they are able to forgive the

perpetrators.

3. The offense is an objective reality, not merely a perception by the one
offended.

Kahrhoff(1988), in contrast, claims, "Everything that happens outside our minds

is neutral" (p. 3). In this view, an offense can be so only if we perceive it as such. We

acknowledge, for example, individual differences in physical abuse victims' perception

of the violence. No one due to various factors will experience the same depth or duration

of emotional distress as another, yet all will experience a certain emotional pain because

of the objective occurrence.

4. Forgiveness is possible only when a person has a sense of justice.

One cannot feel a deep sense of moral injury without a sense of fairness

(Brandsma, 1982; Hunter, 1978; Kohlberg & Power, 1981). This implies that children as

young as four or five might not only need but be able to forgive (Enright, Franklin, &

Manheim, 1980).

5. There is usually an initial reaction by the injured party toward the injurer.

The injured may pass throughout the stages similar to grief, that is, one of

experiencing the hurt as profound, followed by shock or disbelief, and culminating in

anger or even hatred (Eastin, 1988; Fitzgibbons, 1986; Linn & Linn, 1978; Smedes,

1984).









6. With the passing of time, the injured party no longer seeks retaliation
(Hughes, 1975).

This is an internal response by the one injured (Droll, 1984), and may involve

giving up of narcissistic tendencies of disavowing the hurt (Cunningham, 1985).

7. It is not necessary for the offender to apologize for the injured person to
forgive (North, 1987; Twambley, 1976).

Forgiveness is not based on the other's repentance (McCullough, Sandage, &

Worthington, 1997). In his book, Bound to Forgive, Father Jenco (1995) describes an

encounter with yet another captor shortly before his release. Sayeed, a guard who had

beaten Father Jenco several times asked the priest if he remembered the first six months

of his captivity (when most of the abuse took place). Father Jenco responded that he did

remember all the pain and suffering Sayeed had caused him and the other hostages.

"Abouna, do you forgive me?" Father Jenco recounts his reactions:

These quietly spoken words overwhelmed me. As I sat blindfolded, unable to see
the man who had been my enemy, I understood I was called to forgive, to let go
of revenge, retaliation, and vindictiveness. And I was challenged to forgive him
unconditionally. I could not forgive him on the condition that he changes his
behavior to conform to my wishes or values. I had no control over his response. I
understood I was to say yes. (p. 14).

If this were not true the offended may be caught in a web of unforgiveness. If the

offender were to die before a change of heart, the offended is trapped in unforgiveness

(O'Shaughnessy, 1967). Further a gift given need not await a prior inviting response

from the other person. In fact, many see it as wedded to the unconditional self-giving

character of forgiveness (Cunningham, 1985; Downie, 1965; Smedes, 1984; Torrance,

1986).

8. The offender need not have intended the wrong (Downie, 1965).

9. Naturally, the difficulty in arriving at a forgiveness solution will vary with
such external variables as the severity of the offense our disposition at the









time and the quality of the relationship prior to the injury (Newman,
1987).

It will also vary with such internal psychological qualities in the offended person

as their ability to understand forgiveness and to chose a forgiveness, in contrast to a

justice, problem-solving strategy.

10. It is not always the case that only one party offends and the other is
offended.

As Beatty (1970) insists, forgiveness is relational. Thus, it is conceivable to have

an offended offender. Consider an unjustly fired worker who writes a scathing letter to

their former boss. The boss is both offender and now offended by the letter. Both may

need to forgive the other.

11. Trust is vital when one is entering into a relationship again with the
offender.

In certain cases, such as continual and chronic abuse, one can forgive without

trust in this one problematic area and without reconciling. The forgiver does see the other

as human but realistically acknowledges their inability at that present time to change in

the one area (Enright, Gassin, & Wu, 1992).

12. Forgiving has the power both to transform self and the other because of
the sincere love extended to the other.

Forgiveness in some cases may not only restore the relationship to its original

quality but also may enhance and improve what was once damaged (Enright, Gassin, &

Wu, 1992).

13. Forgiveness must always be a free choice and should never be forced
either overtly or subtly onto a person. A gift must be freely offered and
freely received (Enright et al., 1992).

In summary, Enright & HDSG (1991a) describes a psychological response, which

is forgiveness that includes six components: absence of negative affect, judgment, and







57
behavior toward an offender and the presence of positive affect, judgment, and behavior

toward the same offender. These occur in the face of a deep offense against them.

Challenge of Forgiveness

Forgiveness has been an extremely complex phenomenon to operationalize for

empirical investigation. The act of forgiveness must not be forced on a person who is not

open or ready to forgive. The utility of encouraging forgiveness is also in question if

clients lack desire to forgive (Cunningham, 1985). Forgiving out of a sense of duty or

fear of retaliation may produce the opposite effect of increased negative emotions and

thoughts regarding the offense and the offender over time (Trainer, 1981). Counselors

who suggest forgiveness as a means of healing should also be sure that the client's

motive for forgiving is to achieve the positive benefits of forgiving and not employ it as a

means for revenge or self-righteousness. If so, it may exacerbate the negative emotions

concerning the offense and the offender (McCullough & Worthington, 1994a).

As forgiveness is such a demanding and complex task many often fail to meet the

above mention criteria. In the effort to forgive, such challenging questions may arise in

the process of forgiving. Have I truly forgiven if I still retain some resentment? Have I

forgiven if I am unable to resume a former relationship; if I am wary of my offender?

Understanding that the process of forgiveness is so involved and ongoing, Nelson (1992)

developed Categories of Forgiveness. They were designed to help clarify the various

degrees and levels of forgiveness. Nelson has introduced into the literature three types of

forgiveness: detached forgiveness, limited forgiveness, and complete forgiveness.

Detached forgiveness is a "reduction in negative affect toward the offender, but no

restoration of the relationship" (Nelson, 1992, p. 4381). Limited forgiveness is a

"reduction in negative affect toward the offender and partial restoration of an increased








emotional investment in the relationship" (p. 4381). Full forgiveness includes "total

cessation of negative affect towards the offender and full restoration and growth of the

relationship" (p. 4381). Nelson's findings suggest that the type of offense and the degree

of relationship prior to the offense are predictors of the type of forgiveness a person

attempts (Flanagan, 1992). These categories, though helpful, do not equate to North's

(1987) or Enright and the Human Development Study Group's (1991a) definition. Their

goal of forgiveness is to achieve a complete wiping away of resentment and is a desire

for communion, if possible, which would only correspond to the third category of

complete forgiveness. As well, it makes the common mistake of mistaking forgiveness

with reconciliation. Forgiveness is not reconciliation (Trainer, 1981)

In analyzing this process of forgiveness, Trainer (1981) was the first to undertake

an empirical research on the psychology of interpersonal forgiveness. Examining 73

divorced and separated participants, she found three characteristic patterns:

1. Role-expected forgiveness that is behaviorally demonstrated, but internally void
of the proper attitude. The person may say he or she forgives, but still harbors
fear, anxiety and resentment. Forgiveness is externally motivated by a grim
obligation to do so.

2. Expedient forgiveness, also entails an overt gesture of forgiving behavior but is
accompanied by condescension and hostility. Forgiveness is seen as the means to
the end of showing a certain superiority over the other because the offended had
"forgiven."

3. Intrinsic forgiveness, which is a genuine form of forgiveness and actually the only
example of true forgivingness, is demonstrated by an overt gesture of kindness
toward the offender and internal transformations from resentment to beneficence
and goodwill. The forgiving is active, genuine, and healing.

Trainer, by her work, has contributed to the understanding of forgiveness by

developing a conceptual framework with types of forgiveness and the common and

unique processes associated with these types can be operationalized. Though she uses the







59
word forgiveness for each type, which would not adhere to this paper's position based on

Enright's definition (Enright & HDSG, 1991a), it does highlight the stages that one goes

through in the process of forgiving. It also initiates and points the way to empirically test

some of the hypothesized relationships. Trainer pioneered the development of a

Forgiveness Scale and a three-fold typology of forgiveness to facilitate investigation into

the dynamics underlying forgiveness attitudes and behaviors of 73 divorced and

separated male and female respondents. The category, called General forgiveness,

encompasses all the elements of the three typologies proposed by Trainer: role-expected,

expedient, and intrinsic forgiveness. General forgiveness involves one or more of the

following elements: (a) overt gestures of forgiveness; (b) cessation of overt hostile

responses;(c) management of hostile impulses, gradual letting go of resentment; (d) re-

emergence of positive attitudes and feelings toward the one who has done the injury; and

(e) gestures of good will. This compares quite favorably to the definition of both North

(1987) and Enright & HDSG (1991b).

The first typology of forgiveness is Role-expected forgiveness, which exhibits the

outward manifestation of forgiveness but lacks the internal motivation to forgive. It

displays an overt manifestation of forgiving behavior but is accompanied by such

negative emotions as fear, anxiety, and resentment. According to Trainer, Role-expected

forgiveness includes: (a) overt gestures and words of forgiveness, (b) cessation of hostile

responses, together with (c) a tremendous amount of resentment. The underlying

motivation in Role-expected Forgiveness is not from the individual's belief system but

from a forced compliance to externally exposed norms. The Role-expected forgiver may

outwardly comply with the expectations of self or the expectations of some external

authority because of the lack of will to fight back or feeling too weak or helpless to








confront the transgressor. The Role-expected forgiver conforms to perceived role

expectations without any inner transformation and release (Trainer, 1981, p. 71).

The expedient forgiveness typology consists in an overt manifestation of

forgiving behavior performed as a means to an end and accompanied by condescension,

resentment, and hostility. Expedient forgiveness, like Role-expected forgiveness,

contains the first two elements of General forgiveness (a) overt gestures and words of

forgiveness, and (b) cessation of overt hostile responses. Trainer (1981) claimed,

expedient forgiveness functions as a power strategy whereby one asserted
superiority devaluing both the injury and the one who injured. It accomplished
revenge in subtle ways through a condescending forgiveness or through the
transference of the task of retaliation to God or to life. (pp. 71-72)

Intrinsic forgiveness stems from an inner conviction that is characterized by an

inner change in attitudes and feelings toward the one who had done the injury, as well as

by benevolent behavior. Intrinsic forgiveness derives from a personal decision to freely

disengage from hostile behaviors and to dismiss harboring hostile attitudes, thoughts,

fantasies, and feelings. Intrinsic forgiveness involves all five elements in the general

definition: (a) overt gestures of forgiveness, (b) cessation of overt hostile responses,

(c) management of hostile impulses, gradual letting go of resentment; (d) re-emergence

of positive attitudes and feelings toward the one who has done the injury; and (e) gestures

of good will.

Trainer (1981) stated that intrinsic forgiveness entails five steps: (a) disengaging

from hostile impulses, (b) restoring a person's sense of self-worth or personhood,

(c) moving out into activities where one encounters the possibility of being hurt again,

(d) displaying a willingness to reexamine the hurtful event and broader ways of

constructing others that may give rise to reemergence of benevolence towards the other,







61

and, the final step, (e) "the person re-experiences closeness to the other, and the vitality

and joy of reconciliation with self, and under certain conditions between self and the

other" (p. 47).

The Process of Foreivine

"Forgiving is not pretending that things are other than they are. Forgiveness is not

cheap. It is facing the ghastliness of what has happened and giving the other person the

opportunity of coming out of that ghastly situation"(Tutu, 1995).

Forgiveness is not cheap nor is it an easy process. It can be at times messy,

challenging, and demanding. Forgiveness is seldom simple, linear, fast, or even

necessarily complete. "Forgiveness is not a clear-cut, one-time decision (Simon &

Simon, 1990, p. 17). No matter how sincere and earnest one may be to forgive,

forgiveness takes time. In fact, anger may remain after forgiveness (Van Biema & Cole,

1999). Forgiveness as an option is not easy. It requires time, risk, and the possibility of

being wounded again. It is a decision to let go of the past and recommit oneself to the

future unaware of what lies ahead.

Forgiveness originates from the decision to act lovingly even though you are

justified in refraining from loving. By forgiving you are not stating that you agree with

what was done but that you refuse to reject the other for their unjust act. Forgiveness

requires a strength and at times an extraordinary leap of faith. It allows the forgiver to be

vulnerable to being hurt again. Forgiveness does not require that you knowingly place

yourself in harm's way (Coleman, 1998).

Forgiveness is difficult precisely because it requires that we make comprehensive

changes in who we are and how we relate to others. It involves the whole person.







62
Forgiveness is such a demanding task that it requires a certain maturation on the part of

the individual. In this process one confronts one's own shortcomings and weaknesses.

There is no way that we can live a rich life unless we are willing to suffer
repeatedly, experiencing depression and despair, fear and anxiety, grief and
sadness, anger and the agony of forgiving, confusion and doubt, criticism and
rejection. A life lacking these emotional upheavals will not only be useless to
ourselves; it will be useless to others. We cannot heal without being willing to be
hurt. (Peck, 1987, pp. 226-227)

Enright et al. (1991a) examined a unique developmental issue in forgiving. They

focused on the conditions under which a person is willing to forgive. Their

developmental analysis suggested that children sometimes confuse forgiveness with

revenge. Adolescents on the other hand, forgive under the conditions of social pressure,

such as demands or pressures from peers, family, or certain institutions. Only in late

adolescence and adulthood do they see and have unconditional understanding of

forgiveness based on the internal working moral principles of beneficence and love

towards an offender.

How Do People Forgive

How do people forgive? It is quite rare that it is immediate, one step, one act

behavior. Typically, there is a process with its loops forwards and backwards and with its

struggles and successes. The following describe various processes in the path of

forgiveness. Though distinct, they share these five common interpersonal processes:

(a) experiencing an awareness of negative psychological consequences, (b) developing a

sense of need for resolution; (c) deciding among restitution strategies; (d) examining

motives for forgiveness; (e) deciding to forgive. (Enright & HDSG, 1991a; Romig &

Veenstra, 1998).









Forgiveness requires that we develop a forgiving character (McCullough,

Sandage, & Worthington, 1997). Forgiveness follows a deep, long-lasting injury from the

other person. The injury may be psychological, emotional, physical, or moral (Smedes,

1984). The need for forgiveness begins with a wound. A wound violates physical, moral,

or psychological boundaries. Having suffered, the person then organizes his or her

thoughts and psychological defenses to protect injured boundaries (Means, Wilson,

Sturm, & Biron, 1990). The injury often damages the injured person's worldview or

philosophy of the world as they comprehend that we do not necessarily live in a "just"

world (Flanigan, 1987).

Essentially, when we are deeply hurt, it is about one or a combination of three

things:

1. Loss of love or lovability.
2. Loss of self-esteem.
3. Loss of control or influence.

The person wishing to forgive must begin by asking, "What loss have I incurred?"

Determining the areas) of loss then points the person in a direction of healing. It informs

the person what needs to be repaired. Now the individual, if willing, can commence the

arduous task of forgiveness (Coleman, 1998).

Forgiveness declares both an assertion and an affirmation. As an assertion, one

confronts the unhealthy, destructive, ill-motivated, unacceptable behavior head on. One

neither condones the offense nor overlooks the wrong done, but one refuses to limit the

person to this behavior nor hold that this behavior is the sum measure of what the person

is in their deepest self. One asserts at times with enormous effort that this person

possesses worth no matter what decisions, choices, or actions were committed or

intentions are held. In forgiving another, one honors the healthy, the constructive, the







64
right motivated, the responsible center of the person. One consciously chooses to affirm

and to believe that this is the real, the possible, the acceptable, and the accountable core

of the person. One returns to that real center no matter what has surfaced into the

relationship (Augsburger, 1988).

How does an individual arrive to this healing state? How may a counselor enable

a client wounded by an injustice to attain a positive, healthy outlook? In some therapeutic

strategies, one may typically have the client explore the past, discover and express

repressed feelings about past events, but is that sufficient? How does a person free

oneself from the pain of a major disappointment, injustice, humiliation, victimization, or

assault in order to live more productively in the present? There are differences of

opinions and approaches regarding this essential stage in therapy. In individual therapy it

is the stage in which working through old wounds via the transference relationship is

important. There is the model of mourning the past and letting go of old injuries, and

through this process one learns to accept the past. Yet, both the concepts of letting go and

acceptance are somewhat passive in nature. What is being required is that one accept or

let go of incidents that bum with injustice and unfairness, that have resulted in patterns of

feelings and behavior so upsetting and destructive that it has brought the person to

therapy in the first place.

How does one accept the unacceptable? This problem so challenged the

psychotherapeutic field that it led some to consider and examine forgiveness as a viable

means for restoration of one's well being. Forgiveness is seen as part of the

psychotherapeutic process by a number of authors (Coleman, 1989; Fitzgibbons, 1986;

Hope, 1987; Wapnick, 1985). Psychotherapy initially includes a shedding of

psychological defenses, which involves the client admitting that they were deeply hurt by









another. Subsequently, this is followed by a dialogue between the two people to better

understand how and why the hurt occurred. Eventually, forgiveness occurs in which the

one hurt abandons resentment in favor of understanding and unity.

This process of forgiveness is necessary to restore one's self-respect and peace of

mind. Margaret Holmgren (1993) claims that victims of wrongdoing must work through

a process of responding to that wrongdoing in order to reach a state of genuine

forgiveness. This process is central to the restoration of a victim's self-respect, and that

forgiveness would be psychologically and ethically inappropriate whenever this is

incomplete. Holmgren argues that this process is always appropriate regardless whether

the offender repents or not. The following is an outline to identify the task an individual

may need to complete if they are to respect oneself and truly forgive their offender.

First, the victim of wrongdoing must recover their self-esteem. Implicit in the

wrongdoer's act of abuse is the claim that the victim is not valuable. If John were to

sexually abuse Jane, he is implicitly claiming that her needs and feelings are not

important or at the very least that they don't count as much as his. Thus, the victims must

clarify for themselves that the claim implicit in the act of wrongdoing is false. Crucial is

the recognition that the individual is just as valuable as every other person and that their

needs and feelings matter very much. They must come to see that the wrongdoer is

seriously confused about her/his status as a person. If the individual were to attempt to

forgive the wrongdoer before this step is taken, the forgiveness will not be fully

appropriate. Until the victim is assured about one's own worth, he or she would fail to

sufficiently respect his/herself. Further, this type of forgiveness is not complete nor is it

fully genuine. It amounts to condoning the wrong rather than forgiving the wrongdoer. In

order truly to forgive the offender, the victim must first understand the nature of the

wrongdoing and to do so, one must recognize one's own status as a person.








A second task for the victim of wrongdoing is that they must recognize that the

perpetration against them was wrong, and they must also understand why it was wrong.

That is, they must understand that they have certain rights and that anyone who violates

those rights wrongfully harms them.

Third, the victim of wrongdoing faces the task of acknowledging one's feelings.

A decent person will typically feel anger toward someone who harms her/him. The

individual will also grieve over the loss, and, depending on the circumstances, may

experience an array of conflicting emotions. In order to respect oneself, the injured

person must honor such feelings and give oneself permission to experience them in full.

One must recognize that these feelings are basic and legitimate human reactions to what

has happened-reactions that will help to understand what is so stressful about the

incident. The victim must also recognize that it is psychologically destructive to deny

these feelings, and that by doing so, one is prolonging the harm. Thereby, victims who

attempt to cut off their emotions in order to forgive the offender fail to respect

themselves. By denying this integral part of one's humanity, one deprives oneself of an

opportunity to understand the incident with all its ramifications and treats oneself in a

psychologically destructive manner. This type of forgiveness, if one may use this label, is

inappropriate to the extent that it is incompatible with the victim's self-respect. In

genuine forgiveness, the injured person must overcome any negative feelings held toward

the offender because of the offense. These feelings cannot be overcome in any

meaningful sense until they are acknowledged. Until the victim fully experiences

emotions with all the pain, a genuine internal resolution of the issue will be forestalled.

Fourth, depending on the circumstances, it may be important and necessary for

the victim to express these beliefs to the wrongdoer. The individual may need to tell the








wrongdoer that the action was wrong, and that it is not acceptable to be treated in this

manner. The individual does so unless this course of action would be dangerous or

detrimental to oneself or to others. At the very least, the individual should not withhold

feelings under the false assumption that these feelings are not valid or important, or not

as important as the wrongdoer's.

Fifth, the victim of the perpetration faces the task of assessing the situation with

respect to the offender. If the victims are to respect themselves and avoid being hurt

again, they must consider the wrongdoer's attitude and behavior patterns. The injured

person must determine the steps necessary to avoid further victimization. The

self-respecting victim's goal, then, is to not forget the incident altogether but to reach a

point where the incident is no longer remembered vindictively or is not allowed to

interfere with an attitude of real goodwill toward the offender.

The final task for the victim of wrongdoing is to determine whether to seek

restitution from the offender. In order to achieve self-respect, the victim must recognize

that he/she has been wrongfully harmed and deserves restitution where possible. Respect

for one's own integrity also requires that the individual look objectively and with some

compassion at the wrongdoer's situation. One must then make a mature, reasoned

judgment about how one wishes to proceed. If the victim overlooks this task in an

attempt to hasten the process of forgiveness, the victim exhibits a lack of self-respect;

and the state of genuine forgiveness is also forestalled or forfeited. In this case, the victim

has not achieved a full internal resolution of the issue. The incident will not be brought to

closure until the victim determines the course of action with respect to seeking

restitution.

These steps permit the victim to heal and restore self-respect. Once initiating

these steps, the victim can now let go of the hurt and pain and focus inward. The victim








now has the freedom and opportunity to take a more objective and compassionate

perspective (Holmgren, 1993).

There are other processes that are worth examining. McCullough and

Worthington, (1994a) constructed a developmental progression of understanding

forgiveness that is far more involved than most. Their progression is consistent with the

investigations of both Trainer's (1981) and Enright et al. (1989) in that the patterns

concern people's reasoning in the areas of strategy used to forgive, the external and

internal manifestation of forgiving, and the conditions under which forgiving is offered.

The progression follows the logic of Selman's (1980) social perspective-taking and

Kohlberg's (1985) moral development descriptions. There is movement from concrete to

subtler abstract thought forms, and from emphases on the external to the internal. There

is an increase in cognitive complexity as more involved reciprocal perspective follows.

Finally, there is the transformation from the situational, as the person may or may not

offer forgiveness to the exercise of more internally consistent principles. This suggests

that as individuals develop cognitive skills, they become more able to take the

perspectives of others, to empathize with their predicaments and shortcomings, and to

value and accept them as people despite the pain they have inflicted in the past

(McCullough &Worthington, 1994a). (See Table 2-1).

Romig and Veenstra (1998) postulate a simpler, more concise four step process:

1. View the offender's behavior in context (Hargrave 1994).
2. Develop empathy toward the offender (Cunningham, 1985).
3. Identify with the act by the offender to gain compassion (Benson, 1992).
4. Realize the individual has needed forgiveness from others in the past
(Cunningham, 1985).

Fitzgibbons (1986) further condensed the process to two monumental steps. He

states that forgiveness emerges after the therapist has analyzed the origins of the client's

pain and after the client has spent considerable time on the cognitive level of








understanding what forgiveness is. The intellectual decision to forgive is then followed

by emotional forgiveness, which reduces anger, making healing possible. Hope's (1987)

view of forgiveness is somewhat paradoxical. As the client gives up the right to revenge

or power and assumes a more humble position, it is then that the client feels empowered.

Wapnick (1985) encourages the client to reinterpret past events. The objective is to

challenge the client's distorted ways of thinking and of perceiving other people, thus

liberating the client from unwanted and excessive guilt, anger, and other dysfunctional

patterns that result from the distortions.


Table 2-1. The Development of Forgiveness

Pattern (1)
Revengeful Forgiveness Strategies: One considers ways to get back at the
offender. Overt aggression is considered.
Manifestations
External manifestations such as words or gestures are indicative of the
person's forgiveness; internal hostility may remain and may be openly
expressed.
Conditions
Physical or psychological revenge or compensation must occur before
forgiveness is possible.
External Forgiveness Strategies: One uses passive coping strategies while
remaining angry.
Pattern (2)
Manifestations.
External manifestations are indicative of forgiveness. The person is aware
of inner frustrations festering but suppresses them.
Conditions.
Pressures from social groups to forgive are sufficient to elicit forgiveness.
Internal Forgiveness Strategies: One actively seeks to understand the
other's motives and thoughts and to reinterpret the event in light of the
perspectives of self and other.
Pattern (3)
Manifestations
Forgiveness is primarily an internal activation of the beneficence principle
which promotes inner release and possibly reconciliation.
Conditions
Forgiveness occurs unconditionally out of the principle of beneficence or
love.

Source: McCullough & Worthington, 1994a









Cunningham (1985) offers his own four stages in the process stressing the

challenge and strenuous task in the act of forgiving.

1. Judgment versus denial. Forgiving is not a nice and neat endeavor to undertake.
On the contrary, it means willingness to die to oneself within realities that are
painful in others as well as in one's self.

2. Humility versus humiliation. When offended and wounded, many of us have a
natural tendency to internalize the injury and turn it against ourselves. This results
in the painful state of humiliation that leads to the view of one's self and one's
offender as adversarial and alien to one another.

3. The opportunity of mutuality and negotiation. In this stage the forgiver becomes
different; he or she becomes open to change and growth. He or she becomes free
from the need and desire to accuse and the compelling need to punish and to seek
revenge.

4. Forgiveness. This is characterized by the actual living out of the forgiving process
where perspectives on one's self, others, and God take place. This transforming
stage of forgiving is the ongoing process of redefining one's relationship with the
offender based upon an enlightened awareness of one's self and the offender. It is
being conscious of not only of his or her limitations and capacities for sin and
evil, but also of his or her kinship and commonality in humanness under God.
Here, relationships are renegotiated and entrusted with new promises and new
hope and new covenants are formed.

Underlying all these processes there are three commonly recognized general

stages, whether stated or implied, preceding the final stage, forgiveness. There is the hurt

stage, the anger stage, and the information-seeking stage (Linn & Linn, 1978). These

factors are ordinarily found in most processes of forgiveness. To enflesh this process, it is

helpful to look at other factors that are involved in the challenge of forgiveness. There

are at least eight factors that relate to the ability to forgive-four to consider in

relationship to the offended party and four that relate to the offender. The factors

associated with the offender are the following:

1. Severity of wrong-the more severe the more difficult it is to forgive.

2. The offender acknowledges the offense and is genuinely sorrowful for the
outcome. It is more likely that forgiveness will be experienced.









3. Intentionality.

4. Frequency-infractions that are committed again and again are harder to forgive
when all other factors are constant.

The four factors relating to the offended that facilitate or impede forgiveness are

the following:

1. If the offended person has a deep commitment to the individual who offended
them, the person is more likely to be willing and able to forgive in order to restore
the relationship.

2. Ego-strength of the offended person. Those who do not posses a strong healthy
self-love will be more likely to hold grudges and not be as able to reframe
situations so as to find good coming from bad situations.

3. Decision to forgive on the part of the offended can be a crucial mitigating factor.

4. The person's personal history with forgiveness may make a difference. If a person
has been forgiven, they may find it easier to forgive. (Rosenak & Harden, 1992)

Anger and Forgiveness

Fitzgibbons (1986) clarifies the process of forgiveness through the understanding

of anger and its role in healing. "Anger is a strong feeling of displeasure and antagonism

aroused by a sense of injury or wrong" (p. 64). Soon after a hurt or disappointment, this

emotion occurs and is closely associated with a degree of sadness from the hurt. Anger

and how to deal with it is often a stumbling block in the forgiving process.

Anger develops as a natural inborn response of the failure of others to meet one's

needs for love, praise, acceptance, and justice and may be experienced any place where

there is human interaction, be it in the home, school, community, and place of

employment. The experience of anger can lead to a desire for revenge, which does not

diminish until the presence of the resentful feelings is recognized and subsequently

resolved. Without this recognition and release, anger can be displaced for many years and

erupt decades later toward the undeserving as in loving relationships or with significant







72
others. It will not be fully resolved until a conscious decision is made to liberate oneself

from the desire for revenge and to forgive.

Three basic mechanisms are used to deal with this emotion: conscious or

unconscious denial; active- or passive-aggression expression, and forgiveness. Denial is

the major coping strategy for dealing with anger in early childhood. As a result of denial,

most people carry into their adult lives significant amounts of unconscious anger from

their family of origin. The active expression of anger may be appropriate, excessive, or

misdirected. The passive-aggressive expression of anger directs this emotion toward

others in a covert manner while the person acts as though they are not angry.

Many mental health professionals have viewed the appropriate expression of

anger as the more healthy way to deal with this emotion (Freud, 1963; Janov, 1970;

Novoca, 1975; Rubin, 1970). In Fitzgibbons' (1998) view the expression of anger is

valuable and healthy; but when relied on solely for relief, serious problems can develop

because of the degree and intensity of unresolved anger from previous disappointments

encountered in childhood, adolescence, and adult life. The reenactment of past traumatic

events accompanied by the expression of anger toward those who inflicted pain does not

fully resolve the anger experienced in different life stages. Nor does the expression of

anger result in a veritable sense of justice or freedom from responses by making them

even more angry or aggressive with one another (Strauss, 1974). It adversely affects

children (Gardner, 1971), increases guilt and shame (Lemer, 1985), reinforces

inappropriate ways of relating, ruins friendships, and aggravates psychosomatic illness

(Tavris, 1984).

Recognizing and understanding the harm anger can cause, it is expedient that a

sound and healthy strategy be found to cope with it. Forgiveness may be that remedy.








Forgiveness works directly on the emotions of anger (and related constructs), such as

resentment, hostility, and hatred, by diminishing its intensity or level within the mind and

heart. Each time it is successfully applied to a disappointing or traumatic life experience

within someone, it removes some of the anger from that hurt. Understandably, the more

severe the emotional wound, the greater will be the time and effort needed to arrive at a

control or resolution of the associated anger. Fitzgibbons (1998) explains how an

individual can be assisted in this process of forgiving. An individual can be helped to

move toward forgiveness by concentrating on a specific memory or a long series of

painful memories. This process may then proceed in one of three levels: cognitive,

emotional, or spiritual.

On the cognitive level, an individual, after analyzing the origins of their pain,

makes a decision to forgive, that is to let go of anger or the desire for revenge. Initially,

the person may not be inclined or have the proper disposition to forgive. For most people

the forgiveness process begins with this cognitive level and usually remains on that level

for a period of time. Fitzgibbons (1998) labels this step the cognitive level because the

person decides to forgive, thinks it is good to do, but as yet does not feel compassion or

love toward the offending one. As the anger level diminishes through regular forgiveness

exercises, the intellect is bothered less by the negative effects of anger and subsequently

grows in understanding the offender and his/her weaknesses.

Emotional forgiveness is that phase of forgiveness process in which the client

comes to understand deeply the offender and his/her struggles, develops a certain degree

of empathy for the "wounded boy or girl" within the adult, and as a result, feels truly

inclined to forgive. This level or stage of the process of forgiveness is usually preceded

by a significant amount of time in the utilization of cognitive forgiveness exercises.








Growth in understanding the weaknesses and life struggles of the offender is the major

path that leads to emotional forgiveness. Some clients feel upset or even guilty when this

process moves slowly. They may even balk at the cognitive forgiveness, for they believe

that it is not forgiveness at all since they do not truly feel like forgiving. The crucial need

here is to recognize that forgiveness is a process with several stages, and that in time,

perhaps slowly, the feelings will follow.

The third approach to the use of forgiveness is spiritual. This approach is utilized

when someone suffers from such severe pain that they cannot let go of resentment

against the offender either cognitively or emotionally. In utilizing a modification of the

AA Twelve Steps program, the person tries to reflect: I am powerless over my anger

and want to turn it over to God" or "Revenge or justice belongs to God" or "God, forgive

him, I can't" or "God, free me from my anger" (Alcoholics Anonymous, 1952).

Hopefully this will lead to the former step of the cognitive exercises, which in turn

emotional forgiveness may follow (Fitzgibbons, 1998).

The Model of Forgiveness Based on Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development

Perhaps the groundbreaking work on moral development is Kohlberg's (1969,

1973, 1976) explanation of the development of sense ofjustice. It is this standard that

Enright and colleagues and others (Enright, Gassin, & Wu 1992; Enright & HDSG,

1991b; Enright, Santos, & Al-Mabuk, 1989; Nelson, 1992; Spidell & Libeman, 1981)

have used to describe the acquisition of reasoning about forgiveness. These models

suggest that as individuals develop cognitive skills, they become more able to take the

perspective of others, to empathize with their predicaments and frailties, and try to value

and accept them as people despite the hurts they have inflicted in the past. In Table 2-2 the

models of Enright's group (Enright, Gassin, & Wu, 1992; Enright & HDSG, 1991a) are

placed alongside Kohlberg's to show how they correspond to each other. Each stage








Table 2-2. Developmental Models of Forgiveness and Their Relationship to
Kohlberg's Theory


Kohlberg's Theory


Enright Model


Stage 1. Punishment and obedience
orientation. Justice should be decided by
an authority or one who punishes.

Stage 2. Relativist justice. A sense of
reciprocity defines justice. ("If you help
me, I will help you.")


Stage 3. Good boy/good girl justice.
Group consensus determines what is right
and wrong. The morality of behavior is
based on the approval of others.
Stage 4. Law and Order Justice. Societal
laws determine conceptions ofjustice.
Laws are upheld to maintain an orderly
society.
Stage 5. Social contract orientation.
Interest in maintaining the social fabric,
with the realization unjust laws exist. It is
just and fair to work in the system for
change.
Stage 6. Universal ethical principle
orientation. Sense of justice is based on
maintaining the individual rights of all
persons. Conscience rather than laws or
norms determines moral behavior.
Stage 7. Life is valued from a cosmic
perspective.


Source: Enright, Santos, & Al-Mabuk, 1989


Stage 1. Revengeful forgiveness.
Forgiveness is not possible without
punishment to a degree of pain similar to
the pain of the offense.

Stage 2. Restitutional/compensational
forgiveness. Forgiveness can occur out of
guilt or if the offender offers some form of
restitution.

Stage 3. Expectational forgiveness.
Forgiveness is a response to social
pressure.


Stage 4. Lawful expectational forgiveness.
Forgiveness occurs in response to societal,
moral, or religious pressure.


Stage 5. Forgiveness as social harmony.
Forgiveness restores social harmony and
right relationships.



Stage 6. Forgiveness as love.
Forgiveness promotes love. The offense
does not jeopardize love. Forgiveness
increases the likelihood of reconciliation
between the offender and the forgiver.








in Kolberg's model corresponds with one, and only one stage, in Enright's model. In the

lowest stages-Revengeful Forgiveness and Restitutional Forgiveness-forgiveness can

only occur after the wrongdoer has been subjected to revenge or appropriate punishment.

In the middle stages-Expectational Forgiveness of Forgiveness as Social Harmony-

forgiveness can be gained only if pressures from significant others are present. It is only in

the highest stage of the model-Forgiveness as Love-that forgiveness is conceived as an

unconditional attitude and is seen as promoting positive regard and good will. This

ultimate stage in theory best illustrates the difference between the Piaget and Enright

conceptions of forgiveness. According to Enright and the Human Development Study

Group (1994), forgiveness due to its gift-like character, does not entail any kind of

reciprocity as conceived by Piaget (1932). Nelson (1992) and Enright's Group (Enright,

Gassin, &Wu, 1992; Enright & HDSG, 1991a; Enright et al., 1989) considered the earliest

signs of reasoning concerning forgiveness to occur when cognition is predominately

egocentric and preoccupied with avoiding pain and seeking pleasure. Nelson (1992) called

this stage of reasoning about forgiveness the precognitive. Individuals resent authority and

have a limited capacity for intimacy with and empathy for others.

Forgiveness' prime motivation is a self-interest and desire for revenge and

restitution. Such individuals feel hurt by even minor offenses. Enright's group (Enright,

Gassin, & Wu, 1992; Enright & HDSG, 1991a; Enright, Santos, & Al-Mabuk, 1989)

divided this period into two stages. During the stage of revengeful forgiveness,

forgiveness is motivated by an egocentric desire for revenge. During the stage of

restitutional-compensational forgiveness, forgiveness is driven by a desire to receive

compensation and restitution for offenses that one has experienced. This period of






77

forgiveness reasoning coincides with the stages of justice reasoning that Kohlberg (1969,

1973, 1976) called punishment and obedience orientation and relativist justice.

Nelson (1992) and Enright's group (Enright, Gassin, & Wu, 1992; Enright &

HDSG, 1991a) considered an intermediate period of reasoning concerning forgiveness to

occur when individuals are preoccupied with rule-governed behavior and desire to appear

good in the eyes of others. Enright and associates subdivided this period into expectational

forgiveness, during which forgiveness results from social pressure. Lawful expectational

forgiveness grants forgiveness due to the influence of institutional, moral, or religious

pressure; or as social harmony in which forgiveness is used to maintain social harmony

and good relationships. This period of forgiveness reasoning coincides with Kohlbergs's

(1969, 1973, 1976) stages of justice reasoning called good boy/good girl justice, law and

order justice, and social contract orientation.

The third period of reasoning concerning forgiveness is characterized by genuine

interest in the well being of others and for promoting love and interpersonal harmony.

Enright and associates labeled this stage simply as love. This period of forgiveness

reasoning parallels Kohlberg's (1969, 1973, 1976) universal ethical principle orientation

stage ofjustice reasoning.

Enright et al. (1989), Huang (1990), and Park, Enright, and Gassin (1993) found

evidence for a developmental view on reasoning concerning forgiveness in American,

Taiwanese, and Korean samples. In these studies, reasoning concerning forgiveness

(according to the model of Enright et al. (1989)) was moderately correlated with justice

reasoning. Reasoning concerning forgiveness also increased with age.








The Forgiveness Model

The following model proposed by Enright and the Human Development Study

Group will be utilized in this study. It incorporates the ideals of the prementioned models.

It is, at best, an estimate of the general pathway many people follow when they forgive.

This model is not a rigid, step-like sequence but is instead a flexible set of processes with

feedback and feed-forward loops. In the process of forgiving some may skip entire units.

When people do decide to forgive, they seem to need time to accommodate slowly

to the idea. Enright and the Human Development Study Group observed two patterns of

change. In the first pattern, most people will consider forgiving another person when their

emotional pain is so intense and discomforting that they must do something to change this

stressful situation. When they do decide to forgive, it is primarily a self-interested activity;

the person forgives in order to feel better. Only after a period of time does the forgiver

understand the gift like quality of forgiveness. Gradually, the forgiver does focus on the

other person rather than on the self. Over time, people who continue to practice

forgiveness may actually alter their primary worldview or their own sense of identity to

integrate forgiveness into their own philosophy of life and that view of themselves.

In the second pattern, once focusing on the other with the intent of forgiving, the

forgiver operates by one of three moral principles. The first is finding that practicing

merciful restraint is sufficient in itself. Merciful restraint is the holding back of a negative

response, such as punishment, when the offended has the power or the "right" to punish.

In merciful restraint, the forgiver gives up the initially attractive option of revenge or

condemnation. Later, he or she may have the strength and inner fortitude to give

generously to the other. Generosity goes further than refraining from the bad; it includes

the dimension of giving such positive elements as occasional friendliness and attention to








the offender. Still later, some forgivers may offer the gift of moral love, in which the

forgiver willingly enters into the other's life in the hope of positively transforming the

other and the community. The forgiver's degree of trust toward the other and the amount

of time passed since the offenses) play a significant part in these unfolding patterns

(Enright et al., 1998).

The moral judgment literature suggests that forgiveness is developmental (Enright,

Santos, & Al-Mabuk, 1989; Piaget 1932/1965). As forgiveness is both a psychological

and social process, it should be subject to developmental influences (Romig &Veenstra,

1998). As people mature, they may be more willing to forgive a deep offense against them

(Subkoviak et al., 1992). Piaget highlighted some pertinent factors that influence and

affect our ability to forgive. Piaget (1932/1965) placed forgiveness within a

developmental framework because in his view it possessed certain developmental

characteristics. The first is maturational aspect. Young children have a difficult time

understanding forgiveness. It is only in late middle childhood that the concept emerges.

The second is manipulation of the object. Without practicing forgiveness, it is difficult to

forgive. Third is social input. Certain religious beliefs and cultural supports and models

from significant others encourage forgiveness. Fourth is equalization. When a person tries

to forgive there can be periods of confusion, stress, and struggle before the "balance of

forgiveness" (Fitzgibbons, 1986; Kaufman, 1984). Forgiveness according to Piaget (1932)

emerges late in childhood, once the child passes through heterogamous and into

autonomous moral reasoning.

Forgiveness is more than a moral matter; it is an interpersonal process that

represents a possible response to wounds or injustice we encounter in relational context.

How a person conceptualizes and experiences relationships, particularly the more personal








and intense relationships, should influence the process of reconciling a relationship

unraveled by unjustly induced pain. One's psychosocial development may also have a

significant influence in how one reacts to a painful injury and the processes selected for

coping with such injury. Erikson's theory of psychosocial development provides means

for understanding the process of resolving significant relationship injuries (Romig &

Veenstra, 1998).

Erikson (1963) developed a sequence of eight developmental stages that are

hierarchically ordered and expand over one's entire life. At each particular stage one is

confronted by a unique crisis or conflict, although each conflict remains present in some

form throughout the life span and is never entirely resolved. Romig and Veenstra (1998)

analyzed the primary stages and how they relate to forgiveness The key stages are the first

(trust vs. mistrust), sixth (intimacy vs. isolation), and seventh (generativity vs. stagnation),

which examine primarily relational issues. A person who does not resolve the trust versus

mistrust crisis in an adequate manner perceives the world as unpredictable, menacing, and

unsafe; is likely to view people with suspicion; and is hyper vigilant on being exploited. It

would be most challenging for this individual to respond to an injustice with forgiveness.

Even if forgiveness were offered, it would be primarily from the vantage of self-

preservation.

The failure to resolve the intimacy versus isolation crisis satisfactorily could direct

one toward self-absorption, fear of intimacy, and profound ambivalence toward being in

committed relationships. A defensive wall goes up to protect the individual from what he

or she most craves and needs. An unjust injury would only aggravate this tendency to

remain distant and fearful of and isolated from intimate relationships.






81

Failing to resolve the generativity versus stagnation crisis would greatly contribute

to a person living primarily for selfish gratification and remaining inconsiderate to the

well being of others. Forgiveness requires making a decision to promote justice for the

sake of showing mercy and compassion and a concern for the well-being of the offender,

and this would most likely not be present in anyone who fails to resolve this stage (Romig

& Veenstra, 1998).

Finally, what does the process of forgiveness look like? Recall that forgiveness has

been defined as a "voluntary forgoing of negative affect and judgment by an injured party

directed at someone who has inflicted a significant, deep, and unjust hurt; this process also

involves viewing the wrongdoer with love and compassion" (Enright & HDSG, 1991 a;

North, 1987).

Forgiveness is a process of struggling with and ultimately abandoning negative

thoughts, feelings, and behaviors directed at the injurer, while gradually and actively

incorporating positive thoughts, feelings, and behaviors toward the same. This general

process may involve some or all of at least 20 subprocesses based on Enright's model

(Gassin & Enright, 1995).

The foregoing model has been shown effective in three works to date. Freedman

and Enright (1996) in an intervention with female incest survivors, used the model in a

once-per-week educational program. The participants explored the ideas of each unit at

each woman's own pace for an average of 1 year to complete the program. This was an

experimental and controlled design that was randomized. After the experimental group

completed the educational program, the women who composed the original control group

participated in the discussion, thus becoming the second experimental group.








Table 2-3. Process of Forgiving

Uncovering Phase
1. Examination of psychological defenses (Kiel, 1986).
2. Confrontation of anger; the point is to release not harbor, the anger (Trainer, 1981)
3. Admittance of shame when this is appropriate (Patton, 1985)
4. Awareness of catharsis (Droll, 1984).
5. Awareness of cognitive rehearsal of the offense (Droll, 1984)
6. Insight that the injured party may be comparing self with the injurer (Kiel, 1986).
7. Realization that oneself may be permanently and adversely changed by the injury
(Close, 1970).
8. Insight into a possibly altered "just world view (Flanigan, 1987).


Decision Phase

9. A change of heart conversion, new insights that old resolution strategies are not
working (North, 1987).
10. Willingness to consider forgiveness as an option
11. Commitment to forgive the offender (Neblett, 1974).
Work Phase
12. Refraining, through role taking, who the wrongdoer is by viewing him or her in
context (Smith, 1981).
13. Empathy toward the offender (Cunningham, 1985).
14. Awareness of compassion, as it emerges, toward the offender (Droll, 1984)
15. Acceptance, absorption of the pain (Bergin, 1988).


Outcome Phase
16. Finding meaning for self and others in the suffering and in the forgiveness process
(Frank, 1959).
17. Realization that self has needed others' forgiveness in the past (Cunningham,
1985).
18. Insight that one is not alone (universality, support).
19. Realization that self may have a new purpose in life because of the injury.
20. Awareness of decreased negative affect and, perhaps increased positive affect, if
this begins to emerge, toward the injurer; awareness of internal, emotional release
(Smedes, 1984).


Source: (Gassin & Enright, 1995, p. 39)






83

Three findings are worth noting (Freedman & Enright, 1996). First, a comparison

of the experimental group with the control group after the 1st year of education, showed

that the experimental participants gained statistically more than the control group in

forgiving and hope. The experimental group decreased statistically significantly more than

the control group in anxiety and psychological depression. Second, after the 1st year,

participants from the original control group became an experimental group for the entire

2nd year. Thus, one could compare their outcomes within the 2nd year (as experimental

participants) with their own outcomes during the 1st year (as control participants). This

comparison yielded results similar to the first aforementioned finding about the

experimental group and the control group. The changes in the 2nd year compared with

those of the 1st year within this group were statistically significant: There was a greater

decrease in anxiety and depression. The third comparison examined the original (1st year)

experimental group scores at the I-year post test within their scores at a 1-year follow-up

(1 year after intervention ceased for this original experimental group). These participants

maintained their change patterns on all scales, thus showing that there was no washout

effect.

The two other interventions also validated this model of forgiving. Al-Mabuk,

Enright, and Cardis (1995) reported positive mental health outcomes following short-term

workshop on forgiveness education for college students who had been deprived of

parental love. Hebl and Enright (1993) demonstrated forgiving responses in the elderly

following an 8-week program. In the latter study, both experimental and control groups

decreased in anxiety. The overall pattern across these diverse samples suggested that the

model of forgiving is effective in bringing people to a forgiving stage toward an offender.








Units 1 through 8 represent the preforgiveness interpersonal conflict following a

deep, unfair hurt. Psychological defenses (unit 1) mask emotional pain that may be too

intense. Anger (unit 2) is one of the initial signs that the individual is confronting the

offense. Anger, though uncomfortable, is considered a necessary part of the forgiveness

journey in its initial phases (Hope, 1987). Common behaviors such as shame, attaching a

greater deal of emotional energy to the problem (carthexis), rehearsing the event over and

over in one's mind (cognitive rehearsal), and similar patterns are common (units 3 through

5). In some cases the person must at some point confront a permanent negative change

(e.g., paralysis from an accident, broken relationship, loss of sexual innocence) in unit 6.

Unit 7 can be particularly painful, as the injured party (who acknowledges his or her own

loss) sees no such deficit in the injurer. All of this may lead a person bitterly to conclude

that life can be profoundly unfair (unit 8).

In units 9 through 11 the injured party becomes aware that there are other

possibilities and paths that one can choose to travel. There lies a glimmer of hope that life

still offers worthy opportunities. There is no set time, situation, or condition that the

individual may discover this possibility.

Units 12 through 20 compare the processes of change directed toward forgiveness.

The injured can now rise above the hurt and look beyond the self to consider the other.

Refraiing (unit 12) is the process of viewing and understanding the offending person in

context-examining the developmental history, their deficits, and the pressures they were

under at the time of the injury. One does not condone but desires to understand the

phenomenological view. Many, including Guest (1988) and Trainer (1981), advocate this

strategy. Empathy (unit 13) is the essential emotional counterpart to cognitive reframing.







85

From this understanding, compassion (unit 14) can emerge, making the acceptance

of the injustice and the gift of forgiveness a possibility. The insights gained from unit 15

enable the forgiver to realize that both self and other are imperfect and fallible, which may

make the next unit easier to achieve. When one absorbs the pain (unit 16), it prevents the

conflict from being directly transmitted to individuals in present and/or future generations

(Bergin, 1988). Unit 17 helps the offended find life meaningful and forms the solid

foundation of positive psychological adjustment (Frank, 1959). Some people, as they head

toward psychological healing, develop a new purpose in life. Out of the ashes comes a

new promising life and vision (unit 18). The incest survivor, for example, decides to use

the insight gained and counsel other survivors. As the person experiences a decrease in the

negative emotions (e.g., resentment, hostility), forgiveness, which once seemed

unattainable, now becomes a real possibility (unit 19). Finally, in unit 20, the wounded

party experiences a release of most (if not all) negative, toxic emotion directed at the

offender.

Fitzgibbons (1998) offers insight into what occurs under the broad categories of

the forgiveness process during this challenging task. The stages are listed below.

Uncovering

In the uncovering phase the nature and role of anger is discussed, including the

methods of dealing with this potent emotion and the many forms that anger reveals itself

at various life stages. In this phase, the clients learn how they can resolve any anger that

they may discover within themselves. Quite often, people are more likely to admit and

own their anger if there is an option for dealing with it that does not require expressing it.








Cognitive exercises are put into practice at this stage. The cognitive exercises

enables one to admit anger, perhaps previously denied, and to work with it, thereby

initiating the process of the healing journey.

In the decision phase, forgiveness is presented as the preferred method, along with

promoting its many advantages as the avenue to pursue for healing. To inspire and

motivate the individual, successful cases, histories of others with conflicts, are presented

to encourage. To clarify any false misconceptions, forgiveness is explained for what it is

and for what it is not. Many people in this initial stage of their healing are so

overwhelmed that they cannot even consider offering compassion, generosity, and love

toward those who have hurt them grievously. Many will only decide to begin the process

after they have been reassured that they do not have to become vulnerable toward the

person whom they wish to forgive. They are reassured that forgiving does not preclude

expressing anger or pursuing justice where appropriate. The resolution of anger with an

offender and the investment of trust toward that person are related but remain distinct

procedures.

During this phase, for those fortunate enough not to be suffering from severe pain

or betrayal, they are informed that, as they work on surrendering their anger, they most

likely will come to experience compassion and love toward those who have hurt them.

Forgiveness is possible through a process of sincere attempts to understand the emotional

development and to empathize with their life stresses of those who have inflicted the pain.

As that process occurs, there is a keen awareness that the behavior of many offenders can

be attributed not as an innate evil but to their own emotional scars. If possible, the stage

methods of forgiveness are presented-cognitive, emotional, and spiritual.








Work

In the work phase the therapist describes refraining as understanding. For most

people, forgiveness begins first, as an intellectual pursuit in which there is no emotional

attachment to the thought of forgiveness. If their anger existed toward a parent, they

would be asked to identify a number of areas in which they were disappointed with each

parent and to spend time forgiving the parent of any or perceived injustices at different

developmental stages. Most likely, this would be met with resistance. Also, some come to

realize that they have been hurt so deeply that they cannot even utter the word

forgiveness, and they are more comfortable stating that they are willing to rid themselves

of their desire for revenge. For those with deep embedded anger, the release of resentment

can be facilitated by a process that begins with the physical expression of anger. Caution

is exercised so that no one will get hurt. This is immediately followed by cognitive

forgiveness exercises directed at letting go of the desire for revenge.

It is during this crucial stage that the major obstacles to forgiveness are reviewed.

These may include a lack of parental modeling for the task, significant others who

continue to disappoint and frustrate in a regular manner and/or a personal basis,

narcissism, and a compulsive need to control. Also, since anger is often used to defend

against feelings of inadequacy and fear, particularly the fear of betrayal, many individuals

are not able to relinquish their anger and move ahead with the forgiveness process until

their self-esteem and basic ability to trust are reestablished.

It is important to point out that, although forgiveness diminishes the level of anger,

it does not completely heal the wounds of sadness and mistrust. For many who have

sustained major loss, only through a sense of being loved in a new and unique way can

allow them to accept the pain.








Outcome

The benefits from the effort to forgive far outweigh the struggle it entails. The

significant benefits range from a decreased level of anger and hostility to an increased

feelings of love and a marked ability to control anger, improved capacity to trust, and the

freedom from the subtle control of individuals and events of the past. Other advantages

are a letting go of negative, parental, emotional, and behavioral patterns, improved sleep

patterns, self-confidence in relationships, improved academic and work performance,

improved concentration skills, and a resolution of physical symptoms and illnesses caused

by hostility (Barefoot et al., 1983; Schekelle et al., 1983).

These preceding stages seem to occur (a) slowly, (b) with a little understanding

toward the other (such as seeing the other person as imperfect), (c) in confusion over the

emotions (as you sort out the mix of emotions), (d) with a residue of anger left over (it

seems to go away then emerges, but over time it lessens), (e) a little at a time, (f) freely or

not at all (the other is no longer under obligation to you for what they did) (Eastin, 1988).

When one has received forgiveness, it is easier to forgive others (Smedes, 1984).

In reviewing the literature, the following five components appear to be crucial in

the process of forgiveness:

1. The acceptance into awareness of strong emotions such as anger an sadness.
2. Letting go of previously unmet interpersonal needs.
3. A shift in the forgiving person's view of the offender.
4. The development of empathy for the offender.
5. The construction of a new narrative of self and other.
(Malcolm & Greenberg, 2000)

Though this process may appear fixed and orderly, forgiveness does not always

flow as smoothly as it may seem. The first and most vital step in the process is making the

commitment to forgive. Forgiveness is first and foremost an act of the will. There is no








universal process that fits each person's situation. "There is no cookbook formula for

forgiveness. I inform people that they must choose to be forgiving. If they wait until they

feel forgiving before they choose to forgive, it may be a long and arduous wait"

(Coleman, 1998, p. 76)

The Role of Empathv

Perhaps the sine qua non character trait for the role of forgiving is empathy.

Studzinski (1986) sees the capacity to forgive another as the hallmark of a mature

personality, a considerable advance over the brute desire for revenge. It is through an

advanced maturity that we are able to look beyond our needs and our wounds and forgive

and empathize with another. Forgiveness requires focusing our understanding on the other

person, as well as seeing oneself just as capable of hurting others, intentionally or

unintentionally (Lampman, 1999). A key ingredient in our ability to forgive apparently

originates from the injured person's ability to identify or empathize with the offending

individual (Rowe et al., 1989). The ability to feel with another person represents a

transformation of one's narcissistic tendency to a socially beneficial direction. Empathy

lays the emotional foundation for the later cognitive capacity for taking social perspective

for examining situations from the other person's vantagepoint. The injured person

concludes that the offender is also human and capable of committing mistakes and also

might perceive that the offender needs to be forgiven in the same fashion that the injured

person would want to be forgiven if the situation were reversed. Through this maturation,

one may even consider that there is a common bond, a sense of unity between the forgiver

and the offender, for they share the most fundamental quality, that of being human

(Studzinski, 1986).








A number of theorists (Brandsma, 1982; Cunningham, 1985; Fitzgibbons, 1986;

Hope, 1987; Enright & HDSG, 1991a; McCullough, 1997) have identified the capacity for

empathy as the primary element in successful forgiveness. McCullough, Worthington, and

Rachal (1997) have proposed and investigated an empathy model of forgiveness and

McCullough, Worthington, and Rachal (1997) have concluded that empathy and

forgiveness are intimately, maybe even causally, linked. Empathy can be defined as "an

active effort to understand another person's perception of an interpersonal event as if one

were that other person, rather than judging the other person's behavior from the

perspective of one's own experience of that event"(Malcolm & Greenberg, 2000, p. 180).

Worthington (McCullough & Worthington, 1994b) developed an empathy-

humility-commitment model of forgiveness. In this three-part model, forgiveness is

hypothesized to be initiated by empathy for the offender, advanced by humility in the

offended, and then reinforced through a public commitment to forgive the offender. The

driving force is empathy. Narcissism, the inability to move beyond oneself, has an

inhibitory effect on the forgiveness process. Difficulty in empathic functioning is a glaring

shortcoming in narcissism, and empirical evidence of a negative association between

empathy and narcissism has emerged (Ehrenberg, Hunter, & Elterman, 1996; Porcerelli &

Sandler, 1995; Watson, Grisham, Trotter, & Biderman, 1984). Worthington states that

"forgiveness is the natural response to empathy and humility" (Worthington, Sandage, &

Berry, 2000, p. 64). The hypothesized link between empathy and forgiveness has been

empirically confirmed in a series of correlative and intervention studies by McCullough,

Worthington, and their associates (McCullough, Worthington, & Rachal, 1997). The lack

of empathy is an unfortunate characteristic of a narcissistic personality and accounts in






91

part for the difficulty people with such a disorder have in forgiving injuries done to them

(Wilson, 1994).

In this whole process of forgiveness, as challenging as it may be, the core element

that facilitates forgiveness is empathy. Empathy for the offending partner acts as the

central facilitative condition that induces forgiveness. A variety of pro social phenomena,

such as cooperation, care, altruism, and the inhibition of aggression may facilitate the role

of empathy for the other person (Batson, 1990, 1991; Batson & Oleson, 1991; Eisenberg

& Fabes, 1990; Eisenberg & Miller, 1987; Hoffman, 1981, 1990; Moore, 1990; Rusbult,

Verette, Whitney, Slovik, & Lipkus, 1991; Tangney, 1991). French philosopher and

educator Jean Piaget, writing in 1932, saw forgiveness as an advanced stage of moral

development, arguing that empathy is the cognitive operation making forgiveness possible

because it entails the compassionate recognition that the other is also human.

Empathy is the cognitive awareness of another's internal states that reflect their

thoughts, feelings, perceptions, and intentions (Ickes, 1997). Empathy is the involvement

of the psychological process that makes a person have feelings that coincide with

another's situation more than with their situation (Hoffman, 2000).

Robert Enright (1999) suggests the following questions to help "the injured person

view the offender as a vulnerable human being":

1. What was it like for the person as they were growing up? Did the offender come
from a home in which there was conflict or even abuse?
2. What was happening in the person's life at the time they hurt you?
3. Can you see the person as having worth simply by being a member of the human
community?

In answering these questions one may gain the necessary insight and emphathetic

understanding to forgive one's perpetrator.








How Does One Know When Forgiveness Has Taken Place?

Having put into practice the aforementioned steps, how does one know that one

has achieved an adequate level of forgiveness? Flanigan (1998) found that interviewees

considered forgiveness complete when they had achieved one of these four end-states or

some combination of them.

1. When they no longer harbored resentment or hatred toward the offenders.
2. When they felt neutral toward their offenders.
3. When they once again experienced some degree of trust in their offenders.
4. When they have achieved reconciliation with their offenders.

Smedes (1984) states simply and clearly that you will know forgiveness has begun

in you when you recall that person who hurt you and now are able to wish him/her well.

Rosenak and Harden (1992) state that internal signs for the forgiver are lack of pain, an

inner sense of peace, the ability to enjoy life, the discovery of the resources to pray, and

not being preoccupied with past hurt (Wilson, 1994). Eventually, over time, with full

expression of thought, feeling, and behavior, the one who is injured gradually becomes

aware that he/she has relinquished the right, insistence, need, or desire for revenge (Hope,

1987; Smedes, 1984). Retaliation is no longer an option that seems beneficial to healing

the self (Jampolsky, 1985). One can truly and with heartfelt sincerely begin to wish the

other well (Smedes, 1984).

Forgiveness is a process primarily concerned with the experience of resolution, of
moving on: of healing the past. It strives to get unstuck from the agony and burden
of past injuries. The future holds an immediate sense of being on the verge of
bright, new beginnings and is again available where previously it was not; the past,
although neither forgotten nor rationalized away, no longer is a haunting, heavy,
and troubling issue. (Rowe et al., 1989, p. 242)






93

Fow (1988) believes that forgiveness has taken place when "being angry ceases to

be as figural and disturbing... one no longer experiences the violation as an unresolved

blocking of everyday life, of one' unfolding future" (pp. 89-90).

Over time the injured person receives the gift of no longer being held bound to

repressed anger, resentment, and desired revenge. At this stage of forgiveness, the person

would no longer feel, think, or act as if they were in bondage to the harmful event or to the

individual that injured them (Flanigan, 1987). A possible side effect or by-product of this

release is that the injured person may not only be free from negative emotions but actually

have positive feelings toward the injurer (Eastin, 1988). When this occurs, one can safely

assume that one is well on the road of forgiveness.

The critical dimension of forgiving is that one experiences an alteration in one's
understanding of, and relationship to the other, oneself, and the world.... There is
an experience of reclaiming oneself, which at the same time, implies a shift into a
larger perspective. (Rowe, 1989, pp. 241-242)

What Are the Benefits in Forgiving

Despite the effort and the strenuous demands in the forgiving process, there are

many benefits derived from it. We have modem examples of those who suffered

tremendous injustices and yet were able to forgive. In 1985, Pope John Paul II went into

the bowels of Rome's Rabiibia prison to visit Menet Ali-Akhga, a hired assassin who tried

to kill him in 1981 and almost succeeded. In 1992, Christipher Wilson, a Black

Californian, forgave two White teens who doused him with gasoline and set him afire,

yelling at him "Die nigger, die" as he rolled in agony. Reginald Denny, who is White,

forgave two Black men who pulled him from his truck and tried to beat him to death

during the 1992 Los Angeles riots. They claimed that by forgiving they have a greater

sense of peace and calm. These examples point to the salutary effects and healing power

of forgiveness.




Full Text
FORGIVENESS: A CORRELATIONAL STUDY BETWEEN THE SPIRIT OF
FORGIVENESS AND PHYSICAL HEALTH IN SENIOR CITIZENS
cuj
j
08v r
By
THOMAS J. CONNERY
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
2002

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I have been blessed to receive the guidance and help from so many individuals.
First and foremost is my chairperson, Dr. Mary Howard-Hamilton, who, despite a
relocation to Indiana, has guided and directed me with love and patience. I am indebted
to my committee members, Dr. Silvia Echevarria-Doan, Dr. James Archer, and Dr. David
Miller, for giving me their time and expertise. I am indebted also to my dear friends who
wanted the degree almost as much as I did: Gert and Marcia King; Theresa Hand; Dr.
Anthony and Pat Cardinale, who painstakingly recorded, typed, and organized my work;
Kathleen Nonnenmacher, who encouraged me and spent countless hours in the library
assisting me; and Jong- hyo Park, whose expertise in statistics was a God-send. I am
grateful to Dr. Robert Enright, who initially put me on this track of forgiveness, for his
encouragement. I thank Dr. Sid Sarinopolous, whom I constantly consulted for advice,
direction, and clarification; I remain indebted to him and thank him for his patience. I
also thank Dr. Jerry Goldberg, who, though a stranger, willingly offered insight and
clarification; Mary Jane Schaer, who did an excellent job preparing my work; and Candy
Spires, who was most helpful in keeping my classes straight. I want to express my
gratitude to my mom and dad who, though they may not have had the opportunity to
further their education, encouraged me to be the best that I can be.
Finally, this is dedicated to Helen Smorto, who was called home to heaven and is
unable to rejoice with me. I miss her, and I thank her.
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii
ABSTRACT vi
CHAPTERS
1 INTRODUCTION 1
Statement of the Problem 1
The Role of Forgiveness 7
Definition of Term 8
The Purpose of the Study 9
Hypotheses 9
Significance of the Study 10
2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE 11
Why Now Forgiveness? 14
What Is Interpersonal Forgiveness? 16
Philosophical Perspectives of Forgiveness 24
The Unforgivable 26
The Possibility of Forgiveness 28
Conflicting View of Forgiveness 33
The Parameters of Forgiveness 34
What Forgiveness Is Not 37
Definition of Forgiveness 45
What Is Forgiveness? 46
Foundational Definition 51
Challenge of Forgiveness 57
The Process of Forgiving 61
How Do People Forgive 62
Anger and Forgiveness 71
The Model of Forgiveness Based on Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development... 74
The Forgiveness Model 78
Uncovering 85
Work 87
Outcome 88
iii

The Role of Empathy 89
How Does One Know When Forgiveness Has Taken Place? 92
What Are the Benefits in Forgiving 93
Hostility, Anger, and Physical Health 99
The Role of Anger 105
Theoretical Claims On the Physical Health Enhancing Potential of Forgiveness .. 108
How Forgiveness Might Influence Health 112
Possible Physiological Mechanisms 117
A Theoretical Framework 122
3 METHODOLOGY 126
Overview 126
Definitions 127
Participants 128
Procedure 128
Psychological Variable Instruments 129
Descriptive Statistics for the Normative Samples 132
Anger Expression and Anger Control 132
STAXI-2 Scales and Subscales 133
The 27-Item Version of the Cook and Medley Hostility Scale 133
Physical Health Status 135
Health-Risk Variables 136
Study 137
4 RESULTS 138
Descriptive Data 138
Results 139
5 DISCUSSION 151
Research Implications 155
Practical Implications 156
Limitations 156
Future Research 158
APPENDICES
A VOLUNTEER INVITATION LETTER AND CHURCH BULLETIN NOTICE . . 161
B INFORMED CONSENT 163
C BASIC INFORMATION QUESTIONNAIRE 164
D ACTIVITIES AND HABITS QUESTIONNAIRE 166
tv

REFERENCES 168
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 202
v

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
FORGIVENESS: A CORRELATIONAL STUDY BETWEEN THE SPIRIT OF
FORGIVENESS AND PHYSICAL HEALTH IN SENIOR CITIZENS
By
Thomas J. Connery
Chair: Mary Howard-Hamilton
Major Department: Counselor Education
Clients who seek counseling are often motivated by the desire to move beyond or
overcome past hurts and injustices. Though the desire may be there, the skill to do so is
lacking. As counselors, we facilitate the process by our knowledge and expertise. One
strategy to recover from past injustices is forgiveness. Forgiveness can be the catalyst for
healing and regaining one’s peace of mind. Clients are reluctant to choose forgiveness for
it carries the stigma of defeat. Knowing that forgiveness is connected to improved
outcomes may be the appeal to select forgiveness.
This study involved 203 senior citizens, male and female, whose ages ranged
from 65 to 82. Sixty-six percent were between 65 and 75,47% ranged from 76 to 79
and 22% were 80 and older. The volunteers were primarily from a Central Florida
Catholic Church. The following instruments were given to each participant: Enright
Forgiveness Inventory, The Anger Expression Scale, The 27-Item Version of the Cook
and Medley Hostility Scale, and the Physical Health Status and Health-Risk Variables.
vi

Separate correlation analyses were performed for the EFI and anger and EFI and
hostility, EFI Anger and hostility and predictor variables and physical health measures.
Multiple regression analyses were performed with predictor variables and physical
health. Unlike previous research, these results did not show any significant correlation
between forgiveness and physical health.
vii

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Statement of the Problem
Health-related quality of life or the capability to function in the physical,
psychosocial and sociological domain of health is of growing interest in the field of aging
(Badger, 2001). Today, there are 78 million American baby boomers—persons between
ages 35 and 53—comprising nearly one-third of the total U.S. population. According to
psychologist and entrepreneur Den Dychtwald (1999), the 20lh century had been in the
domain of the young, but the 21st century will belong to the “new-old.” Two-thirds of all
the people who have ever lived past age 65 in the entire history of the world are presently
alive today. He predicts that this population, the aging baby boomers, will crave vigor,
vitality, and life extension. The irony of past medical successes, he believes, is that they
have produced legions of long-lived elders who wrestle with the very problems that the
American health care system is ill-equipped to handle, such as heart disease, cancer,
arthritis, osteoporosis, and Alzheimer’s.
These are the health risks that elderly face as they are graced with longevity. A
severe problem, often unmentioned, that plagues the senior years is the struggle with
depression. Depression is a serious problem among persons aged 65 and older and often
is missed in primary care practice (Butler, Cohen, Lewis, Simmons-Clemmons, &
Sunderland, 1997). Though the prevalence of major depression among people age 65 and
over in community surveys stands at 15%, another 15% suffer from some degree of
1

2
adjustment disorder, chronic depression, and other forms of minor depression (Diagnosis
and Treatment, 1991). Prevalence in nursing homes is 12% to 22% for major depression
disorder and over 15% to 30% for minor depression (American Psychiatric Association,
1994).
This is noteworthy because depression is linked with physical health problems
(Koenig, 1999). Depression, along with anxiety, in medically ill seniors both increases
the morbidity and mortality and burdens not only the individual but society with higher
health costs and utilization. It is also linked to a poorer functional status and outcomes
for patients (Kim, Braun, & Kunick, 2001). Ormel and colleagues (1998) noted that
depressive symptoms contribute more to functional disability, poor health perception,
and poor well-being than most chronic medical conditions. In persons aged 65 and older,
the incidence of depression increases with the degree of physical health problems. Higher
levels of mortality among depressed patients may have as a contributor psychological
stress, which triggers the production of cortisol by the adrenal glands and thereby
adversely affects the immune system. Unfortunately 70% to 90% of late-life depression
is undiagnosed (Koenig, 1999).
Untreated depression among older people can be deadly. The suicide rate in old
age is the highest of any age group: 67.6 suicides per 100,000 in persons age 85 and
older, five times the national rate for all ages of 12 per 100,000 (Butler, 1997). An
estimated one out of six patients seen by a primary care physician is suffering from
depression. In about 25% of cases of depression, a contributing factor may be chronic
physical illness such as heart disease, stroke, cancer, lung disease, arthritis, and
Parkinson’s disease (Butler, 1997). Depression, especially in older adults, is prevalent but
often unrecognized in patients with other medical disorders. If left untreated, comorbid

3
depression may lead to a worsening of certain medical conditions such as coronary artery
disease (Evans, 1997).
Depressed patients suffer from symptomatic and fatal ischemic heart disease at a
higher rate than nondepressed patients. Alterations in sympathetic and parasympathetic
tone possibly make depressed patients more vulnerable to ventricular fibrillation.
Comorbid depression and cardiac disease are commonly encountered by any clinician
treating older patients. Furthermore, depressed patients have poorer outcomes than
nondepressed patients with similar degrees of heart disease. Depressed patients have a
higher than expected rate of sudden cardiovascular death. Patients with depression
develop symptomatic and fatal ischemic heart disease at a higher rate when compared
with a nondepressed group (Roose, Devanand, & Suthers, 1999).
Depression in older persons is associated with significant decrease in physical
mobility and increase in disability associated with activities of daily living. Depression
can adversely affect biological processes that may enhance susceptibility to disease or
cause neuromuscular factional decline (Penninx & Leveille, 1999). People who are
depressed have significantly greater mortality following a myocardial infarction (MI) and
are more likely to have a reinfarction. Senior citizens suffering from myocardial
infarction often present with restless agitation or confusion. Congestive heart failure can
produce anxiety, fatigue, or poor concentration. Hypertension, which affects 40% of the
elderly, is often treated with medication that has a high potential of causing depression
(Vickers, 1988) Depression puts enormous stress on a person’s psychological system.
Serotonin levels are decreased in the brain of anyone who is depressed. It has been
reported that serotonin levels in platelet cells also might be decreased in depressed
people, making platelets more coagulable and increasing the risk of MI (Koenig, 1999).

4
Besides depression, another disorder confronting not only the senior population
but also all Americans is cardiovascular disease. Cardiovascular disease is the leading
cause of illness and death in the United States. An estimated 14 million Americans have
a history of MI with costs to the health care system reaching $60 billion per year. The
three risk factors that can be modified to lower the risk of cardiovascular disease and
death are hypercholesterolemia, hypertension, and cigarette smoking (Pennington &
Tecce, 1997).
These are just two striking examples of a myriad of illnesses that affect, in
particular, the senior population. Understandably, depression is not solely linked to a lack
of forgiveness as there are many causes and factors, yet learning to forgive can be an
important antidote. Forgiving is effective in resolving feelings of remorse, guilt, anger,
anxiety, and fear (Cemey, 1988; Fitzgibbons, 1986) The field is now ripe for innovative,
challenging treatment with increased potential to positively impact the lives of senior
citizens with psychiatric symptoms and disorders (Stanley, 2001) Considering the high
rate of incomplete response to antidepressants, the negative effects on the quality of life,
and costly increases in health care, it poses a challenge to the medical fields to find a
suitable option (Scogin et al., 2001). Using psychosocial treatments as adjuncts to the
antidepressant medication is an appealing option. Psychotherapy is designed to get to the
root of the problem, which medicated treatment is unable to target. Psychosocial
treatments can present coping strategies to utilize when facing stressors and the means
for dealing with demoralization and feelings of hopelessness and despair (Scogin et ah,
2001). Forgiveness can be a major component in the healing process. Forgiveness
interventions have been related to reductions in anxiety (Al-Mabuk, Enright, & Cardes,
1995; Coyle & Enright, 1997; Freedman & Enright, 1996), reductions in anger (Coyle &

5
Enright, 1997), and reductions in depression (Freedman & Enright, 1996). Evidence has
emerged that positive emotional states, such as love, and conditions that foster positive
emotions, such as intimate relationships, have health-enhancing effects (Medalie &
Goldbourt, 1996; Medalie, Strange, Zyzanoki, & Goldbourt, 1992; Seeman & Syme,
1987). Forgiveness quite possibly can have an empirically discemable positive influence
on physical health.
Forgiveness involves the affective, cognitive, and behavioral systems. When one
forgives, certain elements are subtracted from each system. A key benefit is that negative
emotions, such as anger, hatred, resentment, hostility, sadness and/or contempt, are given
up (Richards, 1988). In the cognitive system, one gives up condemning and blaming
judgment and the plotting of revenge where this was occurring. In the behavioral system,
one chooses to no longer act out of revenge (North, 1987).
When one forgives, certain elements are added to each system. In the affective
system, the negative emotions are replaced by more neutral emotions and eventually by
positive acts, such as unselfish love (Cunningham, 1985; Downie, 1965; North, 1987).
On the cognitive system, the offender may realize he or she has a right to negative
emotions, yet is most willing to give them up (North, 1987). Positive thoughts now
emerge toward the offender (Smedes, 1984). There is the promising potential for the
forgiver to experience both inner release and healed relationship (Augsburger, 1981).
Although the relationship between forgiveness and positive emotions has yet to
be investigated empirically, present correlational data have shown significant positive
relations between forgiveness and a sense of well being (Ashleman, 1996; Nousse, 1997).
When one sincerely forgives, emerging positive emotions may greatly influence the

6
quality of the relationship between the two parties. Consequently, forgiveness may have a
substantial and lasting impact on the physical health of the offended.
The benefits from the effort to forgive outweigh the struggle to achieve it.
Significant among them are a decreased level of anger and hostility and increased
feelings of love and compassion (Medalie & Goldbourt, 1996; Seeman & Syme, 1987;
Shapiro, Schwartz, & Aston, 1996), improved ability to deflate anger (Coyle & Enright,
1997; Huang, 1990; Sarinopoulos, 1996), enhanced capacity to trust, and freedom from
the subtle control of individuals and events of the past. Of particular importance is the
decrease of the feelings of anger and hostility.
Although not entirely consistent, there is striking evidence for a relationship
between hostility and coronary heart disease (CHD). Miller and colleagues (Miller,
Smith, Turner, Guijarro, & Hallet, 1996) noted that hostility was independently
associated with objective evidence of CHD, for example, confirmed myocardial
infarction. Some evidence is beginning to emerge on some of the dire effects that
hostility might possibly have on the cardiovascular system. Hostility was found to be
associated with angiographic coronary stenosis (Barefoot et al., 1994; Williams et al.,
1980) and silent ventricular dysfunction (Burg, Jain, Soufer, Kerns, & Zaret, 1993).
Further, hostility has been connected to other life threatening illnesses and mortality
(Chesney & Rosenman, 1985; Friedman, 1992; Johnson, 1990; Matthews et al., 1986;
Smith, 1992). Schekelle, Gail, Ostfelt, and Paul (1983) found hostility scores to predict
mortality from not only CHD but from other illnesses as well. Impressively, Barefoot,
Dahlstrom. and Williams (1983) and Barefoot, Dodge, Peterson, Dahlstrom, and
Williams (1989) found that hostility singularly predicted all-cause mortality over 25-
and 28-year follow-up periods.

7
An impressive body of evidence has been gathered on the relationship between
anger expression and hypertension. Not only suppressed (Diamond, 1982; Harburg,
Blakelock, & Roeper, 1979; Harburg et al., 1973; Julius & Johnson, 1985; Thomas,
1997) but expressed anger (Engebretson, Matthews, & Scheier, 1989; Gentry, 1985;
Gentry, Chesney, Gary, Hall, & Harburg, 1982; Schalling, 1985; Spielberger et al., 1985)
have been found to be significantly related to elevated blood pressure and hypertension.
Links between stress or distress and immunity may have even more potent health
consequences for older adults because immune function declines with age, particularly
functional aspects of the cellular immune response (Murasko, Weiner, & Kaye, 1988;
Wayne, Rhyne, & Garry, 1990; Yoshikawa, 1983). Among adults over 75 years of age,
pneumonia and influenza together are the fourth leading cause of death (Yoshikawa,
1983).
Besides hostility, anger has also been shown to affect other common health
problems. Arena, Bruno, Rozantine, and Meador (1997) found that tension headache
sufferers stored significantly more suppressed anger compared to nonpain controls. In a
national sample of Black adults, Johnson and Broman (1987) found that increased levels
of outwardly expressed anger was associated with a greater number of health problems
(e.g., ulcers, cancer, hypertension, and diabetes). Supporting this premise, Vandervoort,
Ragland, and Syme (1996) found that both suppressed and expressed anger aggravated
health problems ranging from gastrointestinal to musculoskeletal health complaints.
The Role of Forgiveness
Forgiveness is closely, though not solely, connected to a religious/spiritual
outlook. Many elders turn to their religiousness to help cope with physical and emotional
problems (Koenig, 1999). Religiously committed older adults are notably healthier,

8
happier, and enjoy greater life satisfaction and are less depressed, anxious, and lonely
(Koenig, 1999). Religious coping has been related to lower rates of depression in both
cross-sectional (Idler, 1987; Koenig, Cohen, Blazer, Kudler, Krishnan, & Sibert 1995;
Pressman, Lyons, Larson, & Strain, 1990) and longitudinal studies (Idler & Kasl, 1992;
Koenig et al., 1992). A number of studies have demonstrated that religiously active older
adults have lower blood pressure (Larson et al., 1989), fewer strokes (Colantinio, Kasl, &
Ostfeld, 1992), fewer deaths from coronary heart disease (Goldbourt, Yaari, & Medalie,
1993), and longer survival overall (Gartner, Larson, & Allen, 1991; Zuckerman, Kasl, &
Ostfeld, 1984)
Definition of Term
Enright and the Human Development Study Group [HDSG] (1991a) developed
their definition from a threefold approach: how one thinks, feels and acts toward the
offender. The definition includes judgments (how the forgiver thinks about the offender)
emotions (how one feels toward the offfender), and behavior (how the forgiver acts
toward the offender) in the forgiveness process. This definition has been operationalized
in the Enright Forgiveness Inventory (Subkoviak, Enright, & Wu, 1992), which provides
the means for quantitatively measuring levels of interpersonal forgiveness in the
affective, behavioral, and cognitive domains.
The definition is as follows:
Forgiveness is the overcoming of negative affect and judgment toward the
offender, not by denying ourselves the right to such affect and judgment but by
endeavoring to view the offender with benevolence, compassion, and even love,
while recognizing that he or she has abandoned the right to them. (Subkoviak et
al., 1992, p. 3)

The Purpose of the Study
This study is an investigation of the relationship between forgiveness and
physical health in senior citizens that has yet to be empirically investigated. The
scientific evidence that anger and its related concept of hostility are health hazards has
grown rapidly over the past few decades (e.g., Friedman, 1996; BCranz, Baum, & Singer,
1983; Stone, Cohen, & Adler, 1979; Williams & Williams, 1993) and will be analyzed.
As well, there is evidence that indicates that wholesome emotions such as love and
healthy relationships with those close to us have health-enhancing effects (e.g., Coleman,
1989; Ornish, 1998).
As forgiveness is a process in which negative emotions are replaced by positive
emotions and wounded relationships can be healed (Hope, 1987), forgiveness might have
an empirically discemable positive influence on physical health. Thereby, the main goal
of the present study is to access the relationship of forgiveness, hostility, and suppressed
and expressed anger with physical health while taking into account the impact of a
number of demographic and health risk factors (e.g., sex, body mass, smoking, alcohol,
salt, caffeine, and exercise).
Hypotheses
The following hypotheses were investigated in this study.
1. Forgiveness will be positively related to physical health. High scorers on
forgiveness will have fewer physical health problems, and vice versa.
2. Hostility and both suppressed and expressed anger will be negatively
related to physical health. High scorers on anger and hostility will have
more physical health problems, and vice versa.
3. Forgiveness, anger and hostility will remain significantly related to
physical health after controlling for age, sex, smoking, liquor, caffeine,
body mass, exercise, and salt.

10
4. Forgiveness will remain significantly related to physical health after
controlling for anger and hostility.
Significance of the Study
Forgiveness can play a major role in the healing process. A number of mental
health professionals have suggested the expression of anger as a more appropriate way to
deal with negative emotions (Freud, 1963; Janov, 1970; Novoca, 1975; Rubin, 1970).
The expression of anger is not only important but salutary; but when solely relied on for
relief, it is inadequate to prevent serious complications because of the degree and
strength of unresolved anger from previous disappointments encountered in childhood,
adolescence, and adult life (Fitzgibbons, 1986). Forgiveness may fulfill that vital role for
healing.
The goal of the therapeutic process is to help people resolve painful and self-
defeating patterns of behavior. All therapists are confronted in their work with the
facts of injustice, the abuse of the weak by the strong, betrayer of trust, loyalty,
and innocence. One sees the results of these actions in adult clients in the patterns
of self-punishment and self-limitation in their distorted images of the social world
in the rage directed inward acted out against other or anesthetized with
substances. (Hope, 1987, p. 241)
As clients may resist or be hesitant to change or employ the paradoxical act of
forgiveness, the hope of enhanced physical health may prove to be an invaluable
incentive. If forgiveness can be seen as a gift that we give ourselves (Freedman &
Enright, 1996), clients may be more willingly to avail themselves of this salutary act,
leading to freedom and healing of the mind, body, and emotions.

CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Without forgiveness, resentment builds in us, a resentment which
turns into hostility and anger. Hatred eats away at our well-being.
(Archbishop Tutu, 1995)
Forgiveness as a psychotherapeutic goal was virtually untapped until the 1980s.
If one would examine the published voices examining interpersonal forgiveness, the
likely conclusion would be that the psychological treatment of forgiveness has been
overlooked until recently (McCullough, Worthington, & Rachal, 1997). Besides the
theological circles, forgiveness appears to have been ignored throughout all of academia,
not just in the social sciences (Enright & North, 1998). The major theories of personality
appear to have not been interested in the process of forgiveness (Shontz & Rosenak,
1988). It has been a long time since Augustine’s City of God (413) discussed
interpersonal forgiveness, and it is from that date in history that forgiveness between
people fell deafly silent in published literature (Augustine, 397/1963).
From this dormant state, forgiveness now claims a reputable place in the main
stream of psychotherapeutic literature from many and diverse perspectives. Looking over
the past 15 years, forgiveness has crossed over from its acknowledged domain in
religious literature and practice into the scientific community. Empirical research has
shown impressive results, and practitioners are developing both an enthusiasm and
interest for its wide angle potential (Lampman, 1999). Once relegated to religious circles
and considered as the extra mile of mercy toward the offender that is required from a
11

12
“believer,” forgiveness is now a viable tool for those striving to overcome estrangement
and negative emotions (Smedes, 1996). Forgiveness is now emerging in philosophy
(North, 1987; Richards, 1988), psychotherapy (McCullough, Pargament, & Thoresen,
2000), marital counseling (Boon & Sulsky, 1997), family therapy (DiBlasio & Proctor,
1993) and developmental psychology (Enright & HDSG, 1991a) as an important
component for positive health outcomes (Coyle & Enright, 1997; Freedman & Enright,
1996; Kaufman, 1984) and even inner healing for HIV/AIDS patients (Childs, 2001;
Redfield, 2001) and physical health (Sarinopoulos, 1999; Luskin et al., 2001; Witvliet, in
press).
Forgiveness has been rare in the empirical literature possibly because it has been
so closely tied to theology, not science (Fitzgibbons, 1986; North, 1987; Shontz &
Rosenak, 1988). Understandably, forgiveness has always been recognized as important
for the healing process in biblical literature, particularly in Christian literature. Most
likely due to its strong religious connotation, forgiveness was ignored in psychotherapy
with only two professional articles before 1988 (Fitzgibbons, 1986). Fitzgibbons (1986)
speculates that the absence of forgiveness studies in psychology is likely due to the
concept’s identification with theology.
Secular psychology has not dealt adequately with the topic. Seemingly, this has
been in the past due to the “paranoia” of secular psychology concerning its much-desired
“scientific” status. Psychologists historically have not wanted to address any topic that is
philosophical or religious (Van Leeuwen, 1982). No doubt, this belief is partially rooted
in the historical separation between the therapeutic professions and religion (Denton &
Martin, 1998). DiBlasio and Benda (1991) found that there is a strong bias in the
psychological community against using concepts that have religious connotations. They

13
point out that religiously oriented concepts are frequently presented in highly abstract
ways without practical application to everyday problems. Even counselors with a
religious background similar to that of their clients may believe that religious issues
belong outside the secular counseling session (Worthington, 1989). Wulff (1996) wrote
that the psychology of religion is rather descriptive (documenting the varieties and types
of religious experiences) or explanatory (seeking the origins of religious experience and
psychological, biological, or environmental events). The explanatory approach
(harboring such distinguished names as Sigmund Freud, James Leuba, and B. F. Skinner)
typically has been hostile to religion seeing it as a cause of pathology. This separation
has been said to reflect humanistic values thought to underlie therapeutic systems and
therapists (Bergin, 1980; McMinn, 1984). Writers such as Ellis (1960, 1980) have
emphasized their perspective that religion is a clear source for pathology and that
humanism can supply all the values of religion with none of the neuroses. It is no wonder
that forgiveness with its strong religious connections had gone virtually ignored until the
mid-80s. This lack of acceptance towards forgiveness due to its close connection to
spiritual principles is also its source of strength. It is its connection to spiritual principles
that adds to, rather than subtracts from, its strength. There is a spiritual reality and
spiritual experiences make a difference in our behavior (Bergin, 1988).
A major contribution of a spiritual perspective is that it anchors value in universal
terms. This is important because therapeutic interventions are not value-free. Values
determine the goals of the treatment. They also play a vital role in the selection of
techniques and in the evaluation of outcomes (London, 1986; Lowe, 1976). What values
determine the goals of treatment? How do we set those goals? All goals, whether they are
goals for symptom relief or goals to modify a lifestyle, are supported by value systems.

14
Rather than being a stumbling block, forgiveness’ spiritual roots should enhance, rather
than subtract, its favor in the psychological field.
Another possible reason that there has been no investigation of forgiveness in the
psychoanalytic literature is that psychoanalysis resolves conflict by excusing. When, for
example, clients work through childhood injuries, they develop insight into why their
parents might have treated them as they did. Instead of judging their parents with
primitive standards, they learn to interpret their parents in more moderated and mature
ways (Gabbard, 1990). This new understanding explains their parents’ behavior in a way
that makes them helpless victims of their own conditioning. Rather than remain trapped
in the patterns that trapped their parents, patients choose to find new ways of living for
themselves. They go forward on their own rather than go back to work things out with
their parents who are excused rather than forgiven (Veenstra, 1992). As well, the
paradoxical nature of forgiveness leaves it vulnerable, not to be understood or
appreciated as a helpful healing element. It appears on the surface as too simple,
impractical, or not applicable to the serious problems of life (Hope, 1987).
Why Now Forgiveness?
To what can one attribute this relatively new interest and respect for the role of
forgiveness in the field of mental health? Two movements may have heralded the role of
forgiveness. First, the Alcoholics Anonymous approach expanded to assist the adult
children of alcoholic parents grappling with the emotional aftermath of their childhood
abuse (Ackerman, 1987; Middleton-Moz & Divinell, 1986), and secular abuse began to
uncover the importance of forgiveness in releasing their patients from destructive
relationships with their abusive parents (Bass & Davis, 1988; Farmer, 1989). This insight
provided a crack in the defensive wall against forgiveness. Along with this, the 1980s

15
saw an appreciation toward issues of care and responsiveness as ways to solve moral
dilemmas (Gilligan, 1982). Notably absent from the discourse of moral psychology has
been the issue of mercy, on how people deal with injustices that have already taken place.
Mercy, as a new area of research within moral development, emphasizes a person’s
willingness to go beyond duty, a willingness to go beyond the requirements of justice
toward beneficially aiding someone who may not deserve the kindness. Forgiveness calls
for such an attitude and approach (Hebl & Enright, 1993).
Up until the 1980s, the field of moral development was primarily based on the
Kohlbergian emphasis on justice. The former field has broadened its parameters to
include constructs such as caring (Brabeck, 1989; Gilligan, Ward, & Taylor, 1988) and
forgiveness (Enright & HDSG, 1991b). By employing such constructs of care and mercy,
it has now been recognized by physicians working with cancer patients (Phillips &
Osborne, 1989) and by therapists interested in anger reduction in clients (Fitzgibbons,
1986; Hope, 1987; Kaufman, 1984).
This overdue recognition of the salutary effects of forgiveness has long been
awaited. Justice has dominated the study of moral development since Kohlberg’s (1985)
landmark work. Yet, it is forgiveness, not justice, that is frequently labeled divine,
sublime (Morrow, 1984), humanizing (Calian, 1981), courageous (Cunningham, 1985;
Kaufman, 1984), healthy (Droll, 1984; Hope, 1987), restorative (Murphy, 1982), and
fulfilling (Beck, 1988). Psychiatrists (Kaufman, 1984), pastoral counselors (Cunningham,
1985), counseling psychologists (Eastin, 1988; Hebl, 1990), clinical psychologists (Cole,
1998; Fitzgibbons, 1986; Hope 1987), humanistic writers (Jampolsky, 1985), and
developmental psychologists (Enright, Santos, & A1 Mabuk, 1989) all have begun
discussing and extolling the advantages of interpersonal or person-to-person forgiveness

16
within the helping professions. Philosophers such as Frankena (1973), however, are quick
to point out that a more complete view of morality must encompass not only justice but
mercy as well. The basic moral principle underlying justice is equality, whereas the
moral principle underlying forgiveness is the more challenging and noble task of love
tempered by its moral sense (Enright, Gassin, & Wu, 1992).
What Is Interpersonal Forgiveness?
Ancient Concents
There are a number of ancient philosophical systems, which may not mention
forgiveness by name such as Buddhism and Confucianism but do emphasize the
constructs of mercy and compassion. These are the two key components in forgiveness.
Forgiveness is embedded in discussions of compassion, magnanimity, and altruism,
without sharp or even subtle distinctions among them. This approach is part and parcel to
its philosophy. From the many religious accounts of forgiveness, it is most thoroughly
and succinctly articulated by the world’s great monotheistic faiths—Judaism,
Christianity, and Islam (McCullough & Worthington, 1999). These ancient systems, most
notably Judaism and Christianity, offer perhaps the most specific and clear cut ideas on
interpersonal forgiveness. Looking at these ancient religions along with Hinduism will
help contribute to our understanding and knowledge of the roots of forgiveness. Their
perspectives on forgiveness offer insight on how religion both influences and forms the
understanding and application of the psychological processes in forgiveness.
Pargament and Rye (1998) have proposed several ways in which religion can
contribute insight toward forgiveness. Forgiveness properly offered can be sanctified, or
imbued, with divine-like qualities. In theistic religions, forgiveness becomes the primary
means for imitation of God, fulfilling God's plan, or enhancing one’s personal

17
relationship with the divine. In addition, religion provides numerous role models of
individuals who have forgiven despite profound injustices and who invite imitation.
Religion also offers world views that may be absent to help victims to reffame their
attitudes toward their offenders. Furthermore, religious faith can help individuals cope
with the uncertainty surrounding the choice to forgive.
The Hebrew Bible and the subsequent Jewish tradition represent the first
thorough expositions of divine and interpersonal forgiveness. The primary Hebrew word
salah occurs 46 times in the Hebrew Bible and is translated as “to forgive” (Vine, 1985).
In this religious context, it refers to God removing sin from the people. According to
Landman (1941), salah has both a spiritual and a moral connotation. It represents a
totally free act of God’s removing sin or a person’s removing of trespasses of another by
placing them out of sight. One of God’s primary attributes is God’s willingness to forgive
sinful individuals (Exodus 34:66-7), provided there are adequate repentance and a desire
to improve one’s conduct (Landman, 1941). Two other words that incorporate
forgiveness in their range of meanings are kapar, to cover or atone for wrongdoing, and
nasa, to lift up a sin and carry it away (Vine, 1985). In Ancient Hebrew culture, there was
the well-defined practice of animal sacrifices, which was accompanied by repentance in
the removing of sin by the divine authority.
Forgiveness restores the offender to the relation once formerly enjoyed with the
other person and community. Such a relation in the Hebrew community demands
reciprocal love (Leviticus 19:18). Love here includes all psychological systems of affect,
cognition, and behavior (Deuteronomy 6: 5). Peace of mind is also restored (Landman,
1941). Forgiveness in Jewish tradition is not an option but a moral duty based on the

18
doctrine of “imitatio dei,” the imitation of God as supreme forgiver (Newman, 1987;
Shapiro, 1978).
One of the most important and distinguishing elements of early Judaism was the
core belief that God was capable of forgiving humanity for its transgressions (Klassen,
1966; McCullough, Sandage, & Worthington, 1997; Telfer, 1960). What now perhaps
seems expected of God-forgiveness was so innovative that it became the distinguishing
mark between Judaism and the other religious traditions in the region of Palestine
(McCullough & Worthington, 1999). The possibility of teshuvah (Hebrew for “return” or
“repentance”), which could lead to the gift of forgiveness from God, became the focal
point of Jewish moral life (Dorf, 1992,1998; Neusner, 1997; Telfer, 1960). Judaism
holds that God forgives on the basis of repentance and that people should be so inspired
to forgive repentant transgressors as well (Dorf, 1992, 1998; Neusner, 1997). Thereby,
forgiving one’s offenders following sincere repentance is not a moral prerogative or
expectation within Judaism but a religious duty (Enright, Gassin, & Wu, 1992; Neusner,
1997; Newman, 1987).
In Jewish thought, forgiveness signifies that the very violation itself is removed.
The injured parties who forgive may still remove the transgression and retain the right to
take some precautions to make sure that they will not suffer that way again. By forgiving
the perpetrator, they now accept the individual and are open to a possible ongoing
relationship (Dorf et al., 2000). Forgiveness is a core element of the Jewish tradition. The
10 days between Rosh Hoshana and Yom Kippur are holy days in which Jews search
their hearts for the wrongs they have committed and ask one another for forgiveness.
They desire to begin the new year with a clean slate initiated by the cleansing power of
forgiveness. Indeed, forgiveness is the primary work for the Day of Atonement. The

19
Talmud states that God created repentance before he created the universe (Rodden,
1997).
Forgiveness in New Testament Literature
Hannah Arendt, one of the foremost philosophers of the 20th century, attributes
the discovery of the role forgiveness in the realm of human affairs to Jesus of Nazareth
(Arendt, 1958). The theological understandings of forgiveness discussed below are
rooted in the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures, both of which provide numerous
examples of interpersonal forgiveness (Gladson, 1992; Pingleton, 1989). Interpersonal
forgiveness is understood theologically within the context of divine forgiveness and in
reference to the problem of evil. Forgiveness may be understood as something one
discovers rather than something one does or an attitude one has.
The predominant theological understanding of interpersonal forgiveness, as it is
depicted in the Christian scriptures, first and foremost in the teachings of Jesus, is that
interpersonal and divine forgiveness are inextricably related. One cannot be separated
from the other. Theologically, one cannot consider the forgiveness of another person
outside unless viewed through the context of God’s forgiveness. Soares-Prabhu (1986)
states that the reason the Christian Scriptures consistently relate forgiveness to God’s
forgiveness is because our openness to forgive others is not “just a happy trait of
character or an acquired psychological disposition. It is a religious attitude rooted in the
core Christian experience of an utterly forgiving God” (p. 59). Rubio (1986) further
emphasizes that every experience of forgiveness has God as its ultimate foundation and
can only be explained in reference to God. God always plays the leading role in
forgiveness.
A second predominant feature in our understanding of forgiveness is from the
theological perspective of sin and evil. Sobrino (1986), in his sober analysis of Latin

20
America as a place of both sin and forgiveness, states that sin is a physical evil for the
victim and a moral evil for the perpetrator. The role of forgiveness is to free the sinner
(the perpetrator) from this evil and convert and recreate him/her. For Sobrino, the
fundamental message regarding forgiveness is that for the radical healing of the sinner to
take place, it can be only accomplished through the power of love expressed through the
context of forgiveness (Sobrino, 19S6). He compares this to how Jesus acted and how
many Christians are challenged to act: “Forgive with love in the hope that this love will
transform the sinner” (p. 51). Dumortier (1993) describes forgiving as being able to
envision a future that would not be a continuation of the past but at the same time, not
ignoring the transgressions that occurred in the past and acknowledging that it is part of
one’s life. In the strength of the present and the strength of forgiveness coexists a tension
between the unerasable past and the promise of the future. In his view, forgiveness opens
one to the hope of a better future through a God of mercy and a God of forgiveness.
The New Testament writings preserved the terminology and carried over the
concepts and metaphorical images of forgiveness in the Old Testament and reapplied
them directly to the efficacious results of Christ’s death, which provided sinners the
righteous basis for divine forgiveness. Human forgiveness resulted from the realization
that one has received the unmerited gift of divine forgiveness (Colossians 3:13). A
composite picture of God’s forgiveness in the New Testament was gained by combining
the definitions of the 12 main Greek terms used by writers of the New Testament. As the
Lamb of God, Christ came to take away, or bear away, the sin of the world (John 1: 29; 1
John 3: 5). Those who repented and put their faith in Christ had their sins forgiven,
blotted out, or obliterated (Col. 2: 14) from their personal record. This action of blotting
out, or covering sin (IPeter 4: 8), flowed from God’s love and mercy for the sinner.

21
Rather than treat the sinner in the way he deserved, as an act of unconditional favor, God
graciously forgave him (Col.l: 13; Luke7: 42,43), canceled his debt (Coll: 14),
pardoned him, and removed his guilt; and he was discharged (Mark 2: 5), set free from
further obligation Matt 18; 27). Forgiveness resulted in the sinner being loosed from his
sins and washed clean from its stain (ICor 6:11). Preeminently, it is Christ’s command to
his followers that they are to forgive as God has forgiven them (Lukel 1:4). This remains
the guide and model on how we are to forgive. Christians are to offer their enemy
forgiveness in return for a transgression. Through forgiveness one becomes like the
“heavenly Father” (Matt. 5:48) and is the means to obtain peace.
In the New Testament, the most common words denoting forgiveness in the
original Greek are (a)eleao (and cognate nouns), show mercy (78 times) and (b) aphiemi-
release, discharge, put away (64 times). It signifies that sins are sent away, divine
punishment is removed, and a harmonious relationship between God and the formerly
sinful person is now restored (Vine, 1985). Another word used, though infrequently but
in a striking way, is splanchnizomai. This term is commonly understood as “feeling sorry
for” or “having a compassionate perspective for someone.” Its origin is from the word
“intestines.” A literal translation would be to pour out one’s insides (Williams, 2000).
Three other Greek words that include forgiveness in their scope of meanings are
charizomai, to bestow a favor unconditionally; apouo, to release as quasi judicial act or to
give up negative judgments and/or behavior toward an offender; and agape, to
unconditionally love in a charitable or benevolent fashion (Strong, 1984; Vine, 1985).
Forgiveness possesses the dual qualities of God’s casting away our sin (conditionally on
repentance and acceptance of Christ’s sacrifice) and drawing the person in love (without
condition).

22
Interpersonal forgiveness in Christianity is to be strictly analogous to the divine
form, similar to the mentioned “imitatio dei” (Matthew 18:21-22, Vine, 1985). As one is
forgiven, the individual has the duty to practice forgiveness toward others. The forgiver
is exemplifying agape by unconditionally drawing the other in love. As in the Hebrew
community, love is an addition of elements to affect (positive feelings), cognition
(positive thoughts), and behavior (giving back to or serving the community). Similar to
the Jewish teachings, both the forgiven and forgiver are restored to a sense of peace and
well being (Galatians 5:22). Most Christian theologies still emphasize the constant need
to seek forgiveness from people and from God. It is expected of Christians to grant
forgiveness to one another as an exercise in the learning to live as brothers and sisters in
God’s kingdom (MacKintosh, 1927).
The Hebrew and Christian conceptions of forgiveness are more developed than
the ancient systems. Some notable differences are (a) they do not embody the concept
into general discussions of mercy, (b) they clearly see forgiveness as occurring in the
face of considerable injustice, (c) they specify the interpersonal and the interpersonal
quality of forgiveness, (d) they consciously bring forgiveness into the arena of ethics by
postulating moral love as the foundational principle, and (e) they expound on the precise
outcomes (inner peace, communal harmony) through its practice (Enright, Eastin,
Golden, Sarinopoulos, & Freedman, 1992)
Islam
God’s desire and ability to forgive all sins is an essential quality of God’s
character in Muslim theology (Ayoub, 1997). Islamic scriptures and piety similar to
Christianity encourage its inherents to forgive others to the same extent that they
themselves desire to be forgiven (McCullough & Worthington, 1999). In the eyes of

23
some scholars, the desire to be more forgiving is more virtuous and endearing to God
than is the pursuit of justice (Hathout, 1997). Those who forgive instead of gaining
revenge can expect a special blessing from God (Rye et al., 2000).
The concept of forgiveness in the Qur’an is expressed primarily in three terms: (a)
‘afw, used 35 times; (b) safhu, used 8 times; and (c) ghafara, used 234 times. ‘Afw means
to pardon, to excuse a fault, an offense, or a discourtesy, waiver of punishment, and
amnesty. Examples of usage in the Qur’ran are verses 42:40,2:187, and 5:95. Safhu
means to turn away from a sin or a misdeed. Examples of such usage in the Qur’an are
verses 2:109, 15:85, and 43:89. Ghafara or maghfira means to convert, to forgive, and to
remit. Examples of usage in th Qur’an are verses 2:263,42:37, and 43:43 (Asad, 1980).
The God Allah is the ultimate power who can forgive. One of Allah’s 99
attributes is Al-Ghafoor, the Forgiving One. Forgiveness means “closing, an account of
offense against God or any of his creation”(Ali et al., 2000, p. 21). However forgiveness
must meet the criteria of sincerity. An offense may be against (a) a person; (b) a group of
persons or society; (c) other creations of God such as animal, plants, land, atmosphere,
and bodies of water and the life therein; and (d) God, Allah. Muslims understand that an
offense against the creation of God is an offense against God (Ali et al., 2000, p. 21)
Like Christianity, those who desire to be forgiven for their own offenses must
learn to forgive others (Luke 11:4). Especially if they seek forgiveness from God, they
should learn to forgive others for their offenses. If they desire that God overlook their
weaknesses, they should learn to overlook the weaknesses of others. Forgiveness is
important for two reasons:
1. It is very important, for the afterlife. We forgive to gain forgiveness. Seeking
forgiveness exemplifies humility, and forgiving others is a sign of magnanimity.

24
2. Seeking forgiveness and granting forgiveness brings happiness in the present life.
Further, forgiving improves relations with people by bringing good reputation and
gaining respect. (Ali et al., 2000)
Hinduism
Ksama, or ksamata, is the word most commonly used to signify forgiveness. It is
usually joined with words for mercy such as kripa, prasada, daya, or compassion, karuna.
The far-reaching concepts of forgiveness, duty, righteousness, forbearance, compassion,
and patience are explored in the epics and the dharma sastras (treatises on righteousness).
It is paramount to put these virtues into practice. Through karma (principle; role of cause
and effect), individuals deal with the consequences of their actions in subsequent
reincarnations. Therefore, one can presume that if one fails or refuses to forgive the
negative feelings and unresolved issues along with the hostility and seething anger,
negative karma is destined to spill over into future births. Those who desire to follow the
path of dharma must follow the path of forgiveness, compassion, and forbearance.
Forgiveness holds great importance in the Hindu tradition (Beck et al., 2000).
Philosophical Perspectives of Forgiveness
Moral philosophers have largely ignored the concept of forgiveness, certainly
when one compares it to attention received by the related concept of punishment.
Plausible reasons may be that forgiveness is viewed as supererogatory, possessing an
ethical significance but yet standing peculiarly outside the range of moral obligation or
fault. From this framework, the pedestrian conception of forgiveness as the prerogative
of someone wrongly harmed by another might be understood to imply that forgiveness is
like a favor or a fortuitous act. As a favor, it cannot be demanded. At a farther extreme
still, one could imagine the ideal of forgiveness as harmful or an outright wrong, by
analogy. For example, Spinoza’s rationalist criticism of repentance, often understood to

25
be a condition for forgiveness—“He who repents what he did is twice miserable” (Ethics,
Part IV, Prop. 54, 1994), suggests that someone who forgives a person who repents may
be worse off than before.
Most of the great moral philosophers of the past have recognized the intrinsic
worth of retribution as a response to wrongdoing. Kant (1964) tied retribution in the
framework of the moral law by arguing that the desire for retribution arises from the
perception that one’s rights have been violated by the wrong doer, and these rights
belong to us in virtue of our rational nature. Kant held that all persons are of equal
intrinsic worth. As a consequence, we ought to punish the wrongdoer for the willful
disregard for us as ends in ourselves. Further, Kant not only regards forgiveness as
problematic but literally impossible. Once wrong has been committed, it cannot be
undone, even by God. God is a Divine Judge against whose law the wrongdoer has
consciously and willfully transgressed (North, 1987). On one hand, Kant is correct. The
wrong can never be erased, but the effects it has on us can be defused to the point that it
has no effect on us. It no longer has to ensnare and control the victim. Hegel (North,
1987) proposes that the violator has freely chosen violence and pain as the maxim of his
action and therefore has a right to be punished. Punishment is an act of respect for the
wrongdoers. Forgiveness does not demand that there be no accounting of justice.
Equitable punishment is permissible, even when another forgives. Forgiveness frees the
individual from the chain of hostility and hate. The offender may have freely chosen to
inflict violence as Hegel suggests, but only forgiveness puts an end to the cycle of
mistrust and hatred and brings peace of mind and healing to the wounded (North, 1987).

26
The Unforgivable
Golding (1984) posits the question of whether there are wrongs that are so
heinous, so atrocious that they cannot or should not on moral grounds be forgiven. He
implies by example the holocaust, and perhaps now we can imagine the bombing of the
Twin Towers, that certain acts are beyond forgiveness. He states “granting forgiveness to a
malefactor who is not regretful often seems tantamount to condoning the wrong” (p. 22).
This is the great challenge of forgiveness that can easily, at times, tax our human
capability. This is the great inner struggle to suggest forgiveness or to hold onto the scars
of hate and vengeance. It is foolhardy and destructive to suggest forgiveness as a means
to mental health if by forgiving are we condoning or tacitly complying with the evil. We
may not only be unable to forgive but would be prudent and wise not to forgive all
misdeeds if simply overlooking or condoning acts of evil on whatever scale they may be.
The book The Sunflower (1976) wrestles with this very dilemma. The book
relates how a German soldier on his deathbed asks Simon Wiesenthal, a prisoner, to
forgive him for the atrocities he has committed against the Jewish people. As the prisoner
clasps Wiesenthal’s hand, he walks away refusing to offer any forgiveness, despite the
fact that the soldier, who is clearly about to die, seems remorseful and is pleading for his
forgiveness. Golding a philosopher who responds to the book, argues that WiesenthaTs
conduct is correct because the only people who could possibly forgive the German for
killing Jews are the victim themselves, but they are in no position to render forgiveness.
Furthermore, Golding says, despite the deep regret apparently felt by this German
soldier, the wrongs “may be” of such a magnitude that they lie beyond the scope of
forgiveness. These wrongs (and by implication those who committed them) exemplify
unforgivable acts.

27
The moral dilemma described by Wiesenthal cannot be resolved or simply
dismissed by maintaining that Wiesenthal was in no position to forgive. The fundamental
question is whether the Nazis are unforgivable because their deeds were so atrocious that
they owe an unpayable moral debt or, despite the atrocity, can be forgiven. To argue his
position, Golding presents four factors that would count toward establishing deeds as
unforgivable:
1. The only people who could appropriately forgive the atrocity are dead.
2. The deed is clearly inexcusable.
3. The deed is of such great magnitude that direct or indirect victims could never
appropriately be compensated for it in one’s lifetime life.
4. The deed is so atrocious that resentment of it will forever be justified. (Govier,
1999)
The philosopher Lang (1994) concurs with Golding—there are such deeds that
are unforgivable. He offers his five features of acts relevant to their status as
unforgivable. These are
1. voluntarism, especially if evidenced over a prolonged time;
2. the violation of an important, valued moral principle;
3. the magnitude of the consequences;
4. the lack of acknowledgment or repentance by the offender for the evil of the act
or acts; and
5. the inability or refusal of the offender to provide compensation to the victim.
Lang (1994) holds that there can very well exists unforgivable deeds and that these
conditions would justify for holding a deed or deeds as unforgivable.
All these claims link the unforgivability of wrongdoers to the unforgivability of
their deeds at times horrendous beyond description (Govier, 1999). Admittedly, if people
have committed barbaric acts of atrocity, it is far more difficult to forgive, or even to
have the desire to forgive them, than those acts which, though wrong, are not as severe.
The psychological obstacle, the emotional stumbling block that prevents forgiveness or
the desire to forgive, is that the deeds are appalling and that the victims have suffered so

28
much. The insult to both humanity and to moral principles is just too profound. In this
context, it would appear nearly impossible, if not impossible, to envision the wrongdoer
as a person and, just as challenging, to comprehend why anyone would commit such acts.
These and similar acts make it nearly impossible to feel empathy with, or compassion
for, the offender (Govier, 1999). It would appear beyond the capability of the ordinary
individual. In the face of such evil, forgiveness is nearly if not impossible.
The Possibility of Forgiveness
Despite the difficulty, the possibility of offering forgiveness still remains
plausible. Working through this innate resistance and maintaining that the principle of
forgiveness remains a viable option, the result is that objections to the gift of forgiveness
are no longer infallible. Forgiveness is offered to a person, not an act. The insistence that
some people cannot reform is objectionable. By clarifying this position, it may allow one
to overcome the major obstacle to the gift of forgiveness and have the confidence in
utilizing it as a justifiable and honorable tool. One errs if one stubbornly insists that some
people have become so indelibly evil that there is no possibility of their moral change.
One can, and does, admit that there exist deeds that are “unforgivable” as a way of
making our strong and intense moral disapprobation for them. At its essence, it is people
who are the recipients of forgiveness or the lack of forgiveness, not the deed. People can
change. Many persons have, do, and will change, and even those who have been guilty of
horrendous acts have changed.
In an experimental study at a drug rehab where the residents have struggled with
addictions for years and where some had resorted to a life of crime, homelessness, and
violence, some were introduced to forgiveness as a counseling variable while the control

29
group received only their normal drug treatment. Those who received forgiveness in
conjunction with the drug treatment showed a marked decrease in anxiety, hopelessness,
and depression. Despite years of addiction and failure, change was possible (Enright,
2001).
I wrote about a man who had murdered a 7-year-old girl. I asked, can such a man
be forgiven? In the months since I first met him, this man has undergone a
remarkable change. Whereas at first he was emotionally numb and saw his crime
as the inevitable, if awful, result of society’s ills, he has now begun to accept full
responsibility for his own actions. And he has begun to agonize over his need for
repentance—to weep for others, not for himself. Can such a man be forgiven? If
we truly believe in the power of forgiveness, we will be certain that he can. We
will never condone his crime, but we will not deny him God’s grace either, and
we will not doubt that even he can repent and be changed. (Arnold, p. 158, 1997)
To dismiss cavalierly and dogmatically reject these possibilities, to treat some
person as forever and necessarily incapable of moral change is in the final analysis to be
blind to acknowledge and recognize the innate and moral capacities of people to choose
another path. To regard a perpetrator of evil as conditionally unforgivable because they
have not acknowledged and do not wish nor make any effort to separate themselves from
the evil acts is morally justifiable. It expresses our innermost conviction that those acts
are what they are—evil— and our profound alienation from them and any individual that
willingly and knowingly partake in them. But to regard a perpetrator, even a perpetrator
of the worst atrocities imaginable, as absolutely unforgivable is another matter. By that
position one is declaring that no one should ever forgive an individual—no matter how
they feel, no matter what one says and does. That attitude is morally indefensible
(Govier, 1999).
Margaret Holmgren (1993), based on her unwavering belief for the respect for the
individual, upholds the position of unilateral forgiveness. She claims that victims of
transgressions must work through the delicate process of responding to unjust acts in

30
order to attain a state of genuine forgiveness. This process remains central to the
restoration of a victim’s self-respect, and forgiveness is both psychologically and
ethically inappropriate whenever it is incomplete. Holmgren takes the courageous stand
that forgiveness is always appropriate, whether the offender repents or not. Holmgren’s
views stem from a respect-for-person’s theory. All human persons are capable of choice
and thereby are autonomous. All, she holds, have intrinsic value, and equal intrinsic
value. Grounded on this framework, the morally appropriate attitude to extend toward all
human beings—wrongdoers included—is an attitude of sincere goodwill. For these
ultimate moral reasons, attitudes of resentment, hatred, and ill-will are morally
objectionable and ultimately inappropriate responses to a wrongdoer. Sustained and
festered anger and ill will presume that the wrongdoer’s character and potential are
immutable and limited to his wrongdoing. Consequently, the wrongdoer as a person is
nothing more than his wrongful deeds and is incapable of reform or for any morally
autonomous transformation. In its attribution of moral fixativity and inability or
unwillingness to recognize the offender’s capacity for moral change, the unforgiving
attitude amounts to a staunch attitude of disrespect for the wrongdoer as a person.
Robin Casarjian (1992) believes that within everyone is an essence. When people
act in abusive ways, we do not see the totality of that individual but only the fear-based
fragments of them. Forgiveness helps us see beyond the limits of their persona to the
potential of their essence that is worthy of respect and love. Gerald Jampolsky (1985)
said forgiveness is a choice to see the “light instead of the lampshade” (p. 76). According
to Calian (1981), “forgiveness is an attitude of lavishness and utter openness where we
refuse to be bound by the brokenness of our life together” (p. 441). Forgiveness does not
permissively condone violence, but it is our option of freeing ourselves from our need to

31
judge others and ourselves (Borysenko, 1990). Forgiveness allows us to absorb the full
impact of the evil committed while not losing sight of the perpetrator’s common
humanity (Gartner, 1988).
To forgive someone is to overcome our resentment or anger toward that person
and to be willing to regard the individual again as a member of the moral community.
Forgiving the individual is overcoming the toxic emotions of anger, resentment, or moral
hatred towards the individual. To adamantly refuse to forgive is to make no effort to
overcome such feelings. It is to stubbornly cling to them, perhaps even to cultivate them,
and perhaps to harbor visions of revenge. This hardness of heart and frame of mind can
only lead to stagnation and the continuance of pain for the individual.
Forgiveness is either something we extend or do not extend toward a person, and
it fundamentally affects the core of the relationships between persons. And yet it remains
the deeds, not the individual, that are said to be unforgivable. Persons are clearly distinct
and separate from their actions and remain capable of choice, originality, deliberations,
autonomy, and moral reform. These are core tenets of existentialism, humanistic
psychology, and respect-for-persons ethical theory and hold viable not only in theory but
even in the face of human injustice. We may hate, despise, and decry the wrongdoing
without at the same time and in the same way hating, decrying, and refusing to forgive
the wrongdoer. There lies the challenge of forgiveness.
A person who has murdered is a murderer, one who has stolen is a thief, and one
who has tortured is a torturer. In a deeper and real sense, a human and existentialist one,
such people are not only murderers, thieves, or torturers. Their essence cannot be defined
by their works. They are first and foremost human beings, whose past lives have included
evil but whose future remains open to the possibility of new and more noble choices. It is

32
always persons, the moral agents not their deeds, who are forgiven or held bound
(Govier, 1999).
Jean Hampton defines forgiveness as “a change of heart toward the wrongdoer in
which one drops any emotion of hatred or resentment toward them and their deed, takes a
pro-attitude toward them, and is disposed to make the offer of reconciliation” (Murphy &
Hampton, 1988, p. 84). Hampton cautions about an unwillingness to forgive or even
consider the option because it is much too easy to be unfair in evaluating others or
naively presume that we can see into their hearts and fully comprehend what they are
doing and why. Hampton observes that wrongdoers are too often pathetic, frustrated, and
abused. Moral hatred blinds us. If we were to come to know their desires and emotions,
their pained past, we may alter our thinking. We may come to regard even the
perpetrators of atrocities as human beings, like ourselves, and not as brute monsters. We
may come to understand that perpetrators may have serious problems and feel
compassion, empathy, and benevolence toward them (Murphy &Hampton, 1988).
Supporting this position is Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Chairman of South
Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Objecting to a newspaper column in
which perpetrators of atrocities under apartheid were referred to as moral monsters, Tutu
(1997) said
However, monstrous deeds do not turn the perpetrators into monsters. A human
person does not ultimately lose his or her humanity, which is characterized by the
divine image in which every individual is created. The premise underlying the
commission is that it is possible for people to change, insofar as perpetrators can
come to realize the evil of their actions and even be able to plead for the
forgiveness of those they wronged ... the scales can fall from the eyes of those
who believed firmly in apartheid, and they can in fact see that what they believed
was wrong, (p. 3)

33
Who, in reality, can forgive the most heinous atrocities committed against another
individual and race of people? Simon Wisenthal, the prisoner in a Jewish concentration
camp, struggled with the same dilemma, when asked by a dying Nazi soldier for
forgiveness. Simon could not and would not offer forgiveness but still remained troubled
by his decision. The book, The Sunflower (1976), asks prominent citizens what they
would have done in the same situation. There is no consensus. Some would forgive,
others not. In a study conducted in Israel (Mazor, Gampel, Enright, & Orenstein, 1990)
where the subjects were Holocaust survivors, many felt an obligation not to forgive their
Nazi perpetrators. They reasoned that this would be the same as forgetting and, therefore,
tacitly condoning the atrocities, which would be condemnatory.
A crucial point is the distinction that must be made between the deeds and the
agents. Forgiveness, and hence unforgivability, applies to the agents and not deeds.
Based on this premise, no moral agents are ever absolutely unforgivable (Govier, 1999).
Forgiveness is virtuous because one’s anger is relinquished but without abandoning
correct judgment about the severity and perhaps cruelty of the offense and the culpability
of the offender (Roberts, 1995).
Conflicting View of Forgiveness
The basis for the reluctance and fear of forgiving an offender who is guilty of a
serious crime (especially an unrepentant offender) is the supposition that, by forgiving,
we are essentially agreeing with the claim that we do not deserve a full measure of
respect. In effect, we are saying “That’s okay, it doesn’t matter that you mistreated me.
I’m not that important.” The refusal to forgive may be based not so much on a motive for
revenge but on a healthy desire to maintain one’s own self-respect (Holmgren, 193).
Paradoxically, it is in forgiving that one not only maintains but increases in self-respect

34
or rises above the base drive for retribution. To accomplish this, one begins by looking at
the incident from one’s own perspective. One must recognize that the wrongdoer is/was
mistaken about the individual’s worth and status as a person. One must be unwavering in
this conviction, in our worth, and value. The individual acknowledges feeling intense
grief and anger about the incident and that each person is not only owed but deserves
restitution. Accomplishing this, one can acquire a more objective point of view.
Once accomplished, the person now views the offender now in a different light.
The individual acknowledges and honors sharing the same human condition. That
individual can recognize the offender as a valuable human being, as is the victim who
struggles with the same needs, pressures, and confusions. The individual can then ponder
the circumstance and come to understand it, though not necessarily agreeing with why
the perpetrator did what was done. In doing so, one will recognize that the incident really
may not have been about oneself in the first place. Instead it was about the wrongdoer’s
misguided and painful attempt to meet his/her own needs. Regarding the offender from
this point of view (regardless of whether the perpetrator repents and regardless of what
was done or suffered), one places oneself in a position to forgive the wrongdoer. This
true self-respect leads to genuine forgiveness of the offender. When one acts out of self-
respect, one’s self-respect increases. Every action taken toward forgiveness increases the
individual’s self-respect (Holmgren, 1993).
The Parameters of Forgiveness
What Needs to Be Forgiven?
Veenstra (1992) holds that not every problem that occurs between two people
requires forgiveness. Sometimes there are just difficulties that merely require mutual
problem solving. However, acts that are injurious and unjust usually create a sense of

35
being wronged, offended, or insulted and seek a more salutary method to heal and mend
the wound and initiate the necessary corrective process.
Who Can We Forgive?
O’Shaughnessy (1967) claims that forgiveness can exist only in relationships that
are preexisting, close, and loving ones, as it would be inappropriate and improbable for
strangers. Kolnai (1973-74) restricts forgiveness only to interpersonal equals. It is the
opinion of this author and others (Cunningham, 1985; North, 1987) that forgiveness is far
broader, for it is a gift freely bestowed upon anyone who has offended another.
A Skeptical View of Forgiving
Nietzsche (1887) claimed that forgiveness is a sign of moral weakness and that
those who forgive are weak and unable to assert their right for a just solution. On the
contrary, forgiveness is performed by the strong, not the weak. Acceptance or absorption
of pain without counteracting with similar emotions, thoughts, or behavior is at the very
heart of forgiveness. The offended person soaks up the pain, as a sponge does water, so
that they do not transfer that pain back to the offender or others. This highlights the gift
like quality of forgiveness, as the forgiver puts an end to the cycle of revenge that
otherwise may harm or destroy the offender and others. “To be able to forgive, you must
have the guts to look at the wrongness, the hardness, the wickedness of what somebody
did to you. We cannot camouflage, we cannot excuse, we cannot ignore, we eye the evil
face to face and we call it what it is” (Smedes, 1996, p. 7). This task is not for the weak
but rather for the strong.
A modem psychological study (Trainer, 1981) elucidates why perhaps this view
is not uncommon. Trainer found various approaches to forgiveness, one of which he
labeled role-expected, which coincides to Nietzsche’s viewpoint that forgiveness is not

36
chosen but forced upon another. In this approach, the “forgiver” senses a moral or
religious imperative from an outside authority to forgive even though he or she neither
desires nor is convinced of it merits. Unable to retaliate against the superior who
offended, the “forgiver” grudgingly forswears justice all the while harboring resentment
and low self-esteem. This, though falling under the heading of forgiveness, is a
description of pseudo, or false, forgiveness. Genuine forgiveness, in contrast, is centered
in a courageous free act of giving as North (1987) defends. North maintains that
forgiveness is truly an act of courage, not cowardice, involving time and demanding
emotional struggle, which is hardly characteristic of the weak. Holmgren (1993) further
advanced North’s position by arguing that forgiveness is an act of self-respect. In
contrast to the Nietzchian position, others claim that “forgiveness” rather than
subjugating the forgiver, puts the individual in a one-up position, thus dominating the
“forgiven” (Augsburger, 1981; Cunningham, 1985; Smedes, 1984).
Droll (1984) impressively believes that forgiveness might separate us from our
lower nature as aggressive beings. Initially, retaliation is more natural. Many in the
helping profession claim that it is the deep and long lasting anger, not the gift of
forgiveness, that can be alienating to self and others (Brandsma, 1982; Fitzgibbons, 1986;
Hunter, 1978). Forgiveness, rather than destroy our regard for self and the other, restores
positive evaluation and affect toward the other and self. It has the subtle potential to
restore relationships, which is the antithesis for alienation.
Another negative view against forgiving is that it may not only work against
justice but even perpetuate injustice. This points to another misconception of forgiveness.
Forgiveness does not require that we forgo punishment altogether or that we should, in
forgiving, attempt to annul the existence of the wrong done (North, 1998). Rather,

37
forgiveness entails the cessation of negative affect and replacing it with positive affect,
such as compassion and love. Forgiveness puts an end to condemning judgments and
allows for the presence of more positive judgments. If present, there also can be the
cessation of negative behaviors (e.g., revenge) and the presence of positive behaviors
(helpfulness, overtures toward reconciliation) (Enright & HDRG, 1991a). There remains
the fear that the abuser, if forgiven, will continue to abuse as long as the recipient of
one’s mercy. This fear is based on a false notion of forgiveness. To forgive does not
mean to easily acquiesce blindly to harsh demands. To forgive first demands an inner
conversion and to begin seeing the other in a new way, as a member of the human
community rather than as evil incarnate. This enlightenment and the offer of a gift of
forgiveness leaves open the possibility of the other’s transformation, which may lead to
not only negotiation but also for heartfelt mutual respect, understanding, and goodwill.
“What is annulled in the act of forgiveness is not the crime itself but the distortion effect
that the wrong has upon one’s relations with the wrongdoer and perhaps with others”
(North, 1987, p. 500).
What Forgiveness Is Not
Before defining forgiveness, it is perhaps wise and better suited if first we
distinguish what forgiveness is not. Too easily, forgiveness is misinterpreted, associated,
or confused with similar but distinct terms, which impedes an adequate understanding
and appreciation for it.
Forgiveness Is Not Condonation
To condone an evil is simply to ignore it, not acknowledge it or to pretend as if it
were good (Smedes, 1984). Condoning involves refusing to label a given act as
objectionable; condoning may be viewed as refusal to acknowledge that a debt exists.

38
Forgiveness, in contrast, first and foremost requires recognition that harm did occur,
along with a conscious decision to release the perpetrator from the debt (Exline &
Baumeister, 2000). Those who condone injustice overlook the unfairness. Philosopher
Robert Roberts (1995) pointed out that condoning is double-minded. When we condone,
we admit that an action is morally wrong but then at the same time deny the seriousness
of the action. Condoning moral offenses does not lead to character development,
adequate solution, or mental health (McCullough, Sandage, & Worthington, 1997). The
forgiving person in contrast, open to perhaps a harsh reality, acknowledges the injustice
but determines to no longer judge the person exclusively in terms of what they did. The
forgiver sees beyond the immoral action and discovers a person who possesses inherent
worth (Al-Mabuk, Enright, & Cardis, 1995).
Forgiveness Is Not the Same as Excusing
To excuse is to judge the seemingly harmful event as not worth a quarrel (Kolnai,
1973-74). In forgiveness one does acknowledge the right to a quarrel, but willingly
abandons it (Enright, Gassin, & Wu, 1992).
Forgiveness Is Not Indifference
The forgiver does not minimize or negate the harm done by the act by dismissing
the injury as unimportant, but recognizes the harm done and chooses to overcome it,
which at times can demand great effort and energy (Eastin, 1988).
These first three misconceptions of forgivingness—condoning, excusing, and
indifference—are theoretically not really forms of forgiveness. In all of these, the
injuring person has done nothing wrong. There has been only a misunderstanding, a
difference of opinion, or a disagreement that has created the conflict between the two
people. Where there is no wrongdoing, there is no need for the forgiveness. No doubt

39
these three concepts are often called forgiveness but, in truth, are false representations of
it (Veenstra, 1992).
The moral development of forgiveness takes place in the context of a serious
injustice that is recognized as serious. Those who condone injustice choose to overlook
the unfairness. Forgiveness, in contrast, is not blind to but acknowledges the injustice, for
the forgiver no longer judges the person exclusively in terms of what they did. The
forgiver looks beyond the action to discover a person who possesses inherent worth
(Enright & Human Development Study Group [HDSG], 1994). Because a forgiver
acknowledges the other’s injustice, forgiveness cannot be equated with condoning or
excusing the other’s actions. To condone is to put up with the injustice because of
mitigating circumstances, fear of confrontation perhaps while still smoldering with
resentment (Enright et al., 1992). Whereas condonation denies resentment, forgiveness
strives to overcome it with compassion and love (North, 1987).
Forgiveness Is Not Forgetting
Calían (1981) considers the cliché “forgive and forget” and states that it is not
humanly possible, humanly or even biblically sound. He believes that precisely because
we are asked to forgive without forgetting, forgiveness becomes more the challenge
involving possibly a painful, lengthy process.
Elizondo (1986) contends that the real virtue of forgiveness reveals itself not
when the sting of the injury may etherized in the recesses of one’s memory but in
forgiving precisely while remembering and still feeling the hurt. For Elizondo, to forgive
is not to forget but while still conscious of the wrong, one chooses to be liberated from
the inner anger, resentment, and desire for vengeance that consumes an injured person.
Deeds forgiven need not require to be forgotten. When we forgive we may certainly still

40
remember wrongs that were done, and we are more than likely to remember them if these
wrongs were serious. It is hardly plausible, if not impossible, to think that someone like
Nelson Mandela (1999) can forget his 27 years in prison and afterward forgive his
oppressors, whose apartheid regime had put him there. Poignant are his words regarding
healing from the wounds of injustice.
We recall our terrible past so that we can deal with it, forgiving where forgiveness
is necessary—but not forgetting. By remembering, we can ensure that never again
will such inhumanity tear us apart, and we can eradicate a dangerous legacy that
still lurks as a threat to our democracy. (1999, p. 2 )
To forgive is not to be overcome by some peculiar form of amnesia regarding the
wrongs suffered but rather to regard ones’ perpetrators and the wrongs themselves in the
moral light of acceptance and compassion rather than in sting of resentment and hatred
(Govier, 1999). Father Lawrence Jenco, a hostage in Beirut in 1980 for 19 months,
admitted that though he had forgiven his captors, he has not forgotten. Admittedly, he
would have to suffer some grand blackout to forget such a wrenching painful ordeal.
Clearly a deep psychological trauma is rarely wiped from memory (Kolnai, 1973-74;
Smedes, 1984) unless other psychological defenses come into play, which is never a cure
or healing but a quick entrance to other emotional and psychological scars.
Forgetting ignores the justified needs of the offender by driving the sense of being
wronged deep into one’s own being where resentment awaits to do its slow destructive
work. Whereas forgetting is negative, passive, forgiving is positive and creative
(Augsburger, 1988). “Forgetting is dangerous. To forget is to repress and deny what
happened, which is self-destructive. It allows you to suffer the same hurt repeatedly”
(Smedes, 1996, p. 7).

41
Forgiveness is not simply a slow diminishing of angry feeling across time
(Horsbrugh, 1974). Forgiveness demands action and ownership and requires energy
(Fitzgibbons, 1986; Horsbrugh, 1974). It is a constant struggle to release the other while
you are still in the grips of hurt and anger (Enright, Gassin, & Wu, 1992).
Forgiveness Is Not Tolerance
Tolerance can only eventually lead to pain and turmoil. Tolerate everything
someone does, and you will be in for a lot of bad trouble (Smedes, 1984). Forgiveness
confronts the evil rather than be dominated by it; it overcomes its toxin through love.
Forgiveness Is Not Self-centering
Forgiving another is not solely motivated by the desire to be rid of strong
negative emotions (Richards, 1988). The forgiver also looks toward the other, with an
openness and willingness to join in community with him or her (Enright & HDSG,
1991b). Forgiveness is both a gift to oneself and to the other.
Forgiveness Is Distinct from Justice
Justice involves reciprocity of some kind, whereas forgiveness is an unconditional
gift given to one who does not deserve it (Enright, Gassin, & Wu, 1992). The objective of
justice is to restore equality where inequality exists. In forgiveness, the offended person
does not restore equality (nor do they seek its restoration from the other—this is the
realm of justice). Instead, in forgiveness the offended, relative to the offender, recognizes
the equality of their commonly shared humanity. This equality existed before, during,
and after the hurtful event. Thus, we do not restore what was never taken away—our
humanity, our basic worth. Forgiveness helps us recognize that such equality has existed
unconditionally toward another. In sum, the equality we strive for in justice concerns

42
how we treat one another. The equality implied in forgiving others concerns who we are
regardless of how they treat us (Enright, Gassin, & Wu, 1992).
Forgiveness Is Not Pardoning
Forgiveness is an inner personal choice. Pardon is usually thought of as a public,
behavioral release, such as where a prisoner is set free from jail (Hunter, 1978) Yet, one
can forgive even as the other is serving a judicial sentence (Enright, Gassin, & Wu,
1992). Forgiveness is not incompatible with punishment. Forgiveness can follow
punishment. In fact, it may lead to a reconciliation as a result of the punishment. The
offender, through the punishment, may be led to acknowledge and feel remorse for one’s
wrongdoing (Govier, 1999). Forgiveness demands the renunciation of vengeance, but it
does not require the abandonment of justice. Pope John Paul II, who forgave his would-
be assassin, never suggested that he should go unprosecuted or be released from prison.
There remains a consensus in the philosophical literature that pardon involves the
world of jurisprudence, not interpersonal relations (Downie, 1985; Hunter, 1978; Kolnai,
1973-74; Lauritzen, 1987; Murphy 1982; Murphy & Hampton, 1988; Smart, 1968;
Twambley, 1976). Forgiveness is separate from the judicial system. No court or law can
enforce forgiveness. A judge who deliberates on the fate of a criminal should never be
the one directly hurt by the breaking of the law. Forgiveness is a personal response to
one’s own injury. We can still offer forgiveness and still bring legal justice to bear as
required by the situation. Cases of pardon usually involve a just authority overseeing
laws by which the degree of punishment is established for each violation. The authority
that commutes the sentence is rarely, if ever, the one personally hurt by the defendant
(Enright & HDSG, 1991b).

43
To exonerate by applying a statute of limitations (primarily a legal concept) has
practical consequences similar to those of forgiveness but also excludes a number of the
latter’s conditions. It entails neither acknowledgment of wrongdoing nor offers assurance
of altered conduct in the future; it requires no assent on the part of the person harmed and
may in fact be contrary to the individuals wish. When a statute of limitations wipes the
legal slate clean, it cannot on its own clear the moral slate. It must come from the
individual. If anything, it possibly may add weight to the latter as the injury nullified
legally remains morally unrequited, leaving the person responsible for inflicting the
injury unmoved, untouched, and unrepentant by the judgment (Lang, 1994).
Forgiveness Is Not Reconciliation
Perhaps the most common misconception of forgiveness is to equate it with
reconciliation. A common argument against forgiveness is that it potentially leaves the
forgiver open to further abuse. This is invalid because it confuses reconciliation with
forgiveness. Forgiveness is a single individual’s or group’s stance toward another.
Reconciliation, though predicated on forgiveness, is distinct from it. Reconciliation
occurs when two people come together in a behavioral way. In the case of continual
abuse from an offender, a forgiver may realize that the other still does not wish or is
unable to offer respect and, under these circumstances, does not reconcile. The forgiver,
however, on his own volition can still reduce negative thoughts and behaviors and
increase positive ones toward the other and wait with expectant hope that the other
changes. Those who forgive are not blind to the other’s faults but take steps to protect
themselves from any future harm (Enright & HDSG, 1996).
Forgiveness and reconciliation are occasionally confused even in the published
literature (e.g., Lauritzen, 1987) Forgiveness is an internal release; reconciliation is a

44
behavioral coming together again. Forgiveness may be a necessary prerequisite for
reconciliation, but reconciliation demands more. Forgiveness is not reconciliation or a
coming together again (Trainer, 1981). One may be able to forgive but not able to
reconcile with his/her transgressor. In fact, in certain contexts this distinction works in
favor of the victim. When a feeling of having been violated or victimized by another, or
when one senses that something unfair or unjust has transpired, one may be incapable to
consider reconciliation. In these contexts, therapeutic efforts that deliberately make the
distinction between forgiveness and reconciliation might facilitate the client’s willingness
to address one’s anger or hurt, which they may have previously resisted doing because to
do so would have seemed to imply that they were willing to contemplate reconciliation
(Fow, 1996).
Though reconciliation may be the result of forgiveness, forgiveness can be
obtained without the aid of reconciliation. Though there may not be reconciliation, there
is always the openness and willingness for that to take place (Smedes, 1984). While
forgiveness is an internal, psychological response to injury, reconciliation is a behavioral
coming together again, often following negotiation. It is possible for someone to forgive
without reconciliation, but one who forgives has the hope that the other may change
(Piaget, 1932). Forgivers leave open the door to reconciliation, but no one can compel the
offender to walk through it. In order for reconciliation to take place the offender must be
willing to change one’s harmful behavior (Eastin, 1988).
Reconciliation can only occur if the offender is fully aware of the reality of the
wrong committed and is able to listen without defenses. The offender promises never
intentionally to hurt the forgiver again (Smedes, 1984). Forgiveness does not mean that
you knowingly or naively lay yourself open to certain abuse. You can forgive and then

45
limit or even end the relationship. The one who is forgiven is placed under no obligation
to the forgiver as a condition for forgiveness. Forgiveness is not a quid pro quo but rather
it is a gift freely bestowed. If there is to be an ongoing relationship, then the one forgiven
must try to leam from the mistakes and not reinjure anyone who has offered the gift of
forgiveness (Coleman, 1989). A forgiver extends loving acceptance, but the recipient
may either reject the offer or change and be willing to enter again into a relationship for
reconciliation to take place. Forgiveness occurs internally within a person, whereas
reconciliation occurs behaviorally between two people (Horsbrugh, 1974; Kolnai, 1973-
74; Enright et al., 1992).
These inadequate definitions of forgiveness warrant a suspicious attitude toward
forgiveness. This may be the reason why forgiveness is not viewed as a healthy option.
When one behaves from these false conceptions of forgiveness or even denies that one
had been offended or wounded, the individual has chosen a path that leads to unhealthy
responses. An individual certainly may choose to “be nice” and avoid confrontation in
the name of forgiveness, but this is definitely not forgiveness. Such tactics, rather than
heal, can ultimately result in seething anger, resentment, hatred, and grudge bearing that
ultimately leads to visions of revenge. Rather than change and improve the situation, it
can lead to a greater harm under the ideal of mercy and kindness. This surrendering or
“giving in” is a false type of forgiveness and likely will produce just the opposite effect.
Taken to its extreme, “giving in” may lead to a masochistic martyrdom that undermines
and severely damages one’s self-esteem and personal integrity (Cunningham, 1985).
Definition of Forgiveness
It is by clarifying this concept of forgiveness that it can be better understood that
learning to forgive can be an important and perhaps core element in the therapeutic

46
process (Hope, 1987). Individual researcher’s conceptualizations of forgiveness are quite
diverse. In particular, no consensual definition of forgiveness exists (Worthington, 1998).
In fact, some interpret the lack of consensus in definition to be one of the most glaring
drawbacks for promoting this counseling tool (Elder, 1998; Enright & Coyle, 1998;
Enright, Freedman, & Rique, 1998; Enright, Gassin, & Wu, 1992). That stated, the
following are offered as commonly understood definitions of forgiveness, concluding
with the operational definition for this study. All of the existing definitions seem to be
built on one core feature: When people forgive, their responses toward (or in other words,
what they think of, feel about, want to do to, or actually do to) people who have offended
or injured them become more positive and less negative. One moves from the negative
toward the positive.
Although a specific interpersonal offense (or a series of offenses) caused by a
specific person (or a group of persons) once elicited negative thoughts, feelings,
motivations, or behaviors directed toward the offender, these responses have
become more prosocial over time. (McCullough, Pargament, & Thoreson, 2000,
p. 9)
What Is Forgiveness?
Forgiveness is simply a special case of mercy directed at an injuring person.
Clinicians who help clients forgive agree that the forgiving journey may take time and
can be quite an ultra psychic struggle (Coleman, 1989; Enright & HDSG, 1991a;
Fitzgibbons, 1986; Hope, 1987). Despite the necessary effort, forgiving and receiving
forgiveness may be positively transforming and benefiting for self, the injurer, and the
communities (Gentilone & Regidor, 1986).
The philosophical literature is in general agreement that forgiving another person
occurs in the face of deep, unjust hurt (Kolnai, 1973-74; Murphy & Hampton, 1988). In
forgiving such an offense, the individual who forgives freely relinquishes the resentment,

47
hatred, and/or anger toward the other and replaces it with a stance of love and
compassion (North, 1987). The forgiver, well aware that the offender has no right to such
benevolence, offers it nonetheless (Piaget, 1932).
To clearly understand and appreciate the gift that is forgiveness, clarification is
given by the following four concepts, which are often are mistaken for the true gift of
forgiveness (Enright et al., 1998).
First, forgiveness is far more than a mere accepting or tolerating the injustice. In
contemporary culture, people talk about “moving on” or “putting the past behind us,” but
this is not forgiveness. It falls short because the attitudes involved (benevolence,
goodwill, empathy) need room in our lives or hearts for the offender. When we forgive,
we make room in our lives or hearts for the perpetrator. North clarified forgiveness as
“outward-looking and other-directed” (North, 1998, p. 19).
Second, forgiveness is not the same as forgetting. A deep injustice suffered is
rarely, if ever, wiped from one’s consciousness. When someone forgives, he or she still
remembers but in different ways from those before forgiveness occurs.
Third, forgiveness is more than holding back our anger toward the injurer. A
complete forgiveness position includes not only the cessation of the negative, most
notably the anger, but also the inclusion of the gift-like positive qualities, such as
compassion, goodwill, and empathy.
Forgiveness demands more than a neutral stance toward our perpetrator. It is not
enough to no longer desire retribution or revenge. One must be willing to extend a
positive outreach toward the offender. This challenging task is not embraced by all.
McGary (1989), representative of this position, believes that a forgiver need do nothing
more than cease resentment for the good of self and to others with whom one interacts.

48
Fourth, forgiveness is more than a self-remedy, a prescription to make oneself as
forgiver feel better. Forgiveness is outside focused and is a gift to others. The paradox is
that when a forgiver abandons the focus on self and gives this gift to the injurer, the
forgiver commonly experiences psychological healing (Enright et al., 1998).
In examining the psychological literature, one discovers that forgiveness is
described as a powerful therapeutic intervention and as an intellectual exercise in which
the injured makes the decision to forgive (Fitzgibbons, 1986). Forgiveness is a voluntary
act and decision about how one will positively deal with the past (Hope, 1987). It is an
erasing of the record of wrongs and a need for vengeance and resentments, as one
relinquishes the seat of condemnation and/or judgment of the offender (DiBlasio, 1992).
As Holmgren (1993) clarified, our intrinsic worth is not commensurate with some
imaginative score on a moral scale. All people are capable of error and good; and because
all people have this capacity for good, even the malefactor, we can then respect all
people, including the offender. Forgiveness displays respect toward the offender as a
moral agent.
The failure to understand this point of separating the person from the deed often
prevents forgiveness from taking place. Holmgren (1993) confirms that this thought is
based on Augustine’s (397/1963) dictum of separating the offenders and offenses. We
continue to view realistically an unjust offense for what it is, wrong. Yet we still retain
good will toward the offender, not because of the unjust act but because he or she is a
person capable of good will. The forgiver, therefore, is showing respect for morality by
judging the offense as wrong, but the offender as at least capable of committing good
acts in the future.

49
Philosopher J. Kellenberger (1995) holds that forgiveness is morally possible
because of the inherent value of all persons. Kellenberger notes that the moral status of
an offender may be troublesome and difficult, but that does not diminish or eradicate his
or her inherent worth as a person. Forgiveness is a relational stance of acceptance and
belief in the unchanging inherent worth of another person even after judging the action
wrong. This arduous task of mastery over a wound and the process through which an
injured person first fights off, then embraces, then conquers a situation that nearly
destroyed him/her (Flanigan, 1992), both intrapsyhically and interpersonally (Benson,
1992), and giving up one’s right to hurt back proceeds through forgiveness (Pingleton,
1989).
Forgiveness is a broad topic whose definition encompasses many facets. There
are many angles that one may focus on in defining the term. A truly comprehensive
definition of forgiveness needs to integrate not only the cognitive, affective, and
behavioral components but also the volitional, motivational, spiritual, religious, and
interpersonal aspects of forgiveness (Gorsuch & Hao, 1993). Pingleton (1989) holds that
the spiritual dimension of forgiveness is an important and essential component of
forgiveness as well as the volitional element. Monbourquette (1992) stresses how
forgiveness encompasses the whole person, for in forgiving all our faculties are
mobilized: intellect, judgment, imagination, and faith.
Studzinski (1986) defines forgiveness as a willful process in which the forgiver
chooses not to retaliate but rather respond to the offender in a compassionate way.
Walters (1984) sees forgiveness as a voluntary process that usually demands courage and
multiple acts of the will to complete. He views forgiveness as a needed and essential
process due to the destructiveness of not forgiving, and he asserts that to forgive is to

50
give up all claims on the offender, including letting go of the emotional consequences of
the hurt. In Walters’ stringent view, the offended has two alternatives in dealing with the
hurt: to be destroyed by resentment leading to death psychologically, emotionally, or
even physically or to forgive which leads to healing and life. This sense of forgiveness as
eradicating the negative consequences of the offender’s injustice and a merciful reaching
out to the offender is consistent with ancient Hebrew, Christian, Islamic, and Confucian
texts.
Cunningham (1985) views forgiveness as more than an act of the will in changing
one’s heart to one’s offender:
Forgiving is an act of the will that seeks wholeness and opens one’s self to the
expensive process of change and transformation. It is a process of willing that
allows one to be less willful, less demanding, and less dogmatic. Forgiving is a
process whereby one is restoring a relationship with God that gracefully comes as
a harmony with life and a renewed courage to be vital and live in risk It is an
experience that confirms us in the knowledge that as we forgive, we are forgiven
(p. 149)
The process of forgiveness enables one to change, grow, and evolve into a more
mature individual characterized by an enlightened self-awareness. Forgiving another
requires that a person confront one’s feelings, values, motives, and needs as well as one’s
own inclinations toward pride and self-righteousness. The forgiver challenges his/her
own demands for perfection, both for oneself and others as well as the unrealistic
demands for others to relate perfectly to oneself and to meet and fulfill one’ needs.
Forgiveness involves the humble task of confronting one’s own level of immaturity, state
of sinfulness, imperfection, and irresponsibility (Cunningham, 1985).
Augsburger (1981) defines forgiveness as “a release from a whole spectrum of
negative emotions like fear; anger, suspicion, loneliness alienation, and mistrust” (p. 68).

51
Pargament (1997) offers a rather lofty, metaphysical definition of forgiveness:
Forgiveness is a process of re-creation a transformational method of coping, often
religious in nature, that involves a basic shift in destinations and pathways in
living. Through this process, the individual departs from a life centered on pain
and injustice and begins to pursue a dream of peace. Toward this end the person
starts to think, feel, and act in very different ways about him- or herself, the
offender, and the world more generally, (p. 303)
From these definitions we process five essential points in understanding
forgiveness (Enright & HDSG, 1996):
1. The one who forgives has suffered a deep hurt, which elicits resentment.
2. The offended person has a moral right to resentment, but overcomes it
nonetheless.
3. A new response to the other emerges, including compassion and love.
4. This loving response occurs despite the realization that there is no obligation to
love the offender (Hebl & Enright, 1993).
5. We realize the other person has no moral right to that love, but we nevertheless
freely give it (North, 1987).
Foundational Definition
The foundational definition of forgiveness is shaped primarily from North’s
(1987) perspective. She defines forgiveness in the following passage: “Forgiveness is a
matter of a willed change of heart, the successful result of an active endeavor to replace
bad thoughts with good, bitterness and anger with compassion and affection” (p. 506). It
should be noted that North acknowledges two psychological characteristics of a
forgiver’s affect: a cessation of negative affect (e.g., resentment, anger) and the presence
of positive affect (e.g., compassion, love). The same holds true for judgments or
cognitive components. There is the letting go of condemning judgments and the presence
of more favorable judgments (Enright & F1DSG, 1991a). There also can be the cessation
of negative behaviors (e.g., revenge, for example) and the presence of positive behaviors
(e.g., helpfulness, overtures toward reconciliation). This process of forgiveness includes
six key components: absence of negative affect, judgment, and behavior toward an

52
offender and the presence of positive affect, judgment, and behavior toward the same
offender. These occur in the face of deep, unwarranted hurt (Enright & HDSG, 1991b).
It is from this foundation that Enright and the Human Development Study Group
developed their working definition adhering to those same core elements: a change in
cognition and affect but now including behavior, how one acts toward one’s offender, as
well. It is this definition of forgiveness that involves the three key components,
cognition, affection and behavior that is the basis for this research and is arguably the
most comprehensively formulated and clearly articulated definition in the psychological
literature. In addition, this definition has been operationalized in the Enright Forgiveness
Inventory (Subkoviak et al., 1992) thus providing a means for quantitatively measuring
levels of interpersonal forgiveness in the affective, behavioral, and cognitive domains.
The definition is the following:
Forgiveness is the overcoming of negative affect and judgment toward the
offender, not by denying ourselves the right to such affect and judgment but by
endeavoring to view the offender with benevolence, compassion, and even love,
while recognizing that he or she has abandoned the right to them. (Subkoviak et
al., 1992, p. 3)
This process is quite involved and complex when we realize that forgiveness
involves the total person’s affective, cognitive, and behavioral systems and spiritually.
When one forgives, certain elements are subtracted from each system. Negative
emotions, such as anger, hatred, resentment, sadness, or contempt, are given up
(Richards, 1988). Often this may occur slowly, but it is eventually accomplished if
pursued diligently. In the cognitive system, one ceases condemning judgments and the
planning of revenge where this was occurring. In the behavioral system, one no longer
acts out the primordial motive of revenge (if such were occurring, however subtle)
(Enright & HDSG, 1991b).

53
When one forgives, certain elements are added to each system. In the affective
system, the negative emotions are replaced by more neutral emotions and eventually by
positive affect, such as agape (see Cunningham, 1985; Downie, 1965; North, 1987). The
latter includes the willingness, through compassion and love, to help the other. In the
cognitive system, the offender may feel justified in holding onto the negative emotions,
yet is willing to forego them (North, 1987). Where there once were negative thoughts,
now positive thoughts emerge toward the other, such as wishing them well (Smedes,
1984) and viewing them respectfully as a moral equal (Cunningham, 1985). In the
behavioral realm, there is a willingness to join in “loving community” with the other,
with the hopes of possible friendship. There may even be steps taken to initiate and
foster a friendship. Such overtures will depend on true change in the other. There is the
potential for the forgiver to experience not only an inner release but a healed relationship
(Augsburger, 1981).
This description of forgiveness can be further deepened and clarified by the
following 13 points (Enright & HDSG, 1991a).
1. Interpersonal forgiveness is between people, not between a person and an
inanimate object (Kolnai, 1973-74; Lambert, 1985; Murphy, 1982;
Smedes, 1984).
One does not forgive hurricanes or floods. The willingness to join again in loving
community with a hurricane most certainly would be absent.
2. Forgiveness follows a deep, personal, long lasting injury or hurt from the
other person.
The injury will vary; it might be psychological, emotional, physical, or moral
(Kolnai, 1973-74; Murphy, 1982; Murphy & Hampton, 1988; Smedes, 1984). In real life
a deep injury may very well involve all of these areas at once (Eastin, 1988).

54
O’Shaunghnessy (1967) claims that the relationship must be personal, which would then
exclude those who hurt us but are strangers to us. The forgiver, therefore, does not
forgive the Nazis for the Holocaust unless he or she was personally involved (Gingell,
1974). Nevertheless, we acknowledge personal, indirect involvement, for example,
children whose parents are Holocaust survivors. On their part they are able to forgive the
perpetrators.
3. The offense is an objective reality, not merely a perception by the one
offended.
Kahrhoff (1988), in contrast, claims, “Everything that happens outside our minds
is neutral” (p. 3). In this view, an offense can be so only if we perceive it as such. We
acknowledge, for example, individual differences in physical abuse victims’ perception
of the violence. No one due to various factors will experience the same depth or duration
of emotional distress as another, yet all will experience a certain emotional pain because
of the objective occurrence.
4. Forgiveness is possible only when a person has a sense of justice.
One cannot feel a deep sense of moral injury without a sense of fairness
(Brandsma, 1982; Hunter, 1978; Kohlberg & Power, 1981). This implies that children as
young as four or five might not only need but be able to forgive (Enright, Franklin, &
Manheim, 1980).
5. There is usually an initial reaction by the injured party toward the injurer.
The injured may pass throughout the stages similar to grief, that is, one of
experiencing the hurt as profound, followed by shock or disbelief, and culminating in
anger or even hatred (Eastin, 1988; Fitzgibbons, 1986; Linn & Linn, 1978; Smedes,
1984).

55
6. With the passing of time, the injured party no longer seeks retaliation
(Hughes, 1975).
This is an internal response by the one injured (Droll, 1984), and may involve
giving up of narcissistic tendencies of disavowing the hurt (Cunningham, 1985).
7. It is not necessary for the offender to apologize for the injured person to
forgive (North, 1987; Twambley, 1976).
Forgiveness is not based on the other’s repentance (McCullough, Sandage, &
Worthington, 1997). In his book, Bound to Forgive. Father Jenco (1995) describes an
encounter with yet another captor shortly before his release. Sayeed, a guard who had
beaten Father Jenco several times asked the priest if he remembered the first six months
of his captivity (when most of the abuse took place). Father Jenco responded that he did
remember all the pain and suffering Sayeed had caused him and the other hostages.
“Abouna, do you forgive me?” Father Jenco recounts his reactions:
These quietly spoken words overwhelmed me. As I sat blindfolded, unable to see
the man who had been my enemy, I understood I was called to forgive, to let go
of revenge, retaliation, and vindictiveness. And I was challenged to forgive him
unconditionally. I could not forgive him on the condition that he changes his
behavior to conform to my wishes or values. I had no control over his response. I
understood I was to say yes. (p. 14).
If this were not true the offended may be caught in a web of unforgiveness. If the
offender were to die before a change of heart, the offended is trapped in unforgiveness
(O’Shaughnessy, 1967). Further a gift given need not await a prior inviting response
from the other person. In fact, many see it as wedded to the unconditional self-giving
character of forgiveness (Cunningham, 1985; Downie, 1965; Smedes, 1984; Torrance,
1986).
8. The offender need not have intended the wrong (Downie, 1965).
9. Naturally, the difficulty in arriving at a forgiveness solution will vary with
such external variables as the severity of the offense our disposition at the

56
time and the quality of the relationship prior to the injury (Newman,
1987).
It will also vary with such internal psychological qualities in the offended person
as their ability to understand forgiveness and to chose a forgiveness, in contrast to a
justice, problem-solving strategy.
10. It is not always the case that only one party offends and the other is
offended.
As Beatty (1970) insists, forgiveness is relational. Thus, it is conceivable to have
an offended offender. Consider an unjustly fired worker who writes a scathing letter to
their former boss. The boss is both offender and now offended by the letter. Both may
need to forgive the other.
11. Trust is vital when one is entering into a relationship again with the
offender.
In certain cases, such as continual and chronic abuse, one can forgive without
trust in this one problematic area and without reconciling. The forgiver does see the other
as human but realistically acknowledges their inability at that present time to change in
the one area (Enright, Gassin, & Wu, 1992).
12. Forgiving has the power both to transform self and the other because of
the sincere love extended to the other.
Forgiveness in some cases may not only restore the relationship to its original
quality but also may enhance and improve what was once damaged (Enright, Gassin, &
Wu, 1992).
13. Forgiveness must always be a free choice and should never be forced
either overtly or subtly onto a person. A gift must be freely offered and
freely received (Enright et al., 1992).
In summary, Enright & HDSG (1991a) describes a psychological response, which
is forgiveness that includes six components: absence of negative affect, judgment, and

57
behavior toward an offender and the presence of positive affect, judgment, and behavior
toward the same offender. These occur in the face of a deep offense against them.
Challenge of Forgiveness
Forgiveness has been an extremely complex phenomenon to operationalize for
empirical investigation. The act of forgiveness must not be forced on a person who is not
open or ready to forgive. The utility of encouraging forgiveness is also in question if
clients lack desire to forgive (Cunningham, 1985). Forgiving out of a sense of duty or
fear of retaliation may produce the opposite effect of increased negative emotions and
thoughts regarding the offense and the offender over time (Trainer, 1981). Counselors
who suggest forgiveness as a means of healing should also be sure that the client’s
motive for forgiving is to achieve the positive benefits of forgiving and not employ it as a
means for revenge or self-righteousness. If so, it may exacerbate the negative emotions
concerning the offense and the offender (McCullough & Worthington, 1994a).
As forgiveness is such a demanding and complex task many often fail to meet the
above mention criteria. In the effort to forgive, such challenging questions may arise in
the process of forgiving. Have I truly forgiven if I still retain some resentment? Have I
forgiven if I am unable to resume a former relationship; if I am wary of my offender?
Understanding that the process of forgiveness is so involved and ongoing, Nelson (1992)
developed Categories of Forgiveness. They were designed to help clarify the various
degrees and levels of forgiveness. Nelson has introduced into the literature three types of
forgiveness: detached forgiveness, limited forgiveness, and complete forgiveness.
Detached forgiveness is a “reduction in negative affect toward the offender, but no
restoration of the relationship” (Nelson, 1992, p. 4381). Limited forgiveness is a
“reduction in negative affect toward the offender and partial restoration of an increased

58
emotional investment in the relationship” (p. 4381). Full forgiveness includes “total
cessation of negative affect towards the offender and full restoration and growth of the
relationship” (p. 4381). Nelson’s findings suggest that the type of offense and the degree
of relationship prior to the offense are predictors of the type of forgiveness a person
attempts (Flanagan, 1992). These categories, though helpful, do not equate to North’s
(1987) or Enright and the Human Development Study Group’s (1991a) definition. Their
goal of forgiveness is to achieve a complete wiping away of resentment and is a desire
for communion, if possible, which would only correspond to the third category of
complete forgiveness. As well, it makes the common mistake of mistaking forgiveness
with reconciliation. Forgiveness is not reconciliation (Trainer, 1981)
In analyzing this process of forgiveness, Trainer (1981) was the first to undertake
an empirical research on the psychology of interpersonal forgiveness. Examining 73
divorced and separated participants, she found three characteristic patterns:
1. Role-expected forgiveness that is behaviorally demonstrated, but internally void
of the proper attitude. The person may say he or she forgives, but still harbors
fear, anxiety and resentment. Forgiveness is externally motivated by a grim
obligation to do so.
2. Expedient forgiveness, also entails an overt gesture of forgiving behavior but is
accompanied by condescension and hostility. Forgiveness is seen as the means to
the end of showing a certain superiority over the other because the offended had
“forgiven.”
3. Intrinsic forgiveness, which is a genuine form of forgiveness and actually the only
example of true forgivingness, is demonstrated by an overt gesture of kindness
toward the offender and internal transformations from resentment to beneficence
and goodwill. The forgiving is active, genuine, and healing.
Trainer, by her work, has contributed to the understanding of forgiveness by
developing a conceptual framework with types of forgiveness and the common and
unique processes associated with these types can be operationalized. Though she uses the

59
word forgiveness for each type, which would not adhere to this paper’s position based on
Enright’s definition (Enright & HDSG, 1991a), it does highlight the stages that one goes
through in the process of forgiving. It also initiates and points the way to empirically test
some of the hypothesized relationships. Trainer pioneered the development of a
Forgiveness Scale and a three-fold typology of forgiveness to facilitate investigation into
the dynamics underlying forgiveness attitudes and behaviors of 73 divorced and
separated male and female respondents. The category, called General forgiveness,
encompasses all the elements of the three typologies proposed by Trainer: role-expected,
expedient, and intrinsic forgiveness. General forgiveness involves one or more of the
following elements: (a) overt gestures of forgiveness; (b) cessation of overt hostile
responses;(c) management of hostile impulses, gradual letting go of resentment; (d) re-
emergence of positive attitudes and feelings toward the one who has done the injury; and
(e) gestures of good will. This compares quite favorably to the definition of both North
(1987) and Enright & HDSG (1991b).
The first typology of forgiveness is Role-expected forgiveness, which exhibits the
outward manifestation of forgiveness but lacks the internal motivation to forgive. It
displays an overt manifestation of forgiving behavior but is accompanied by such
negative emotions as fear, anxiety, and resentment. According to Trainer, Role-expected
forgiveness includes: (a) overt gestures and words of forgiveness, (b) cessation of hostile
responses, together with (c) a tremendous amount of resentment. The underlying
motivation in Role-expected Forgiveness is not from the individual’s belief system but
from a forced compliance to externally exposed norms. The Role-expected forgiver may
outwardly comply with the expectations of self or the expectations of some external
authority because of the lack of will to fight back or feeling too weak or helpless to

60
confront the transgressor. The Role-expected forgiver conforms to perceived role
expectations without any inner transformation and release (Trainer, 1981, p. 71).
The expedient forgiveness typology consists in an overt manifestation of
forgiving behavior performed as a means to an end and accompanied by condescension,
resentment, and hostility. Expedient forgiveness, like Role-expected forgiveness,
contains the first two elements of General forgiveness (a) overt gestures and words of
forgiveness, and (b) cessation of overt hostile responses. Trainer (1981) claimed,
expedient forgiveness functions as a power strategy whereby one asserted
superiority devaluing both the injury and the one who injured. It accomplished
revenge in subtle ways through a condescending forgiveness or through the
transference of the task of retaliation to God or to life. (pp. 71-72)
Intrinsic forgiveness stems from an inner conviction that is characterized by an
inner change in attitudes and feelings toward the one who had done the injury, as well as
by benevolent behavior. Intrinsic forgiveness derives from a personal decision to freely
disengage from hostile behaviors and to dismiss harboring hostile attitudes, thoughts,
fantasies, and feelings. Intrinsic forgiveness involves all five elements in the general
definition: (a) overt gestures of forgiveness, (b) cessation of overt hostile responses,
(c) management of hostile impulses, gradual letting go of resentment; (d) re-emergence
of positive attitudes and feelings toward the one who has done the injury; and (e) gestures
of good will.
Trainer (1981) stated that intrinsic forgiveness entails five steps: (a) disengaging
from hostile impulses, (b) restoring a person’s sense of self-worth or personhood,
(c) moving out into activities where one encounters the possibility of being hurt again,
(d) displaying a willingness to reexamine the hurtful event and broader ways of
constructing others that may give rise to reemergence of benevolence towards the other,

61
and, the final step, (e) “the person re-experiences closeness to the other, and the vitality
and joy of reconciliation with self, and under certain conditions between self and the
other” (p. 47).
The Process of Forgiving
“Forgiving is not pretending that things are other than they are. Forgiveness is not
cheap. It is facing the ghastliness of what has happened and giving the other person the
opportunity of coming out of that ghastly situation”(Tutu, 1995).
Forgiveness is not cheap nor is it an easy process. It can be at times messy,
challenging, and demanding. Forgiveness is seldom simple, linear, fast, or even
necessarily complete. “Forgiveness is not a clear-cut, one-time decision (Simon &
Simon, 1990, p. 17). No matter how sincere and earnest one may be to forgive,
forgiveness takes time. In fact, anger may remain after forgiveness (Van Biema & Cole,
1999). Forgiveness as an option is not easy. It requires time, risk, and the possibility of
being wounded again. It is a decision to let go of the past and recommit oneself to the
future unaware of what lies ahead.
Forgiveness originates from the decision to act lovingly even though you are
justified in refraining from loving. By forgiving you are not stating that you agree with
what was done but that you refuse to reject the other for their unjust act. Forgiveness
requires a strength and at times an extraordinary leap of faith. It allows the forgiver to be
vulnerable to being hurt again. Forgiveness does not require that you knowingly place
yourself in harm's way (Coleman, 1998).
Forgiveness is difficult precisely because it requires that we make comprehensive
changes in who we are and how we relate to others. It involves the whole person.

62
Forgiveness is such a demanding task that it requires a certain maturation on the part of
the individual. In this process one confronts one’s own shortcomings and weaknesses.
There is no way that we can live a rich life unless we are willing to suffer
repeatedly, experiencing depression and despair, fear and anxiety, grief and
sadness, anger and the agony of forgiving, confusion and doubt, criticism and
rejection. A life lacking these emotional upheavals will not only be useless to
ourselves; it will be useless to others. We cannot heal without being willing to be
hurt. (Peck, 1987, pp. 226-227)
Enright et al. (1991a) examined a unique developmental issue in forgiving. They
focused on the conditions under which a person is willing to forgive. Their
developmental analysis suggested that children sometimes confuse forgiveness with
revenge. Adolescents on the other hand, forgive under the conditions of social pressure,
such as demands or pressures from peers, family, or certain institutions. Only in late
adolescence and adulthood do they see and have unconditional understanding of
forgiveness based on the internal working moral principles of beneficence and love
towards an offender.
How Do People Forgive
How do people forgive? It is quite rare that it is immediate, one step, one act
behavior. Typically, there is a process with its loops forwards and backwards and with its
struggles and successes. The following describe various processes in the path of
forgiveness. Though distinct, they share these five common interpersonal processes:
(a) experiencing an awareness of negative psychological consequences, (b) developing a
sense of need for resolution; (c) deciding among restitution strategies; (d) examining
motives for forgiveness; (e) deciding to forgive. (Enright & HDSG, 1991a; Romig &
Veenstra, 1998).

63
Forgiveness requires that we develop a forgiving character (McCullough,
Sandage, & Worthington, 1997). Forgiveness follows a deep, long-lasting injury from the
other person. The injury may be psychological, emotional, physical, or moral (Smedes,
1984). The need for forgiveness begins with a wound. A wound violates physical, moral,
or psychological boundaries. Having suffered, the person then organizes his or her
thoughts and psychological defenses to protect injured boundaries (Means, Wilson,
Sturm, & Biron, 1990). The injury often damages the injured person’s worldview or
philosophy of the world as they comprehend that we do not necessarily live in a “just”
world (Flanigan, 1987).
Essentially, when we are deeply hurt, it is about one or a combination of three
things:
1. Loss of love or lo vability.
2. Loss of self-esteem.
3. Loss of control or influence.
The person wishing to forgive must begin by asking, “What loss have I incurred?”
Determining the area(s) of loss then points the person in a direction of healing. It informs
the person what needs to be repaired. Now the individual, if willing, can commence the
arduous task of forgiveness (Coleman, 1998).
Forgiveness declares both an assertion and an affirmation. As an assertion, one
confronts the unhealthy, destructive, ill-motivated, unacceptable behavior head on. One
neither condones the offense nor overlooks the wrong done, but one refuses to limit the
person to this behavior nor hold that this behavior is the sum measure of what the person
is in their deepest self. One asserts at times with enormous effort that this person
possesses worth no matter what decisions, choices, or actions were committed or
intentions are held. In forgiving another, one honors the healthy, the constructive, the

64
right motivated, the responsible center of the person. One consciously chooses to affirm
and to believe that this is the real, the possible, the acceptable, and the accountable core
of the person. One returns to that real center no matter what has surfaced into the
relationship (Augsburger, 1988).
How does an individual arrive to this healing state? How may a counselor enable
a client wounded by an injustice to attain a positive, healthy outlook? In some therapeutic
strategies, one may typically have the client explore the past, discover and express
repressed feelings about past events, but is that sufficient? How does a person free
oneself from the pain of a major disappointment, injustice, humiliation, victimization, or
assault in order to live more productively in the present? There are differences of
opinions and approaches regarding this essential stage in therapy. In individual therapy it
is the stage in which working through old wounds via the transference relationship is
important. There is the model of mourning the past and letting go of old injuries, and
through this process one learns to accept the past. Yet, both the concepts of letting go and
acceptance are somewhat passive in nature. What is being required is that one accept or
let go of incidents that bum with injustice and unfairness, that have resulted in patterns of
feelings and behavior so upsetting and destructive that it has brought the person to
therapy in the first place.
How does one accept the unacceptable? This problem so challenged the
psychotherapeutic field that it led some to consider and examine forgiveness as a viable
means for restoration of one’s well being. Forgiveness is seen as part of the
psychotherapeutic process by a number of authors (Coleman, 1989; Fitzgibbons, 1986;
Hope, 1987; Wapnick, 1985). Psychotherapy initially includes a shedding of
psychological defenses, which involves the client admitting that they were deeply hurt by

65
another. Subsequently, this is followed by a dialogue between the two people to better
understand how and why the hurt occurred. Eventually, forgiveness occurs in which the
one hurt abandons resentment in favor of understanding and unity.
This process of forgiveness is necessary to restore one’s self-respect and peace of
mind. Margaret Holmgren (1993) claims that victims of wrongdoing must work through
a process of responding to that wrongdoing in order to reach a state of genuine
forgiveness. This process is central to the restoration of a victim’s self-respect, and that
forgiveness would be psychologically and ethically inappropriate whenever this is
incomplete. Holmgren argues that this process is always appropriate regardless whether
the offender repents or not. The following is an outline to identify the task an individual
may need to complete if they are to respect oneself and truly forgive their offender.
First, the victim of wrongdoing must recover their self-esteem. Implicit in the
wrongdoer’s act of abuse is the claim that the victim is not valuable. If John were to
sexually abuse Jane, he is implicitly claiming that her needs and feelings are not
important or at the very least that they don’t count as much as his. Thus, the victims must
clarify for themselves that the claim implicit in the act of wrongdoing is false. Crucial is
the recognition that the individual is just as valuable as every other person and that their
needs and feelings matter very much. They must come to see that the wrongdoer is
seriously confused about her/his status as a person. If the individual were to attempt to
forgive the wrongdoer before this step is taken, the forgiveness will not be fully
appropriate. Until the victim is assured about one’s own worth, he or she would fail to
sufficiently respect his/herself. Further, this type of forgiveness is not complete nor is it
fully genuine. It amounts to condoning the wrong rather than forgiving the wrongdoer. In
order truly to forgive the offender, the victim must first understand the nature of the
wrongdoing and to do so, one must recognize one’s own status as a person.

66
A second task for the victim of wrongdoing is that they must recognize that the
perpetration against them was wrong, and they must also understand why it was wrong.
That is, they must understand that they have certain rights and that anyone who violates
those rights wrongfully harms them.
Third, the victim of wrongdoing faces the task of acknowledging one’s feelings.
A decent person will typically feel anger toward someone who harms her/him. The
individual will also grieve over the loss, and, depending on the circumstances, may
experience an array of conflicting emotions. In order to respect oneself, the injured
person must honor such feelings and give oneself permission to experience them in full.
One must recognize that these feelings are basic and legitimate human reactions to what
has happened—reactions that will help to understand what is so stressful about the
incident. The victim must also recognize that it is psychologically destructive to deny
these feelings, and that by doing so, one is prolonging the harm. Thereby, victims who
attempt to cut off their emotions in order to forgive the offender fail to respect
themselves. By denying this integral part of one’s humanity, one deprives oneself of an
opportunity to understand the incident with all its ramifications and treats oneself in a
psychologically destructive manner. This type of forgiveness, if one may use this label, is
inappropriate to the extent that it is incompatible with the victim’s self-respect. In
genuine forgiveness, the injured person must overcome any negative feelings held toward
the offender because of the offense. These feelings cannot be overcome in any
meaningful sense until they are acknowledged. Until the victim fully experiences
emotions with all the pain, a genuine internal resolution of the issue will be forestalled.
Fourth, depending on the circumstances, it may be important and necessary for
the victim to express these beliefs to the wrongdoer. The individual may need to tell the

67
wrongdoer that the action was wrong, and that it is not acceptable to be treated in this
manner. The individual does so unless this course of action would be dangerous or
detrimental to oneself or to others. At the very least, the individual should not withhold
feelings under the false assumption that these feelings are not valid or important, or not
as important as the wrongdoer’s.
Fifth, the victim of the perpetration faces the task of assessing the situation with
respect to the offender. If the victims are to respect themselves and avoid being hurt
again, they must consider the wrongdoer’s attitude and behavior patterns. The injured
person must determine the steps necessary to avoid further victimization. The
self-respecting victim’s goal, then, is to not forget the incident altogether but to reach a
point where the incident is no longer remembered vindictively or is not allowed to
interfere with an attitude of real goodwill toward the offender.
The final task for the victim of wrongdoing is to determine whether to seek
restitution from the offender. In order to achieve self-respect, the victim must recognize
that he/she has been wrongfully harmed and deserves restitution where possible. Respect
for one’s own integrity also requires that the individual look objectively and with some
compassion at the wrongdoer’s situation. One must then make a mature, reasoned
judgment about how one wishes to proceed. If the victim overlooks this task in an
attempt to hasten the process of forgiveness, the victim exhibits a lack of self-respect;
and the state of genuine forgiveness is also forestalled or forfeited. In this case, the victim
has not achieved a full internal resolution of the issue. The incident will not be brought to
closure until the victim determines the course of action with respect to seeking
restitution.
These steps permit the victim to heal and restore self-respect. Once initiating
these steps, the victim can now let go of the hurt and pain and focus inward. The victim

68
now has the freedom and opportunity to take a more objective and compassionate
perspective (Holmgren, 1993).
There are other processes that are worth examining. McCullough and
Worthington, (1994a) constructed a developmental progression of understanding
forgiveness that is far more involved than most. Their progression is consistent with the
investigations of both Trainer’s (1981) and Enright et al. (1989) in that the patterns
concern people’s reasoning in the areas of strategy used to forgive, the external and
internal manifestation of forgiving, and the conditions under which forgiving is offered.
The progression follows the logic of Selman’s (1980) social perspective-taking and
Kohlberg’s (1985) moral development descriptions. There is movement from concrete to
subtler abstract thought forms, and from emphases on the external to the internal. There
is an increase in cognitive complexity as more involved reciprocal perspective follows.
Finally, there is the transformation from the situational, as the person may or may not
offer forgiveness to the exercise of more internally consistent principles. This suggests
that as individuals develop cognitive skills, they become more able to take the
perspectives of others, to empathize with their predicaments and shortcomings, and to
value and accept them as people despite the pain they have inflicted in the past
(McCullough &Worthington, 1994a). (See Table 2-1).
Romig and Veenstra (1998) postulate a simpler, more concise four step process:
1. View the offender’s behavior in context (Hargrave 1994).
2. Develop empathy toward the offender (Cunningham, 1985).
3. Identify with the act by the offender to gain compassion (Benson, 1992).
4. Realize the individual has needed forgiveness from others in the past
(Cunningham, 1985).
Fitzgibbons (1986) further condensed the process to two monumental steps. He
states that forgiveness emerges after the therapist has analyzed the origins of the client’s
pain and after the client has spent considerable time on the cognitive level of

69
understanding what forgiveness is. The intellectual decision to forgive is then followed
by emotional forgiveness, which reduces anger, making healing possible. Hope’s (1987)
view of forgiveness is somewhat paradoxical. As the client gives up the right to revenge
or power and assumes a more humble position, it is then that the client feels empowered.
Wapnick (1985) encourages the client to reinterpret past events. The objective is to
challenge the client’s distorted ways of thinking and of perceiving other people, thus
liberating the client from unwanted and excessive guilt, anger, and other dysfunctional
patterns that result from the distortions.
Table 2-1. The Development of Forgiveness
Pattern (11
Revengeful Forgiveness Strategies: One considers ways to get back at the
offender. Overt aggression is considered.
Manifestations
External manifestations such as words or gestures are indicative of the
person’s forgiveness; internal hostility may remain and may be openly
expressed.
Conditions
Physical or psychological revenge or compensation must occur before
forgiveness is possible.
External Forgiveness Strategies: One uses passive coping strategies while
remaining angry.
Pattern (21
Manifestations.
External manifestations are indicative of forgiveness. The person is aware
of inner frustrations festering but suppresses them.
Conditions.
Pressures from social groups to forgive are sufficient to elicit forgiveness.
Internal Forgiveness Strategies: One actively seeks to understand the
other’s motives and thoughts and to reinterpret the event in light of the
perspectives of self and other.
Pattern (31
Manifestations
Forgiveness is primarily an internal activation of the beneficence principle
which promotes inner release and possibly reconciliation.
Conditions
Forgiveness occurs unconditionally out of the principle of beneficence or
love.
Source: McCullough & Worthington, 1994a

70
Cunningham (1985) offers his own four stages in the process stressing the
challenge and strenuous task in the act of forgiving.
1.Judgment versus denial. Forgiving is not a nice and neat endeavor to undertake.
On the contrary, it means willingness to die to oneself within realities that are
painful in others as well as in one’s self.
2. Humility versus humiliation. When offended and wounded, many of us have a
natural tendency to internalize the injury and turn it against ourselves. This results
in the painful state of humiliation that leads to the view of one’s self and one’s
offender as adversarial and alien to one another.
3. The opportunity of mutuality and negotiation. In this stage the forgi ver becomes
different; he or she becomes open to change and growth. He or she becomes free
from the need and desire to accuse and the compelling need to punish and to seek
revenge.
4. Forgiveness. This is characterized by the actual living out of the forgiving process
where perspectives on one’s self, others, and God take place. This transforming
stage of forgiving is the ongoing process of redefining one’s relationship with the
offender based upon an enlightened awareness of one’s self and the offender. It is
being conscious of not only of his or her limitations and capacities for sin and
evil, but also of his or her kinship and commonality in humanness under God.
Here, relationships are renegotiated and entrusted with new promises and new
hope and new covenants are formed.
Underlying all these processes there are three commonly recognized general
stages, whether stated or implied, preceding the final stage, forgiveness. There is the hurt
stage, the anger stage, and the information-seeking stage (Linn & Linn, 1978). These
factors are ordinarily found in most processes of forgiveness. To enflesh this process, it is
helpful to look at other factors that are involved in the challenge of forgiveness. There
are at least eight factors that relate to the ability to forgive—four to consider in
relationship to the offended party and four that relate to the offender. The factors
associated with the offender are the following:
1. Severity of wrong—the more severe the more difficult it is to forgive.
2. The offender acknowledges the offense and is genuinely sorrowful for the
outcome. It is more likely that forgiveness will be experienced.

71
3. Intentionally.
4. Frequency—infractions that are committed again and again are harder to forgive
when all other factors are constant.
The four factors relating to the offended that facilitate or impede forgiveness are
the following:
1. If the offended person has a deep commitment to the individual who offended
them, the person is more likely to be willing and able to forgive in order to restore
the relationship.
2. Ego-strength of the offended person. Those who do not posses a strong healthy
self-love will be more likely to hold grudges and not be as able to reframe
situations so as to find good coming from bad situations.
3. Decision to forgive on the part of the offended can be a crucial mitigating factor.
4. The person’s personal history with forgiveness may make a difference. If a person
has been forgiven, they may find it easier to forgive. (Rosenak & Hamden, 1992)
Anger and Forgiveness
Fitzgibbons (1986) clarifies the process of forgiveness through the understanding
of anger and its role in healing. “Anger is a strong feeling of displeasure and antagonism
aroused by a sense of injury or wrong” (p. 64). Soon after a hurt or disappointment, this
emotion occurs and is closely associated with a degree of sadness from the hurt. Anger
and how to deal with it is often a stumbling block in the forgiving process.
Anger develops as a natural inborn response of the failure of others to meet one’s
needs for love, praise, acceptance, and justice and may be experienced any place where
there is human interaction, be it in the home, school, community, and place of
employment. The experience of anger can lead to a desire for revenge, which does not
diminish until the presence of the resentful feelings is recognized and subsequently
resolved. Without this recognition and release, anger can be displaced for many years and
erupt decades later toward the undeserving as in loving relationships or with significant

72
others. It will not be fully resolved until a conscious decision is made to liberate oneself
from the desire for revenge and to forgive.
Three basic mechanisms are used to deal with this emotion: conscious or
unconscious denial; active- or passive-aggression expression, and forgiveness. Denial is
the major coping strategy for dealing with anger in early childhood. As a result of denial,
most people carry into their adult lives significant amounts of unconscious anger from
their family of origin. The active expression of anger may be appropriate, excessive, or
misdirected. The passive-aggressive expression of anger directs this emotion toward
others in a covert manner while the person acts as though they are not angry.
Many mental health professionals have viewed the appropriate expression of
anger as the more healthy way to deal with this emotion (Freud, 1963; Janov, 1970;
Novoca, 1975; Rubin, 1970). In Fitzgibbons’ (1998) view the expression of anger is
valuable and healthy; but when relied on solely for relief, serious problems can develop
because of the degree and intensity of unresolved anger from previous disappointments
encountered in childhood, adolescence, and adult life. The reenactment of past traumatic
events accompanied by the expression of anger toward those who inflicted pain does not
fully resolve the anger experienced in different life stages. Nor does the expression of
anger result in a veritable sense of justice or freedom from responses by making them
even more angry or aggressive with one another (Strauss, 1974). It adversely affects
children (Gardner, 1971), increases guilt and shame (Lemer, 1985), reinforces
inappropriate ways of relating, ruins friendships, and aggravates psychosomatic illness
(Tavris, 1984).
Recognizing and understanding the harm anger can cause, it is expedient that a
sound and healthy strategy be found to cope with it. Forgiveness may be that remedy.

73
Forgiveness works directly on the emotions of anger (and related constructs), such as
resentment, hostility, and hatred, by diminishing its intensity or level within the mind and
heart. Each time it is successfully applied to a disappointing or traumatic life experience
within someone, it removes some of the anger from that hurt. Understandably, the more
severe the emotional wound, the greater will be the time and effort needed to arrive at a
control or resolution of the associated anger. Fitzgibbons (1998) explains how an
individual can be assisted in this process of forgiving. An individual can be helped to
move toward forgiveness by concentrating on a specific memory or a long series of
painful memories. This process may then proceed in one of three levels: cognitive,
emotional, or spiritual.
On the cognitive level, an individual, after analyzing the origins of their pain,
makes a decision to forgive, that is to let go of anger or the desire for revenge. Initially,
the person may not be inclined or have the proper disposition to forgive. For most people
the forgiveness process begins with this cognitive level and usually remains on that level
for a period of time. Fitzgibbons (1998) labels this step the cognitive level because the
person decides to forgive, thinks it is good to do, but as yet does not feel compassion or
love toward the offending one. As the anger level diminishes through regular forgiveness
exercises, the intellect is bothered less by the negative effects of anger and subsequently
grows in understanding the offender and his/her weaknesses.
Emotional forgiveness is that phase of forgiveness process in which the client
comes to understand deeply the offender and his/her struggles, develops a certain degree
of empathy for the “wounded boy or girl” within the adult, and as a result, feels truly
inclined to forgive. This level or stage of the process of forgiveness is usually preceded
by a significant amount of time in the utilization of cognitive forgiveness exercises.

74
Growth in understanding the weaknesses and life struggles of the offender is the major
path that leads to emotional forgiveness. Some clients feel upset or even guilty when this
process moves slowly. They may even balk at the cognitive forgiveness, for they believe
that it is not forgiveness at all since they do not truly feel like forgiving. The crucial need
here is to recognize that forgiveness is a process with several stages, and that in time,
perhaps slowly, the feelings will follow.
The third approach to the use of forgiveness is spiritual. This approach is utilized
when someone suffers from such severe pain that they cannot let go of resentment
against the offender either cognitively or emotionally. In utilizing a modification of the
AA Twelve Steps program, the person tries to reflect: “ I am powerless over my anger
and want to turn it over to God” or “Revenge or justice belongs to God” or “God, forgive
him, I can’t” or “God, free me from my anger” (Alcoholics Anonymous, 1952).
Hopefully this will lead to the former step of the cognitive exercises, which in turn
emotional forgiveness may follow (Fitzgibbons, 1998).
The Model of Forgiveness Based on Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development
Perhaps the groundbreaking work on moral development is Kohlberg’s (1969,
1973,1976) explanation of the development of sense of justice. It is this standard that
Enright and colleagues and others (Enright, Gassin, & Wu 1992; Enright & HDSG,
1991b; Enright, Santos, & Al-Mabuk, 1989; Nelson, 1992; Spidell & Libeman, 1981)
have used to describe the acquisition of reasoning about forgiveness. These models
suggest that as individuals develop cognitive skills, they become more able to take the
perspective of others, to empathize with their predicaments and frailties, and try to value
and accept them as people despite the hurts they have inflicted in the past. In Table 2-2 the
models of Enright’s group (Enright, Gassin, & Wu, 1992; Enright & HDSG, 1991a) are
placed alongside Kohlberg’s to show how they correspond to each other. Each stage

75
Table 2-2. Developmental Models of Forgiveness and Their Relationship to
Kohlberg’s Theory
Kohlberg’s Theory
Enright Model
Stage 1. Punishment and obedience
orientation. Justice should be decided by
an authority or one who punishes.
Stage 2. Relativist justice. A sense of
reciprocity defines justice. (“If you help
me, I will help you.”)
Stage 3. Good boy/good girl justice.
Group consensus determines what is right
and wrong. The morality of behavior is
based on the approval of others.
Stage 4. Law and Order Justice. Societal
laws determine conceptions of justice.
Laws are upheld to maintain an orderly
society.
Stage 5. Social contract orientation.
Interest in maintaining the social fabric,
with the realization unjust laws exist. It is
just and fair to work in the system for
change.
Stage 6. Universal ethical principle
orientation. Sense of justice is based on
maintaining the individual rights of all
persons. Conscience rather than laws or
norms determines moral behavior.
Stage 7. Life is valued from a cosmic
perspective.
Stage 1. Revengeful forgiveness.
Forgiveness is not possible without
punishment to a degree of pain similar to
the pain of the offense.
Stage 2. Restitutional/compensational
forgiveness. Forgiveness can occur out of
guilt or if the offender offers some form of
restitution.
Stage 3. Expectational forgiveness.
Forgiveness is a response to social
pressure.
Stage 4. Lawful expectational forgiveness.
Forgiveness occurs in response to societal,
moral, or religious pressure.
Stage 5. Forgiveness as social harmony.
Forgiveness restores social harmony and
right relationships.
Stage 6. Forgiveness as love.
Forgiveness promotes love. The offense
does not jeopardize love. Forgiveness
increases the likelihood of reconciliation
between the offender and the forgiver.
Source: Enright, Santos, & Al-Mabuk, 1989

76
in Kolberg’s model corresponds with one, and only one stage, in Enright’s model. In the
lowest stages—Revengeful Forgiveness and Restitutional Forgiveness—forgiveness can
only occur after the wrongdoer has been subjected to revenge or appropriate punishment.
In the middle stages—Expectational Forgiveness of Forgiveness as Social Flarmony—
forgiveness can be gained only if pressures from significant others are present. It is only in
the highest stage of the model—Forgiveness as Love—that forgiveness is conceived as an
unconditional attitude and is seen as promoting positive regard and good will. This
ultimate stage in theory best illustrates the difference between the Piaget and Enright
conceptions of forgiveness. According to Enright and the Human Development Study
Group (1994), forgiveness due to its gift-like character, does not entail any kind of
reciprocity as conceived by Piaget (1932). Nelson (1992) and Enright’s Group (Enright,
Gassin, &Wu, 1992; Enright & HDSG, 1991a; Enright et al., 1989) considered the earliest
signs of reasoning concerning forgiveness to occur when cognition is predominately
egocentric and preoccupied with avoiding pain and seeking pleasure. Nelson (1992) called
this stage of reasoning about forgiveness the precognitive. Individuals resent authority and
have a limited capacity for intimacy with and empathy for others.
Forgiveness’ prime motivation is a self-interest and desire for revenge and
restitution. Such individuals feel hurt by even minor offenses. Enright’s group (Enright,
Gassin, & Wu, 1992; Enright & HDSG, 1991a; Enright, Santos, & Al-Mabuk, 1989)
divided this period into two stages. During the stage of revengeful forgiveness,
forgiveness is motivated by an egocentric desire for revenge. During the stage of
restitutional-compensational forgiveness, forgiveness is driven by a desire to receive
compensation and restitution for offenses that one has experienced. This period of

77
forgiveness reasoning coincides with the stages of justice reasoning that Kohlberg (1969,
1973,1976) called punishment and obedience orientation and relativist justice.
Nelson (1992) and Enright’s group (Enright, Gassin, & Wu, 1992; Enright &
HDSG, 1991a) considered an intermediate period of reasoning concerning forgiveness to
occur when individuals are preoccupied with rule-governed behavior and desire to appear
good in the eyes of others. Enright and associates subdivided this period into expectational
forgiveness, during which forgiveness results from social pressure. Lawful expectational
forgiveness grants forgiveness due to the influence of institutional, moral, or religious
pressure; or as social harmony in which forgiveness is used to maintain social harmony
and good relationships. This period of forgiveness reasoning coincides with Kohlbergs’s
(1969,1973,1976) stages of justice reasoning called good boy/good girl justice, law and
order justice, and social contract orientation.
The third period of reasoning concerning forgiveness is characterized by genuine
interest in the well being of others and for promoting love and interpersonal harmony.
Enright and associates labeled this stage simply as love. This period of forgiveness
reasoning parallels Kohlberg’s (1969, 1973,1976) universal ethical principle orientation
stage of justice reasoning.
Enright et al. (1989), Huang (1990), and Park, Enright, and Gassin (1993) found
evidence for a developmental view on reasoning concerning forgiveness in American,
Taiwanese, and Korean samples. In these studies, reasoning concerning forgiveness
(according to the model of Enright et al. (1989)) was moderately correlated with justice
reasoning. Reasoning concerning forgiveness also increased with age.

78
The Forgiveness Model
The following model proposed by Enright and the Human Development Study
Group will be utilized in this study. It incorporates the ideals of the prementioned models.
It is, at best, an estimate of the general pathway many people follow when they forgive.
This model is not a rigid, step-like sequence but is instead a flexible set of processes with
feedback and feed-forward loops. In the process of forgiving some may skip entire units.
When people do decide to forgive, they seem to need time to accommodate slowly
to the idea. Enright and the Human Development Study Group observed two patterns of
change. In the first pattern, most people will consider forgiving another person when their
emotional pain is so intense and discomforting that they must do something to change this
stressful situation. When they do decide to forgive, it is primarily a self-interested activity;
the person forgives in order to feel better. Only after a period of time does the forgiver
understand the gift like quality of forgiveness. Gradually, the forgiver does focus on the
other person rather than on the self. Over time, people who continue to practice
forgiveness may actually alter their primary worldview or their own sense of identity to
integrate forgiveness into their own philosophy of life and that view of themselves.
In the second pattern, once focusing on the other with the intent of forgiving, the
forgiver operates by one of three moral principles. The first is finding that practicing
merciful restraint is sufficient in itself. Merciful restraint is the holding back of a negative
response, such as punishment, when the offended has the power or the “right” to punish.
In merciful restraint, the forgiver gives up the initially attractive option of revenge or
condemnation. Later, he or she may have the strength and inner fortitude to give
generously to the other. Generosity goes further than refraining from the bad; it includes
the dimension of giving such positive elements as occasional friendliness and attention to

79
the offender. Still later, some forgivers may offer the gift of moral love, in which the
forgiver willingly enters into the other’s life in the hope of positively transforming the
other and the community. The forgiver’s degree of trust toward the other and the amount
of time passed since the offense(s) play a significant part in these unfolding patterns
(Enright et al., 1998).
The moral judgment literature suggests that forgiveness is developmental (Enright,
Santos, & Al-Mabuk, 1989; Piaget 1932/1965). As forgiveness is both a psychological
and social process, it should be subject to developmental influences (Romig &Veenstra,
1998). As people mature, they may be more willing to forgive a deep offense against them
(Subkoviak et al., 1992). Piaget highlighted some pertinent factors that influence and
affect our ability to forgive. Piaget (1932/1965) placed forgiveness within a
developmental framework because in his view it possessed certain developmental
characteristics. The first is maturational aspect. Young children have a difficult time
understanding forgiveness. It is only in late middle childhood that the concept emerges.
The second is manipulation of the object. Without practicing forgiveness, it is difficult to
forgive. Third is social input. Certain religious beliefs and cultural supports and models
from significant others encourage forgiveness. Fourth is equalization. When a person tries
to forgive there can be periods of confusion, stress, and struggle before the “balance of
forgiveness” (Fitzgibbons, 1986; Kaufman, 1984). Forgiveness according to Piaget (1932)
emerges late in childhood, once the child passes through heterogamous and into
autonomous moral reasoning.
Forgiveness is more than a moral matter; it is an interpersonal process that
represents a possible response to wounds or injustice we encounter in relational context.
Flow a person conceptualizes and experiences relationships, particularly the more personal

80
and intense relationships, should influence the process of reconciling a relationship
unraveled by unjustly induced pain. One’s psychosocial development may also have a
significant influence in how one reacts to a painful injury and the processes selected for
coping with such injury. Erikson’s theory of psychosocial development provides means
for understanding the process of resolving significant relationship injuries (Romig &
Veenstra, 1998).
Erikson (1963) developed a sequence of eight developmental stages that are
hierarchically ordered and expand over one’s entire life. At each particular stage one is
confronted by a unique crisis or conflict, although each conflict remains present in some
form throughout the life span and is never entirely resolved. Romig and Veenstra (1998)
analyzed the primary stages and how they relate to forgiveness The key stages are the first
(trust vs. mistrust), sixth (intimacy vs. isolation), and seventh (generativity vs. stagnation),
which examine primarily relational issues. A person who does not resolve the trust versus
mistrust crisis in an adequate manner perceives the world as unpredictable, menacing, and
unsafe; is likely to view people with suspicion; and is hyper vigilant on being exploited. It
would be most challenging for this individual to respond to an injustice with forgiveness.
Even if forgiveness were offered, it would be primarily from the vantage of self-
preservation.
The failure to resolve the intimacy versus isolation crisis satisfactorily could direct
one toward self-absorption, fear of intimacy, and profound ambivalence toward being in
committed relationships. A defensive wall goes up to protect the individual from what he
or she most craves and needs. An unjust injury would only aggravate this tendency to
remain distant and fearful of and isolated from intimate relationships.

81
Failing to resolve the generativity versus stagnation crisis would greatly contribute
to a person living primarily for selfish gratification and remaining inconsiderate to the
well being of others. Forgiveness requires making a decision to promote justice for the
sake of showing mercy and compassion and a concern for the well-being of the offender,
and this would most likely not be present in anyone who fails to resolve this stage (Romig
& Veenstra, 1998).
Finally, what does the process of forgiveness look like? Recall that forgiveness has
been defined as a “voluntary forgoing of negative affect and judgment by an injured party
directed at someone who has inflicted a significant, deep, and unjust hurt; this process also
involves viewing the wrongdoer with love and compassion” (Enright & F1DSG, 1991a;
North, 1987).
Forgiveness is a process of struggling with and ultimately abandoning negative
thoughts, feelings, and behaviors directed at the injurer, while gradually and actively
incorporating positive thoughts, feelings, and behaviors toward the same. This general
process may involve some or all of at least 20 subprocesses based on Enright’s model
(Gassin & Enright, 1995).
The foregoing model has been shown effective in three works to date. Freedman
and Enright (1996) in an intervention with female incest survivors, used the model in a
once-per-week educational program. The participants explored the ideas of each unit at
each woman’s own pace for an average of 1 year to complete the program. This was an
experimental and controlled design that was randomized. After the experimental group
completed the educational program, the women who composed the original control group
participated in the discussion, thus becoming the second experimental group.

82
Table 2-3. Process of Forgiving
Uncovering Phase
1. Examination of psychological defenses (Kiel, 1986).
2. Confrontation of anger; the point is to release not harbor, the anger (Trainer, 1981)
3. Admittance of shame when this is appropriate (Patton, 1985)
4. Awareness of catharsis (Droll, 1984).
5. Awareness of cognitive rehearsal of the offense (Droll, 1984)
6. Insight that the injured party may be comparing self with the injurer (Kiel, 1986).
7. Realization that oneself may be permanently and adversely changed by the injury
(Close, 1970).
8. Insight into a possibly altered “just world “ view (Flanigan, 1987).
Decision Phase
9. A change of heart conversion, new insights that old resolution strategies are not
working (North, 1987).
10. Willingness to consider forgiveness as an option
11. Commitment to forgive the offender (Neblett, 1974).
Work Phase
12. Refraining, through role taking, who the wrongdoer is by viewing him or her in
context (Smith, 1981).
13. Empathy toward the offender (Cunningham, 1985).
14. Awareness of compassion, as it emerges, toward the offender (Droll, 1984)
15. Acceptance, absorption of the pain (Bergin, 1988).
Outcome Phase
16. Finding meaning for self and others in the suffering and in the forgiveness process
(Frank, 1959).
17. Realization that self has needed others’ forgiveness in the past (Cunningham,
1985).
18. Insight that one is not alone (universality, support).
19. Realization that self may have a new purpose in life because of the injury.
20. Awareness of decreased negative affect and, perhaps increased positive affect, if
this begins to emerge, toward the injurer; awareness of internal, emotional release
(Smedes, 1984).
Source: (Gassin & Enright, 1995, p. 39)

83
Three findings are worth noting (Freedman & Enright, 1996). First, a comparison
of the experimental group with the control group after the 1 st year of education, showed
that the experimental participants gained statistically more than the control group in
forgiving and hope. The experimental group decreased statistically significantly more than
the control group in anxiety and psychological depression. Second, after the 1st year,
participants from the original control group became an experimental group for the entire
2nd year. Thus, one could compare their outcomes within the 2nd year (as experimental
participants) with their own outcomes during the 1 st year (as control participants). This
comparison yielded results similar to the first aforementioned finding about the
experimental group and the control group. The changes in the 2nd year compared with
those of the 1 st year within this group were statistically significant: There was a greater
decrease in anxiety and depression. The third comparison examined the original (1st year)
experimental group scores at the 1 -year post test within their scores at a 1 -year follow-up
(1 year after intervention ceased for this original experimental group). These participants
maintained their change patterns on all scales, thus showing that there was no washout
effect.
The two other interventions also validated this model of forgiving. Al-Mabuk,
Enright, and Cardis (1995) reported positive mental health outcomes following short-term
workshop on forgiveness education for college students who had been deprived of
parental love. Hebl and Enright (1993) demonstrated forgiving responses in the elderly
following an 8-week program. In the latter study, both experimental and control groups
decreased in anxiety. The overall pattern across these diverse samples suggested that the
model of forgiving is effective in bringing people to a forgiving stage toward an offender.

84
Units 1 through 8 represent the preforgiveness interpersonal conflict following a
deep, unfair hurt. Psychological defenses (unit 1) mask emotional pain that may be too
intense. Anger (unit 2) is one of the initial signs that the individual is confronting the
offense. Anger, though uncomfortable, is considered a necessary part of the forgiveness
journey in its initial phases (Hope, 1987). Common behaviors such as shame, attaching a
greater deal of emotional energy to the problem (carthexis), rehearsing the event over and
over in one’s mind (cognitive rehearsal), and similar patterns are common (units 3 through
5). In some cases the person must at some point confront a permanent negative change
(e.g., paralysis from an accident, broken relationship, loss of sexual innocence) in unit 6.
Unit 7 can be particularly painful, as the injured party (who acknowledges his or her own
loss) sees no such deficit in the injurer. All of this may lead a person bitterly to conclude
that life can be profoundly unfair (unit 8).
In units 9 through 11 the injured party becomes aware that there are other
possibilities and paths that one can choose to travel. There lies a glimmer of hope that life
still offers worthy opportunities. There is no set time, situation, or condition that the
individual may discover this possibility.
Units 12 through 20 compare the processes of change directed toward forgiveness.
The injured can now rise above the hurt and look beyond the self to consider the other.
Reframing (unit 12) is the process of viewing and understanding the offending person in
context—examining the developmental history, their deficits, and the pressures they were
under at the time of the injury. One does not condone but desires to understand the
phenomenological view. Many, including Guest (1988) and Trainer (1981), advocate this
strategy. Empathy (unit 13) is the essential emotional counterpart to cognitive relfaming.

85
From this understanding, compassion (unit 14) can emerge, making the acceptance
of the injustice and the gift of forgiveness a possibility. The insights gained from unit 15
enable the forgiver to realize that both self and other are imperfect and fallible, which may
make the next unit easier to achieve. When one absorbs the pain (unit 16), it prevents the
conflict from being directly transmitted to individuals in present and/or future generations
(Bergin, 1988). Unit 17 helps the offended find life meaningful and forms the solid
foundation of positive psychological adjustment (Frank, 1959). Some people, as they head
toward psychological healing, develop a new purpose in life. Out of the ashes comes a
new promising life and vision (unit 18). The incest survivor, for example, decides to use
the insight gained and counsel other survivors. As the person experiences a decrease in the
negative emotions (e.g., resentment, hostility), forgiveness, which once seemed
unattainable, now becomes a real possibility (unit 19). Finally, in unit 20, the wounded
party experiences a release of most (if not all) negative, toxic emotion directed at the
offender.
Fitzgibbons (1998) offers insight into what occurs under the broad categories of
the forgiveness process during this challenging task. The stages are listed below.
Uncovering
In the uncovering phase the nature and role of anger is discussed, including the
methods of dealing with this potent emotion and the many forms that anger reveals itself
at various life stages. In this phase, the clients learn how they can resolve any anger that
they may discover within themselves. Quite often, people are more likely to admit and
own their anger if there is an option for dealing with it that does not require expressing it.

86
Cognitive exercises are put into practice at this stage. The cognitive exercises
enables one to admit anger, perhaps previously denied, and to work with it, thereby
initiating the process of the healing journey.
In the decision phase, forgiveness is presented as the preferred method, along with
promoting its many advantages as the avenue to pursue for healing. To inspire and
motivate the individual, successful cases, histories of others with conflicts, are presented
to encourage. To clarify any false misconceptions, forgiveness is explained for what it is
and for what it is not. Many people in this initial stage of their healing are so
overwhelmed that they cannot even consider offering compassion, generosity, and love
toward those who have hurt them grievously. Many will only decide to begin the process
after they have been reassured that they do not have to become vulnerable toward the
person whom they wish to forgive. They are reassured that forgiving does not preclude
expressing anger or pursuing justice where appropriate. The resolution of anger with an
offender and the investment of trust toward that person are related but remain distinct
procedures.
During this phase, for those fortunate enough not to be suffering from severe pain
or betrayal, they are informed that, as they work on surrendering their anger, they most
likely will come to experience compassion and love toward those who have hurt them.
Forgiveness is possible through a process of sincere attempts to understand the emotional
development and to empathize with their life stresses of those who have inflicted the pain.
As that process occurs, there is a keen awareness that the behavior of many offenders can
be attributed not as an innate evil but to their own emotional scars. If possible, the stage
methods of forgiveness are presented-cognitive, emotional, and spiritual.

87
Work
In the work phase the therapist describes reframing as understanding. For most
people, forgiveness begins first, as an intellectual pursuit in which there is no emotional
attachment to the thought of forgiveness. If their anger existed toward a parent, they
would be asked to identify a number of areas in which they were disappointed with each
parent and to spend time forgiving the parent of any or perceived injustices at different
developmental stages. Most likely, this would be met with resistance. Also, some come to
realize that they have been hurt so deeply that they cannot even utter the word
forgiveness, and they are more comfortable stating that they are willing to rid themselves
of their desire for revenge. For those with deep embedded anger, the release of resentment
can be facilitated by a process that begins with the physical expression of anger. Caution
is exercised so that no one will get hurt. This is immediately followed by cognitive
forgiveness exercises directed at letting go of the desire for revenge.
It is during this crucial stage that the major obstacles to forgiveness are reviewed.
These may include a lack of parental modeling for the task, significant others who
continue to disappoint and frustrate in a regular manner and/or a personal basis,
narcissism, and a compulsive need to control. Also, since anger is often used to defend
against feelings of inadequacy and fear, particularly the fear of betrayal, many individuals
are not able to relinquish their anger and move ahead with the forgiveness process until
their self-esteem and basic ability to trust are reestablished.
It is important to point out that, although forgiveness diminishes the level of anger,
it does not completely heal the wounds of sadness and mistrust. For many who have
sustained major loss, only through a sense of being loved in a new and unique way can
allow them to accept the pain.

88
Outcome
The benefits from the effort to forgive far outweigh the Struggle it entails. The
significant benefits range from a decreased level of anger and hostility to an increased
feelings of love and a marked ability to control anger, improved capacity to trust, and the
freedom from the subtle control of individuals and events of the past. Other advantages
are a letting go of negative, parental, emotional, and behavioral patterns, improved sleep
patterns, self-confidence in relationships, improved academic and work performance,
improved concentration skills, and a resolution of physical symptoms and illnesses caused
by hostility (Barefoot et al., 1983; Schekelle et al., 1983).
These preceding stages seem to occur (a) slowly, (b) with a little understanding
toward the other (such as seeing the other person as imperfect), (c) in confusion over the
emotions (as you sort out the mix of emotions), (d) with a residue of anger left over (it
seems to go away then emerges, but over time it lessens), (e) a little at a time, (f) freely or
not at all (the other is no longer under obligation to you for what they did) (Eastin, 1988).
When one has received forgiveness, it is easier to forgive others (Smedes, 1984).
In reviewing the literature, the following five components appear to be crucial in
the process of forgiveness:
1. The acceptance into awareness of strong emotions such as anger an sadness.
2. Letting go of previously unmet interpersonal needs.
3. A shift in the forgiving person’s view of the offender.
4. The development of empathy for the offender.
5. The construction of a new narrative of self and other.
(Malcolm & Greenberg, 2000)
Though this process may appear fixed and orderly, forgiveness does not always
flow as smoothly as it may seem. The first and most vital step in the process is making the
commitment to forgive. Forgiveness is first and foremost an act of the will. There is no

89
universal process that fits each person’s situation. “There is no cookbook formula for
forgiveness. I inform people that they must choose to be forgiving. If they wait until they
feel forgiving before they choose to forgive, it may be a long and arduous wait”
(Coleman, 1998, p. 76)
The Role of Empathy
Perhaps the sine qua non character trait for the role of forgiving is empathy.
Studzinski (1986) sees the capacity to forgive another as the hallmark of a mature
personality, a considerable advance over the brute desire for revenge. It is through an
advanced maturity that we are able to look beyond our needs and our wounds and forgive
and empathize with another. Forgiveness requires focusing our understanding on the other
person, as well as seeing oneself just as capable of hurting others, intentionally or
unintentionally (Lampman, 1999). A key ingredient in our ability to forgive apparently
originates from the injured person’s ability to identify or empathize with the offending
individual (Rowe et al., 1989). The ability to feel with another person represents a
transformation of one’s narcissistic tendency to a socially beneficial direction. Empathy
lays the emotional foundation for the later cognitive capacity for taking social perspective
for examining situations from the other person’s vantagepoint. The injured person
concludes that the offender is also human and capable of committing mistakes and also
might perceive that the offender needs to be forgiven in the same fashion that the injured
person would want to be forgiven if the situation were reversed. Through this maturation,
one may even consider that there is a common bond, a sense of unity between the forgiver
and the offender, for they share the most fundamental quality, that of being human
(Studzinski, 1986).

90
A number of theorists (Brandsma, 1982; Cunningham, 1985; Fitzgibbons, 1986;
Hope, 1987; Enright & HDSG, 1991a; McCullough, 1997) have identified the capacity for
empathy as the primary element in successful forgiveness. McCullough, Worthington, and
Rachal (1997) have proposed and investigated an empathy model of forgiveness and
McCullough, Worthington, and Rachal (1997) have concluded that empathy and
forgiveness are intimately, maybe even causally, linked. Empathy can be defined as “an
active effort to understand another person’s perception of an interpersonal event as if one
were that other person, rather than judging the other person’s behavior from the
perspective of one’s own experience of that event”(Malcolm & Greenberg, 2000, p. 180).
Worthington (McCullough & Worthington, 1994b) developed an empathy-
humility-commitment model of forgiveness. In this three-part model, forgiveness is
hypothesized to be initiated by empathy for the offender, advanced by humility in the
offended, and then reinforced through a public commitment to forgive the offender. The
driving force is empathy. Narcissism, the inability to move beyond oneself, has an
inhibitory effect on the forgiveness process. Difficulty in empathic functioning is a glaring
shortcoming in narcissism, and empirical evidence of a negative association between
empathy and narcissism has emerged (Ehrenberg, Hunter, & Elterman, 1996; Porcerelli &
Sandler, 1995; Watson, Grisham, Trotter, & Biderman, 1984). Worthington states that
“forgiveness is the natural response to empathy and humility” (Worthington, Sandage, &
Berry, 2000, p. 64). The hypothesized link between empathy and forgiveness has been
empirically confirmed in a series of correlative and intervention studies by McCullough,
Worthington, and their associates (McCullough, Worthington, & Rachal, 1997). The lack
of empathy is an unfortunate characteristic of a narcissistic personality and accounts in

91
part for the difficulty people with such a disorder have in forgiving injuries done to them
(Wilson, 1994).
In this whole process of forgiveness, as challenging as it may be, the core element
that facilitates forgiveness is empathy. Empathy for the offending partner acts as the
central facilitative condition that induces forgiveness. A variety of pro social phenomena,
such as cooperation, care, altruism, and the inhibition of aggression may facilitate the role
of empathy for the other person (Batson, 1990, 1991; Batson & Oleson, 1991; Eisenberg
& Fabes, 1990; Eisenberg & Miller, 1987; Hoffman, 1981, 1990; Moore, 1990; Rusbult,
Verette, Whitney, Slovik, & Lipkus, 1991; Tangney, 1991). French philosopher and
educator Jean Piaget, writing in 1932, saw forgiveness as an advanced stage of moral
development, arguing that empathy is the cognitive operation making forgiveness possible
because it entails the compassionate recognition that the other is also human.
Empathy is the cognitive awareness of another’s internal states that reflect their
thoughts, feelings, perceptions, and intentions (Ickes, 1997). Empathy is the involvement
of the psychological process that makes a person have feelings that coincide with
another’s situation more than with their situation (Hoffman, 2000).
Robert Enright (1999) suggests the following questions to help “the injured person
view the offender as a vulnerable human being”:
1. What was it like for the person as they were growing up? Did the offender come
from a home in which there was conflict or even abuse?
2. What was happening in the person’s life at the time they hurt you?
3. Can you see the person as having worth simply by being a member of the human
community?
In answering these questions one may gain the necessary insight and emphathetic
understanding to forgive one’s perpetrator.

92
How Does One Know When Forgiveness Has Taken Place?
Having put into practice the aforementioned steps, how does one know that one
has achieved an adequate level of forgiveness? Flanigan (1998) found that interviewees
considered forgiveness complete when they had achieved one of these four end-states or
some combination of them.
1. When they no longer harbored resentment or hatred toward the offenders.
2. When they felt neutral toward their offenders.
3. When they once again experienced some degree of trust in their offenders.
4. When they have achieved reconciliation with their offenders.
Smedes (1984) states simply and clearly that you will know forgiveness has begun
in you when you recall that person who hurt you and now are able to wish him/her well.
Rosenak and Hamden (1992) state that internal signs for the forgiver are lack of pain, an
inner sense of peace, the ability to enjoy life, the discovery of the resources to pray, and
not being preoccupied with past hurt (Wilson, 1994). Eventually, over time, with full
expression of thought, feeling, and behavior, the one who is injured gradually becomes
aware that he/she has relinquished the right, insistance, need, or desire for revenge (Hope,
1987; Smedes, 1984). Retaliation is no longer an option that seems beneficial to healing
the self (Jampolsky, 1985). One can truly and with heartfelt sincerely begin to wish the
other well (Smedes, 1984).
Forgiveness is a process primarily concerned with the experience of resolution, of
moving on: of healing the past. It strives to get unstuck from the agony and burden
of past injuries. The future holds an immediate sense of being on the verge of
bright, new beginnings and is again available where previously it was not; the past,
although neither forgotten nor rationalized away, no longer is a haunting, heavy,
and troubling issue. (Rowe et al., 1989, p. 242)

93
Fow (1988) believes that forgiveness has taken place when “being angry ceases to
be as figural and disturbing ... one no longer experiences the violation as an unresolved
blocking of everyday life, of one’ unfolding future” (pp. 89-90).
Over time the injured person receives the gift of no longer being held bound to
repressed anger, resentment, and desired revenge. At this stage of forgiveness, the person
would no longer feel, think, or act as if they were in bondage to the harmful event or to the
individual that injured them (Flanigan, 1987). A possible side effect or by-product of this
release is that the injured person may not only be free from negative emotions but actually
have positive feelings toward the injurer (Eastin, 1988). When this occurs, one can safely
assume that one is well on the road of forgiveness.
The critical dimension of forgiving is that one experiences an alteration in one’s
understanding of, and relationship to the other, oneself, and the world.... There is
an experience of reclaiming oneself, which at the same time, implies a shift into a
larger perspective. (Rowe, 1989, pp. 241-242)
What Are the Benefits in Forgiving
Despite the effort and the strenuous demands in the forgiving process, there are
many benefits derived from it. We have modem examples of those who suffered
tremendous injustices and yet were able to forgive. In 1985, Pope John Paul II went into
the bowels of Rome’s Rabiibia prison to visit Menet Ali-Akhga, a hired assassin who tried
to kill him in 1981 and almost succeeded. In 1992, Christipher Wilson, a Black
Californian, forgave two White teens who doused him with gasoline and set him afire,
yelling at him “Die nigger, die” as he rolled in agony. Reginald Denny, who is White,
forgave two Black men who pulled him from his truck and tried to beat him to death
during the 1992 Los Angeles riots. They claimed that by forgiving they have a greater
sense of peace and calm. These examples point to the salutary effects and healing power
of forgiveness.

94
Recent research has suggested many benefits of forgiveness, including increased
mental health, (Al-Mabuk, Enright, & Cardis, 1995; Coyle & Enright, 1997; Freedman &
Enright, 1996; Flargrave & Sells, 1997; Hebl & Enright, 1993) and marital satisfaction
(Fennel, 1993). In contrast, defensive responses such as revenge fantasies and blaming
have been associated with psychopathology (e.g., Greenwald & Flarder, 1994; Zelin,
Adler, & Myerson, 1972), criminality (Flolbrook, White, & Flutt, 1995), poor health
outcomes (e.g., Affleck, Tennen, Croog, & Levine, 1987; Tennen & Afleck, 1990).
Forgiveness can lead to the healing process.
The goal of therapeutic process is to assist people resolve painful and self-
defeating patterns of behavior. Therapists are confronted in their work with the
harsh facts of injustice, the abuse of the weak by the strong, betrayals of trust,
loyalty, and innocence. One sees the results of these actions in adult clients who
act out the patterns of self-punishment and self-limitation in their distorted images
of the social world, in their rage directed inward and acted out against other or
anesthetized with substances. (Hope, 1987, p. 241)
Forgiveness leads to freedom. “We cannot be free until we set others free by
forgiving them” (Ogilivie, 1984, p. 61). It is becoming apparent that the only way to heal
the pain that will not heal itself is to forgive the person who hurt us (Smedes, 1984).
Forgiving has the power to finally stop the reruns of the pain and frees us from the
bondage to the offender (Benson, 1992).
There are many reasons why it is so important to forgive, not the least of which is
that the alternatives are so destructive. A Chinese proverb says, “The one who pursues
revenge should dig two graves.” It has been stated that 75% of people in hospitals with
physical illnesses have sicknesses rooted in emotional causes and, in fact, these patients
are punishing themselves with their illnesses suggesting their involuntary confessions of
guilt (Belguim, 1970). Forgiveness is much more than a moral imperative and much more
than a theological dictum. It is the only means, given our humanness and imperfections, to

95
cast aside hatred and condemnation and go forward with the business of growing and
loving (Coleman, 1998). It has been known for years that depression is quite often
accompanied by a significant feeling of guilt. The director of a psychiatric hospital in
Knoxville, Tennessee, states that 50% of the patients could go home if they knew they
were forgiven (McDowell, 1986).
One of the most serious consequences from lacking forgiveness is that one
becomes bonded to those one needs to forgive and indebted to those who need to be
forgiven, which in effect gives others control over our lives. As the avenger, one instead is
controlled rather than the one in control (Hershey, 1984). Setting others free translates into
setting oneself free because resentment is really a form of attachment—a cosmic tie to the
thing that we hate. The inability to let go of a hint may cause an enmeshment with another
person as we hold fast to hate and anger, perhaps to avoid feelings of grief and sadness
(Rowe & Leiter, 1987). This bond may also provide us with someone to blame for our
problems, which illustrates the extremely close relationship between facing responsibility
and forgiving (Seamands, 1981).
The victim who does not forgive the perpetrator of the abuse becomes united to
him/her and remains indebted to the perpetrator, which consequently hands over to the
perpetrator control over the victim's life. By setting the offender free, believes Benson
(1992), the survivor, most importantly, would be set free because resentment is really a
disguised form of attachment. She believes that the survivor who clings to the hate and
anger causes an enmeshment with the perpetrator, which may in fact be used as a defense
mechanism to avoid feeling grief and sadness. Benson questions if the perpetrator might
provide someone to blame for the problems in the survivor's life and help the survivor
avoid taking responsibility for how to live. Further, she states that in being unwilling to

96
forgive, the survivor has far more to lose than the perpetrator because whatever one
cannot forgive, one is doomed to live out. The inability to forgive frailty in the perpetrator
poignantly indicates that the same negative conditions exist in the survivor (Benson,
1992).
Kaufman (1984), a psychiatrist, states, “If sanity is to be secured the hate that
binds in slavery must be loosened by forgiving those who have in truth or illusion hurt and
wronged us” (p. 180). In a carefully controlled experimental design, Huang (1990) found
that those with a high level of forgiveness were significantly lower in both blood pressure
and levels of negative emotions as measured by observation of facial expression than
matched controls. Al-Mabuk (1990) showed significant correlations between forgiveness
and the following variables: lower levels of psychological depression, lower levels of
anxiety, and higher levels of self-esteem.
When one forgives certain elements are subtracted from each system. Negative
emotions such as anger, hatred, resentment, sadness, and/or contempt are given up
(Richards, 1988). This may occur slowly, but it eventually is accomplished specifically
toward the injuring person in the context of the given offence. In the cognitive system,
one ceases condemning judgements and the planning of revenge, if this occurred. In the
behavioral system, one no longer acts out the revenge (if such were occurring, however
subtle). When one forgives, certain elements are added to each system. In the affective
system, the negative emotions are replaced by more neutral emotions and eventually by
positive affect, such as compassion (Downie, 1965; Cunningham, 1985; North, 1987).
Positive thoughts emerge toward the other, such as wishing the individual well (Smedes,
1984) and viewing them respectfully as a moral equal (Cunningham, 1985). In the
behavioral realm, there is a willingness to join in loving community with the other perhaps

97
making overtures in that direction (Augsburger, 1981). Such overtures will depend on true
change in the other. There is the potential for the forgiver to experience both inner release
and a healed relationship (Augsburger, 1981).
In a study conducted at Hope College, in Holland, Michigan, professor of
psychology Dr. Witvliet (in press), investigated the body’s reaction to positive and
negative imaging. Placing electrodes on the young volunteers, she put the volunteers
through a four-stage mental imaging process. They were first asked to think about a hurt
that had been done them and then “actively rehearse” it for 16 seconds. At the sound of
the tone, they were to escalate the thought to “nursing a grudge” and making the offender
feel horrible. Another beep cued them to shift gears and “empathize with the offender.”
Finally, they were to imagine ways to “wish that person well.” Throughout the two-hour
session, the four responses occurred in different sequences, and Dr. Witvliet, measured
their heart rate, blood pressure, sweat and muscle tension (in press).
So far she has studied 71 subjects, (36 male, 35 female). Witvliet found “robust”
physiological differences between not forgiving and forgiving states. Subjects’
cardiovascular systems inevitably labor when they recall the person who harmed them.
But stress is “significantly greater” when they consider revenge rather that forgiveness.
Witvliet suggests that we may be drawn to hold grudges because it may offer us a false
sense of being in control. Interviews with her subjects indicated that they surprisingly felt
in even greater control when they tried to empathize with their offenders and enjoyed the
greatest sense of power, well-being, and resolution when they managed to grant
forgiveness (in press).
Forgiveness offered to one’s perpetrator leads also to forgiveness of oneself. If one
looks at the level of unconscious process, it can be seen that the standards by which a

98
person judges others is the same standard they use to judge themselves. In psychological
terms, if people condemn others they may be expected to have a harsh and punitive
superego monitoring their own behavior. By practicing a forgiving attitude toward others,
a person can also expect to temper the rigidity by which one judges oneself (Hope, 1987,
p. 242). Stapleton (1977) states that as we adamantly refuse to forgive, we have far more
to lose than the offender because whatever we cannot forgive, we are doomed to live out.
The inability to forgive a frailty in another person indicates that we have the same
negative condition existing in us (Benson, 1992).
Forgiveness can be the key to an optimistic and hopeful future for it holds the key
to freedom and a new beginning. Forgiveness is an attitude of lavishness and utter
openness. In this context, forgiveness of sin is the act whereby one is not bound by
the broken-ness of our life together in the world. A forgiving person is not bound
by the quite understandable logic of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a death
for a death . .. forgiveness is a focus on the present that frees from the past and
opens up the future.” (Hope, 1987, p. 75)
From the injured party’s point of view, “forgiveness will have the effect of preventing the
wrong from continuing to damage one’s self-esteem and one’s psyche, so bringing to an
end the distortion and corruption of one’s relations with others” (North, 1998, p. 18).
A paradox exists in that when one gives up certain things by forgiving, the forgiver
gains. Psychotherapists Fitzgibbons (1986) and Hope (1987) discuss the major gain of
enhanced mental health as a forgiver overcomes deep, debilitating anger. In forgiveness
our sense of well being is enhanced when we realize that anger will not consume the self.
Fitzgibbons (1986) and Hope (1987) observed that clients who forgive often benefit from
a concomitant decrease in anger, depression, anxiety, and related symptoms. Brandsma
(1982) noted that when a client remains bitter toward a perceived offender the anger can
escalate, causing additional psychological difficulties, whereas forgiveness can reverse the
trend (Hebl & Enright, 1993).

99
The correlation between the forgiveness scales and scales on the Minnesota
Multiphase Personality Inventory indicate that having problems in forgiving others or
oneself is closely associated with having higher degrees of psychopathology. Two
hundred and thirty seven outpatient counseling clients took MMPI and the Behavior
Assessment System. It found that deficits in forgiveness of others and forgiveness of self
are related to increased amounts of psychopathology such as depression, anxiety, and
schizophrenia (Mauger et al., 1992).
Walters (1984) asserts that there are illusory benefits in not forgiving, such as “the
neurotic satisfaction of self-pity, the appeal of vengeance, the temporary relief of taking
the easy way out, the hope for and sometimes the actuality of sympathy form others” (p.
126). Thus, the forgiver discovers the paradox of forgiveness: as we give to others the gift
of forgiveness we ourselves are healed. Freedman and Enright (1996) demonstrated gains
in forgiveness, self-esteem, and hope in a long-term educational intervention with female
incest survivors.
Romig and Veenstra (1998) measured the relationship between forgiveness and
psychosocial development. Studying a population of 113 upper division students in first
year teacher education found that resolution of relationship matters associate with trust,
intimacy, and generativity psychosocial task correlated with positive aspects of
forgiveness.
Hostility, Anger, and Physical Health
“Hostility is more or less an enduring pattern of suspiciousness, resentment,
frequent anger, and cynical mistrust of others” (Koenig, McCullough, & Larson, 2001,
p. 205). Substantial research on hostility and physical health was pioneered by Redford
Williams and his colleagues at Duke University (Williams et al., 1980; Barefoot, et al.,

100
1983; Williams, 1989) as they explored the characteristics of Type A behavior. The
concept of Type A behavior marked by time pressured, high levels of competitiveness and
ambition, prone to hostility and anger, was studied extensively beginning in the 1960s and
has since has become very well known to the general public. Gradually, however, the
emphasis has focused on the singular concept, hostility, since the results have repeatedly
shown that it is the hostile element of the Type A pattern that was the “toxic” component
related to coronary heart disease (e.g., Friedman & Booth-Kewley 1987; Dembroski &
Costa, 1987; Williams & Williams, 1993). Twice as many Type A men developed heart
disease in an eight and a half year time frame as those without these features (labeled
Type Bs) (See Rosenman et al., 1975; Friedman & Rosenman, 1974). In a study of 424
patients undergoing angiography, the fifty Hostility scale questions from the MMPI were
closely scrutinized. Those with higher hostility scores had more severe arteriosclerosis
and the hostility scores were associated with arteriosclerosis even more strongly than
those of the Type A scores. In a study of 118 law students, those lawyers whose hostility
scores had been in the highest quarter of their class 25 years earlier, showed that by age 50
nearly 20% were now deceased; in contrast to the only 4% of those with hostility scores in
the lowest quarter had died (Barefoot et al., 1989).
Although not entirely consistent, there is valuable longitudinal evidence pointing
to a relationship between hostility and coronary heart disease (CFTD). People high in
hostility experience two to four times the risk of CHD compared to those who score low
on this trait (Barefoot et. al., 1983; Chesney, Hecker, & Black, 1988).
In a recent meta-analysis of 45 prospective studies, Miller, Smith, Turner,
Guijarro, & Hallet (1996) found that measures of hostility, including the widely used
Cook-Medley Hostility [Ho] scale (Cook & Medley, 1954), were independent predictors

101
of all-cause mortality, even after controlling for potential covariates and confounding
variables. Barefoot, Larsen, Von der Lieth, and Schroll (1995) found a multiple adjusted
risk of 1.56 on acute myocardial infarction for an increase in hostility score of two
standard deviations. In a recent review on the role of hostility in cardiovascular disease,
Miller and colleagues (1996) found that hostility was independently associated with
objective evidence of CHD, such as a confirmed myocardial infarction. Some evidence is
now emerging on the possible effects that hostility might have on the cardiovascular
system. Hostility was found to be associated with angiographic coronary stenosis
(Williams et al., 1980; Barefoot et al., 1994) and silent ventricular dysfunction (Burg et
al., 1993).
Not only heart disease but hostility has also been linked to other life threatening
illnesses and mortality (Chesney & Rosenman, 1985; Friedman, 1992; Johnson, 1990;
Matthews et al., 1986; Smith, 1992). In a prospective study, Schekelle et al. (1983) found
hostility scores to predict mortality from other illnesses as well as CHD. Similarly,
Barefoot et al. (1983; 1989) found that hostility predicted all-cause mortality over 25- and
28-year follow-up periods.
Another pertinent find from the research on Type A behavior was that, through
examining the biological mechanisms of hostility, it indicates that hostility can magnify
the impact of blood cholesterol thereby making a high cholesterol level far more
dangerous for a hostile person. Among middle-aged men with high hostility scores, those
with higher blood cholesterol levels secrete more adrenaline while performing mental
tasks than did those with lower blood cholesterol levels. In contrast, among men with low
hostility scores there was an inverse association between blood cholesterol levels and
adrenaline responses to the task as cholesterol levels rose, the adrenaline responses

102
diminished (Suarez, Williams, Kuhn, Zimmerman, & Schanberg, 1991). It appears that
hostile men with high cholesterol are more likely to have larger adrenaline response
hostility stress-a combination that increases the likelihood of arteriosclerotic plaque
buildup in their coronary arteries. In contrast, the smaller adrenaline responses in
nonhostile men with high cholesterol can be expected to attenuate the effect of their high
cholesterol to cause arteriosclerotic plaque buildup (Williams & Williams, 1993, p. 73).
Furthermore, hostile persons possess at least two other potentially dangerous
biologic characteristics that may be damaging to health: a weak parasympathetic nervous
system and weak immune system. Our sympathetic nervous system (SNS) is the source of
the adrenaline and noradrenaline released during the more frequent fight-or-flight
responses experienced by hostile person.. It is the parasympathetic nervous system (PNS)
that calms the individual. When activated, PNS nerves release the chemical compound
acetylcholine into whatever tissue they supply. Once it makes its way inside a cell,
acetylcholine has the function of stopping the effects of adrenaline, such as the more
rapid, ceaseless, and forceful beating of heart-muscle cells. Because most organs involved
in the fight-or-flight response (e.g., the heart and the arteries) receive input from both the
SNS and PNS, it is possible for PNS activation to perform as a “brake” on the fight-or-
flight physical changes caused by SNS activation (Williams & Williams, 1993). To
increase their chances of harm, highly hostile people also tend to engage in more risky
behaviors, including smoking and greater consumption of food and alcohol, all of which
exacerbate the risk for disease. They unfortunately tend to experience less social support,
which puts them even at greater risk for both mental and physical problems (Williams &
Williams, 1993).

103
In a series of studies at the Tohoku Medical School in Senai, Japan, men with
characteristics of the Type A personality, particularly those with high hostility scores,
displayed weaker PNS responses than low Ho-scoring Type B men (Muranaka et al.,
1988). Since a brisk PNS serves as an counter effect to the stress produced by the SNS in
making the heart work harder, thereby slowing down the development of coronary
disease, a weaker PNS would be another way the nervous system of hostile persons might
place them at an increased risk of developing heart disease.
Although hostility involves angry feelings, this concept has deeper connotations of
a complex set of attitudes that trigger aggressive behaviors directed toward destroying
objects or harming people. Historically, it is the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
Inventory (MMPI) based Cook-Medley Hostility scale that has been used by most
investigators. However, recently there is an increased trend toward identifying more
specific personality factors involved in the relation between hostility and health outcomes.
Barefoot et al. (1989) found that 27 Cook-Medley items reflecting the constructs of
cynicism, hostile affect, and aggressive responding was an improved predictor of
mortality than the full hostility scale in a sample of former law school students who
completed the full scale in the late 1950s.
Dr. Shapiro and his colleagues (Shapiro, Jamner, Goldstein, & Huy, 1991) at
UCLA examined stress in ambulance workers. Workers with high hostility scores showed
larger blood pressure increases during angry interchanges with emergency room personnel
than did those with low hostility scores. Studying the biological mechanisms of hostility,
Williams, Larson, Buckler, Heckmann, and Pyle (1991) found that hostility can magnify
the impact of another risk factor, blood cholesterol. Among middle- aged men with high
hostility scores, those with raised blood cholesterol levels secreted more adrenaline while

104
performing mental tasks than did those with lower blood cholesterol levels. In contrast,
among men with low hostility scores there was an inverse association between blood
cholesterol levels and adrenaline responses to the task; as cholesterol levels rose, the
adrenaline responses diminished. Hostile men with high cholesterol are more likely to
have larger adrenaline responses to stress, a lethal combination that compounds the
likelihood of arteriosclerotic plaque buildup in their coronary arteries (Williams et al.,
1991)
A known major independent risk factor for CAD is psychological stress.
Throughout human history, it is the human heart which holds the lofty symbol of the
being the center of human emotions. In recent research, emotions associated with
psychological stress, particularly anger and hostility, have been associated with increase
risk of MI (myocardial infarction) (Diamond, 1982). Wenneberg et al., (1997) conducted
an experiment in which their subjects performed six minutes of mental arithmetic tests
under time pressure. In that brief time span, there was a positive correlation between
collagen-induced platelet aggregation and outwardly expressed anger. This finding leads
us to suspect that physiological mechanism by which anger initiates may precipitate a
coronary event.
In summary, it appears that the hostile person's nervous system is "wired"
differently from the nonhostile individual. In the hostile person the smallest provocation
sets off the SNS, whereas for the nonhostile individual even a potent stimuli will cause
comparatively slight SNS response. Even when the nonhostile person has a strong SNS
response, it quickly subsides due to their strong PNS in key body tissuees. The sum effect
of this strong SNS and weak PNS in hostile persons-increased cardiovascular activation,
increased mobilization of cholesterol into the blood increased clumping of platelets and a

105
decreased in the immune system functions are capable of igniting pathological processes
that explain the higher death rates noted in hostile persons (Williams & Williams, 1993).
Psychological stress may further increase the risk of heart disease through its
negative effects on the immune system. An impaired immune system, in turn, is crippled
and less able to prevent or contain infections by origins like cytomegalovirus or C.
pneumoniae, which have been implicated in the etiology of coronary atherosclerosis
(Zhou et al., 1996; Hooper, 1999).
The Role of Anger
Anger is generally considered to be a simpler concept than hostility or aggression.
The concept of anger usually refers to an “emotional state that consists of feelings that
vary in intensity, from mild irritation or annoyance to fury and rage” (Spielberger, 1983,
p. 11). Spielberger and colleagues have provided a coherent theoretical framework for
distinctions between state and trait anger, and between suppressed and expressed anger
(Spielberger et al., 1985; Spielberger, 1999).
A sizeable body of evidence has been accumulated on the relationship between
anger expression and hypertension. Both suppressed (Diamond, 1982; Harburg et al.,
1973,1979; Julius & Johnson, 1985; Thomas, 1997) and expressed anger (Engebretson,
Matthews, & Scheier, 1989; Gentry, 1985; Gentry, Chesney, Gary, Hall, & Harburg,
1982; Schalling, 1985; Spielberger et al., 1985) have been found to be significantly related
to elevated blood pressure and hypertension.
The literature on CHD highlights the importance of both suppressed anger
(Dembroski, MacDougall, Williams, Haney, & Blumenthal, 1985; Haynes, Feinleib, &
Kannel, 1980) and expressed anger (Cleveland & Johnson, 1962; Hammersten, Cathey,
Redmond, & Wolf, 1957; Hecker, Chesney, Black & Frautchi, 1988). In a longitudinal

106
study on the Farmington sample, Haynes et al. (1980) found that anger was related to
CHD incidence. Biomedical scholars suggest that chronic anger contributes to the
development and progression of disease (Friedman & Booth-Kewey, 1987). Also, the
association was independent of the association of Type A and CHD incidence. Similarly,
Matthews et al. (1977) in a study on the Western Collaborative Group found expressed
anger to be associated with higher incidence of CHD. Finally, Kawachi, Sparrow, Spiro,
Vokonas, & Weiss (1996) report a relative risk of 2.66 for the effect of anger on coronary
heart disease. In studies utilizing advanced technology, it has been possible to elucidate
some of the specific effects that anger might have on the cardiovascular system. For
example, anger has been shown to correlate with platelet aggregation (Wenneberg et al.,
1997); and it has also been shown to correlate with a decrease in diameter in narrowed
arteries (Boltwood, Taylor, Burke, Grogen, & Giacomini, 1993).
Anger, hostility, and other related emotions are not only harmful to the
cardiovascular system but have adverse immunological and hormonal effects (Gerritsen,
Heijnen, Wiegant, Bermond, & Frijda, 1996) and have been connected to poor health
outcomes (Carney, Rich, Freedland, Sainé, TeVelde, & Simeone & Clark, 1998; Frasure-
Smith, Lesperance, & Talajic, 1993 1995; Ladwig, Roll, Breithardt, Budde, & Borggreffe,
1994;Vandervort, Luis & Hamilton, 1997) Hypertension, the “sustained or chronic
elevation in blood pressure” (Koenig, McCullough, & Larson, 2001, p. 250), is known as
a major risk factor for coronary artery disease and the incidence increases with age. It may
also contribute to a host of other illnesses: stroke, congestive heart failure, diabetes, and
renal dysfunction. Though there are many factors such as genetics, cigarette smoking, and
heavy alcohol use, it is recognized that negative emotions can have a damaging effect on
an individual’s blood pressure. The psychological and social stress increases

107
catecholmines and cortisol, which are held to be a major component in poor quality health
outcomes (Schnall, Lansbergis, & Peiper, 1992; Cesana, Ferario, & Sega, 1996; Jonas,
Franks, & Ingram, 1997; Landsbergis, Schnall, & Warren, 1994). Other earlier studies
have linked high blood pressure with psychosocial factors such as anxiety, repressed
hostility, and psychological stress (Brody, 1980; Jacob, Kramer, & Agras, 1977; Linden &
Feuerstein, 1981; Taylor & Fortman, 1983; Weiner, 1979).
Physiological stress can possibly activate the autonomic nervous system, affecting
adversely gastronomical function and leading to peptic ulcer disease, irritable bowel
disease, and possibly even pancreatic dysfunction and diabetes (Engel, 1955; Cobb &
Rose, 1973; Hagglof et al., 1991; Koenig, McCullough & Larson, 2001; Lehman, Rodin,
McEwen, & Brinton, 1991). Heatherton and Renin (1995) observed that emotional stress
when left untreated can increase the likelihood that a person will reengage in anxiety-
reducing behaviors-cigarette smoking, alcohol abuse, or unhealthy eating disorders. This
phenomenon is so common it has been labeled “the stress disinhibition effect” (Marlatt,
1985). Not all unforgiving behavioral patterns necessarily reach such levels, but it does for
some and it remains a distinct possibility for others.
By isolating the anger factor, it has been shown how it correlates to other common
health problems. Arena and associates (1997) noticed that tension headache sufferers had
significantly more suppressed anger compared to nonpain controls. Johnson and Broman
(1987) found that higher levels of outwardly expressed anger was associated with a
greater number of health problems (e.g., ulcers, cancer, hypertension, and diabetes) in a
national sample of Black adults. Similarly, Vandervoort, Ragland, and Syme (1996) noted
that suppressed and expressed anger related to health problems ranging from
gastrointestinal to musculoskeletal health complaints.

108
The psychoneuroimmunology literature base supports the view that anger is
related to health outcomes. There is considerable evidence that anger and hostility are
related to neuroendocrine changes such as stress related hormones (Keltikangas-Javinen,
Raskonen, Hantanen, & Adlercreutz, 1996; Mills, Schneider, & Dimsdale, 1988). Further,
there is evidence that anger is related to impaired immune system functioning (Esterling,
Antoni, Kumar, & Schneideran, 1990; Kiecolt-Glaser et al., 1993; Mills & Dimsdale,
1993; Pennebaker, Kiecolt-Glaser, & Glaser, 1988), which can increase the vulnerability
to an array of diseases. As with hostility literature, there remains some inconsistent
findings (e.g., Russek, King, Russek, & Russek, 1990 failed to find an association
between suppressed and expressed anger and CFID in a 35-year follow-up of a college
population), but overall, the data provide considerable evidence that anger and its
expression play a role in disease.
Theoretical Claims On the Physical Health Enhancing Potential of Forgiveness
The essential goal in the forgiveness process is the reduction and/or overcoming
negative, harmful emotions. This clearly has been the most common explanation for the
benefit of forgiving (Elias & Ketcham, 1995; Fox & Fox, 1988; Powell, 1997; Sinatra,
1996; Sobel & Omstein, 1996). Forgiveness is a valuable mind-body concept that needs to
be incorporated in western medicine (Pert, 1997). An increasing number of theorists has
proposed that the ways people respond to interpersonal offenses can significantly affect
their health (McCullough, Sandage, & Worthington, 1997). Unforgiving responses
(rehearsing the hurt, harboring a grudge, allowing resentment to fester) are considered
health eroding, whereas forgiveness responses (empathy, benevolence, letting go of hurt)
are thought to be health enhancing (Thoresen et. al., 1999; Williams & Williams, 1993;
Witvliet, Ludwig, & Vander Lamm, 2001).

109
Several published studies have found a positive relationship between forgiveness
and mental health variables. One study (Mauger et. al., 1992), undertaken for the
development of Forgiveness Scale, Forgiveness of Others, and Forgiveness of Self Scale,
measured distinct dispositional constructs rather than people’s responses to isolated
harmful events. Low forgiveness scores on both scales were correlated with indicators of
psychopathology on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. Low scores on the
Forgiveness of Self had stronger links to depression, anxiety, and low self-esteem.
McCullough, Bellah, Kilpatrick, and Johnson (2001) conducted an eight-wide
longitudinal study of the constructs, forgiveness, vengefulness, revenge, avoidance,
rumination, suppression, and satisfaction with life in student volunteers whose reported
mental health measures were collected to establish a pretest baseline of forgiveness, anger,
anxiety, and prenatal grief. These measures of forgiveness and mental health were also
administered at the end of the 12-week intervention. Those receiving the forgiveness
intervention reported significant increases in forgiveness and a significant decrease in
grief, anger, and anxiety after treatment.
Freedman and Enright (1996) applied a forgiveness intervention to survivors of
incest. Twelve adult women in this study had survived incest that included physical
contact by a male relative 2 or more years before. The length of therapy varied as
condition therapy was terminated once forgiveness was granted. Compared to
pretreatment scores, treated women showed increased measures of forgiveness and hope,
and greater decreases on measures of anxiety and depression.
Connections between emotions, personality, and physical health is nothing new as
it has been written about for 2,000 years (Allport, 1961). Scientific evidence for the
connection between emotions and physical health has been increasing rapidly over the

110
past few decades (Friedman, 1990,1992; Krantz, Baum, & Singer, 1983; Matthews et al.,
1986; Stone Cohen, & Adler, 1979; Taylor & Singer, 1983). Increasingly, there is more
evidence between the connection of physical illness and its relation to psychological
disturbance resulting from depression and/or anxiety. It is estimated that half of the
organic illnesses for which individuals seek treatment at medical settings have
psychological factors in their etiology (Kaplan, 1980).
Only now is the health field seriously examining the relationship between
forgiveness and physical health. Research associates the unforgiving responses of blame,
anger, and hostility with impaired health (Affleck, Tennen, Croog, & Levine, 1987;
Tennen & Affleck, 1990), particularly coronary heart disease and premature death (Miller
et al., 1996). As previously stated, hostility is a primary factor in poor health outcomes.
Reduction of hostility through forgiveness measures may lead to reductions in coronary
problems (Friedman, 1966; Kaplan, 1992).
Kaplan (1992), who assisted as a consultant in Friedman’s Recurrent Coronary
Prevention Project (RCPP) an intervention successful in reducing morbidity and mortality
in post-infarction patients (Friedman et al., 1986), found a powerful asset for the
improvement of health: the power of forgiveness. In the therapeutic sessions and
debriefings at the study’s conclusion, “learning to be more forgiving” and “cultivating a
forgiving heart” were repeated themes in the commentaries from the participants in the
study.
Health is a unitary concept defined by the World Health Organization (1980) as
“the presence of physical, mental and social well being” (p 36). Physical, mental, and
social health are interconnected. People tend to have consistent positions on all three
scales-physical, mental, and social and their way of living (i.e., social and demographic

Ill
characteristics; personal habits; familial, cultural, and environmental factors)-and they
would affect and be affected by physical, mental, and social heath (Belloc, Breslow &
Hochstim, 1971). Health involves the total person-mind, body, soul, and spirit. They are
all interrelated and each one affects the other. Weil (1997), in his 8-week program of
optimal health, explains that even if one’s singular goal is to avoid a heart attack, one
must still take into account the “whole picture.” It is not sufficient to cut your saturated fat
consumption. Lowering cholesterol level is laudatory but not enough. It is not enough to
increase exercise and to decrease that toxic agent-stress. These are all commendable, but
to optimize the function of the body’s natural healing system, one must improve one’s
spiritual health through forgiveness. He suggests that the act of forgiving heals the
forgiver and, along with other components of the body, the coronary arteries might be the
recipients of the healing synergies that are released (Weil, 1997).
Exploring possible relationships among forgiveness, disease, and physical health is
truly the frontier of forgiveness research. Little by little, data is pointing to the positive
connection between forgiveness and physical health. Forgiveness is considered an
essential component in maintaining good physical health (Casarjian, 1992; Domar &
Dreher, 1996). There is some data that suggests a secular approach to increasing
forgiveness improves some mental heath measures, such as depression and anger (Luskin
& Thoresen, 1998; Worthington, Sandage, & Berry, 2000). Though no controlled studies
have yet reported improved physical heath in persons with major diseases, forgiveness has
been part of several successful multifaceted intervention trials for patients with serious
health problems, such as cancer and heart disease. The specific effects of forgiveness in
these studies have not yet been assessed (Friedman et al., 1986; Ornish, Brown,
Scherwitz, & Billings, 1990; Spiegel, Bloom, Kraemer, & Gottheil, 1989). Forgiveness

112
has been discussed for a variety of clinical problems including depression,
sociopathology, hysteria (Fitzgibbons, 1986), borderline problems (Wolberg, 1973),
terminal illness, and grieving (Achterberg, Matthews, & Simonton, 1976; Levine, 1985;
Phillips & Osborne, 1989).
Cortis (1995), a veteran cardiologist with 30-years experience, compares his
patients who fail to forgive an interpersonal hurt to a person carrying a heavy object such
as a chair. Step-by-step, the burden becomes heavier. To liberate oneself from this burden,
one needs to give up the grudge. Dr. Cortis encourages his patients to forgive so they can
free themselves from this oppression of resentment and hostility. Dr. Levin (1996) is so
convinced in the healing power of forgiveness that he believes it is the final and most
important step the cardiac patient must make in the healing process. Phillips and Osborne
(1989) endorse forgiveness even for cancer patients, with the conviction that it is able to
release that toxic element.
How Forgiveness Might Influence Health
Overcoming negative emotions is the most common explanation offered for the
potentially enhancing properties of forgiveness (Elias & Ketcham, 1995; Fox & Fox 1988;
Powell, 1997; Sinatra, 1996; Sobel & Omstein, 1996). There has been considerable
evidence over the past 50 years of the adverse effect of negative emotions to one’s health
(Chesney & Rosenman, 1985; Friedman, 1990, 1992; Matthews et al., 1986; Stone,
Cohen, & Adler, 1979; Taylor & Singer, 1983; Vandervoort, 1995). Forgiveness entails
letting go of the negative feelings and replacing them with a more mercifid, empathetic
feeling and an offering of goodwill to the offender (Luskin & Thoresen, 1998). This
action may release the wounded person from hurt and the desire for revenge, yielding both
emotional and physical benefits including reduced stress, less negative emotion, fewer

113
cardiovascular problems, and improved immune system performance (McCullough et al.,
1997; Worthington, 1998). Whereas unforgiving responses (rehearsing the hurt, harboring
a grudge) are considered health eroding, forgiving responses are thought to be health
enhancing (Thoresen et al., 1999; Williams & Williams, 1993).
Negative emotions have an effect on our physical heath. A study investigated the
relationship between emotions and immune responses in the experimental setting of social
fear of speaking in public (Gerritsen, Heijnen, Wiegant, Bermond, & Frijda, 1996). Those
subjected to the fear-inducing social situation reported enhanced cardiovascular activity,
elevated plasma hormone levels, and changes in immunological parameters (natural killer
cell number and helper/inducer cells), indicating a relationship between emotion and
immune responses. In this case, the negative emotions of resentment and bitterness can
persist over long periods of years and in some cases, an entire lifetime (Enright, et al.,
1991). Fox and Fox (1988) have postulated that when one does not forgive, the human
body manufactures compounds like the adrenocoritcotrophic hormone and cortisone in
response to enduring negative emotions. As these chemical compounds build up in the
blood stream, a person becomes vulnerable to disease. Further Taub (1994) has also
claimed that perpetual negative emotions in the context of serous interpersonal hurts can
contribute to anything from clogged arteries to ulcers and heart problems and impede
healing or recovery from disease. It is by forgiveness that one can transcend resentment,
bitterness, and anger and may improve damaged relationships. Forgiveness stops the
outpouring or the holding on to the negative feelings and allows for a renewed attitude
(Flope, 1987). Forgiveness is the willful act to give up the resentment and allow the body
to stop pouring damaging chemicals into the blood stream, which then allows the healing
process to begin (Fox & Fox, 1988).

114
Affleck, Tennen, Croog, and Levine (1987) demonstrated that cardiac patients who
blamed their initial heart attack on other people were more likely to have infarctions even
when several other biological and psychosocial variables were controlled. Tennen and
Affleck (1990) reviewed 25 published studies reporting the health impact on blaming
others for their painful events. Blaming others for one’s misfortune (e.g., heart attacks,
inability to conceive) was associated with impairments in emotional well-being and
physical health. In multivariate analyses, anger and hostility over many years have both
been predictive of all-cause mortality in several but not all studies (Miller et al., 1996).
Recent research has shown significant negative relations between forgiveness and
anxiety, and forgiveness and anger. Subkoviak et al. (1995) found that when deeply hurt
by others, forgivers who may have experienced a wide array of different interpersonal
injuries are less anxious than those who choose not to forgive. Sarinopoulos (1996)
reported a significant negative correlation between forgiveness and anger in the range for
both college students and middle-aged adults. Huang (1990) found lower anger and blood
pressure in a Taiwanese sample of people who practiced forgiveness as an expression of
love compared to those who did not.
In a series of studies, McCraty, Atkinson, Tiller, Rein, and Watkins (1995)
demonstrated that, by increasing positive emotional states, improved immune competence
and reduced heart rate, blood pressure, and respiratory variability occurred. Strong
positive emotionality led to greater synchronization of immunolgical and cardiovascular
functioning. Forgiveness may be an important factor that fosters such synchronization
through reducing negative emotionality and fostering positive cognitive processes
associated with more compassion and understanding of others.

115
Another line of research suggests that granting or withholding forgiveness may
influence cardiovascular health through changes in the allostasis and allostatic load.
Allostasis involves changes in the multiple physiological systems that allow people to
survive the demands of both internal and external stressors (McEwen, 1998). Although
allostasis is necessary for survival, extended physiological stress responses triggered by
psychosocial factors such as anxiety and hostility can result in allostatic overload,
eventually leading to a physical breakdown. Interpersonal transgressions and people’s
negative reactions to them may contribute to allostatic load and health risk through
sympathetic nervous system (SNS), endocrine, and immune system changes (e.g., Kiecolt-
Glaser, 1999). In contrast, the gift of forgiveness may buffer health by reducing
physiological reactivity, reducing stress contributing to a significant decrease in the
allostatic load (Thoresen et al., 1999).
In recent studies conducted by the Stanford University Project for Forgiveness
findings suggest the salutary effects of forgiveness. In one study 55 students were
recruited to investigate a brief psychosocial treatment for engendering forgiveness as a
response to an interpersonal hurt. The primary goal was to significantly reduce the anger
level for the treatment group participants as measured by the State-Trait Anger Inventory
Trait-Anger Scale. The findings revealed that the treatment group achieved a significant
reduction in trait anger at posttest and again at follow-up compared to the change in the
control group. The treatment group achieved a 15% reduction in angry reaction from
pretest to posttest that remained stable at follow-up.
Significant differences were found for State Anger, or short term anger, between
the two groups over all measurement periods and in follow-up evaluations at posttest. The

116
treatment group showed a 20% reduction in State Anger from the pretest to both the
posttest and follow-up.
Another study conducted by the Stanford Forgiveness Project analyzing the effects
of group forgiveness intervention on perceived stress, anger, and health reinforced the
salutary effects of forgiveness. Among the 259 adults who received the intervention,
results were promising: State and Trait anger showed significant decreases for treatment
group participants (p = .011 and .010). Positive results were seen in Trait Anger (long¬
term) with a posttest ES of 0.48 and State Anger (short-term) with ES of 0.40. The
treatment group increased their levels of optimism significantly more than the control
group with a posttest ES of 0.27.
As previously stated, the destructive, toxic characteristic of Type A personality is
hostility. Forgiveness and hostility have an inverse relationship: as one increases, the other
decreases. If people cultivate genuine forgiving responses to their offenders, then their
hostility toward them is reduced. If hostility is physically dangerous, particularly to the
heart, then the reduction of hostility ought to reduce coronary problems. Friedman et al.,
(1986) examined the hypothesis in the Recurrent Coronary Prevention Project, a
controlled clinical trial. They uncovered that, for the Type A participants who were at risk
for recurring heart attacks, those randomly assigned to a behavioral modification program
in contrast to standard treatment from a cardiologist showed a greater reduction in hostile
behavior and a reduction in heart problems. Kaplan (1992), a prime consultant for this
research, was keenly interested in the neglected construct of Type B personality, which
emphasizes a letting-go anger, resentment, and undo stress and an openness to offer
forgiveness. Kaplan noticed that the behavioral intervention, which was effective for
treating Type A personalities, emphasized the development of these Type B features.

117
Impressively, when these individuals were assessed after treatment, they often commented
on the importance of learning” how to cultivate the forgiving heart” (p. 6). These patients
seemed to effectively reduce their hostility by “learning to be more forgiving” (p. 8).
There is a strong indication that being forgiving may promote coronary health, reducing
the negative coronary effects of anger and hostility.
Another published study of forgiveness Huang & Enright (2000) included
physiological and behavioral measures. The researchers assessed participants’ motivation
for forgiving and compared the anger-related expressions of people who forgave because
of obligation to the expressions of people who forgave because of unconditional love.
They found that during the description of a painful, past experience participants who
forgave under obligation expressed more anger-related responses, such as masking smiles
and downcast eyes. They also found that in the first minute of describing this interpersonal
hurt (vs. describing a typical day), individuals who had forgiven because of obligation
showed greater blood pressure increases compared with those who had forgiven because
of unconditional love. These data suggest that forgiveness isn’t merely an overt behavior
but a quality of the heart and the intention strongly influences physiological responses.
Possible Physiological Mechanisms
Scheidt’s (1998) perspective on psychosocial factors and coronary heart disease
may shed light on how the forgiveness process influences physical health. Scheidt offered
over 12 possible physiological and psychosocial mechanisms. Prominent among these was
the effects of the chronic sympathetic nervous system (SNS) whose hyper arousal when
under constant stress influences the endocrine production (e.g., norepinephrine). By
decreasing chronic SNS arousal, the demands upon the cardiovascular system are reduced

118
(e.g., lowered blood pressure, endogenous production of low density lipoproteins, heart
rate variability, atherosclerosis).
Jiang et al. (1996) demonstrated that patients with elevated levels of silent
ischemia (short-term contractions of coronary arteries) during stressful tasks associated
with SNS arousal were nearly three times as likely to suffer a major coronary event over 5
years than those with less reaction to emotional stress. Significantly, these results could
not be explained by several physiological variables. In addition, immune competence, e.g.,
increased natural killer and t-cells, can be enhanced when SNS arousal is diminished.
Anderson, Almgren, and Persson (1998) recently found that in women with breast cancer
psychological stress reduces NK cell and CD4 activity as well as lowering immune
response to eytkine proteins. Controlling several biological and demographic factors, it
was psychosocial stress that still mediated diminished immune competence over several
months (Pennebaker, Kiecolt-Glaser, 1988; Petrie, Booth, & Pennebaker, 1998).
One of the most promising explanations underscores the importance of allostasis,
the ability of several physiological systems to achieve and maintain stability when trying
to adapt to stress (McEwen & Stellar, 1993). Initiated by allostasis, the autonomic nervous
system, the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis, and the cardiovascular, metabolic,
and immune systems all make the required changes to adapt and stabilize when challenged
by either internal and external stress (perceived demands). Major life events, trauma,
severe neglect, tragedy, and abuse, for example, represent stressful experiences which
may have transpired at home, at work, or in the neighborhood. Both chronic and acute
stress present challenges that alert the physiological systems to adapt. These changes
require different physiological response patterns. “Allostatic load” refers to the long-term
physiological price of chronic over- or under-activity of allostatic systems (McEwen,

119
1998). Normally, a stressor produces an arousal but then recovers as in blood pressure or
heart rate variability. However, high allostastic load can result in maladaptive changes
such as an extended and heightened length of arousal, with meager or no recovery or even
failure to adapt. Excessive and prolonged activation of the SNS and HPA pathways can
disturb brain functioning (hippocampeal cell damage) that accelerates aging. McEwen
(1998) describes several diseases that might originate from inadequate or inappropriate
physical changes. The concept of allostasis, adaptive physiological changes to stressful
experiences over time, indicates that forgiveness experience might improve health by
reducing excessive physiological burden that originates from unresolved stressful
experiences such as the pain and offense attributed to others (McEwen, 1998)
Possibly the increased frequency of forgiving others and seeking for and accepting
forgiveness might function to reduce the chronicity of distress (e.g., anger, blame, and
vengeful thoughts and feelings) that has prospectively been shown to change brain,
coronary, and immune functioning. These reductions could encourage diminished SNS
arousal in frequency, magnitude, and duration; which over time results in less physical
disease risk (Thoresen, Harris, & Luskin, 2000).
Psychosocial mechanisms may play a vital role in determining how forgiveness
might affect physical status. Forgiveness may trigger reductions in anxiety, depression,
and anger. Coyle and Enright (1997) employed a randomized experimental and control
group design to investigate the role and outcome of an educational program with
postabortion men. The experimental groups relative to control group improved in
forgiveness and at the same time decreased significantly in anger. Al-Mabuk, Enright, and
Cardis (1995) showed that anxiety can be reduced by utilizing an educational intervention
designed at promoting forgiveness. Through their work with female incest survivors,

120
Freedman and Enright (1996) found reduced anxiety and depression in those who
underwent a forgiveness intervention program.
The psychosocial mechanisms that are triggered by the act of forgiveness might
possibly function in the following ways (Thoresen, Harris, & Luskin, 2000):
1. Forgiveness may instill a more perceived security and/or greater positive self-
evaluative and optimistic thoughts that defend the “host response” from taking
offense. Such action might reduce the probability of fear, resentment, anxiety,
anger, ill will, hostility, depression and /or hopelessness, all of which have been
shown in varying degrees to increase physical disease risk (Everson, Goldberg,
Kaplan, Julkunen, & Salonen, 1998; Everson, Kauhanen & Kaplan, 1997;
Segerstrom, Taylor, Kemeny, & Fahy, 1998;).
2. Forgiveness may instill a strongly perceived competence or self-efficacy to
undertake the necessary steps to ward off disease enhancing or pathogenic “agents
(e.g., take action to alter chronic hostile feelings, pessimistic beliefs, and global
attributions), which, may increase positive stimulus-outcome expectations.
3. Forgiveness may channel one towards higher levels of perceived social and
emotional support, especially from significant others, family and close friendships.
This includes the experience of a greater sense of being connected to others, quite
often from being of service to others. Feeling more connected to others may
promote physical health (House, Landis, & Umberson, 1988; Oman, Thorensen, &
McMahon, 1999).
4. Forgiveness may promote a greater sense of a transcendence, spiritual union with
God, a Higher Power or an Infinite/Universal Energy, especially among those
spiritually or religiously oriented persons (Albom, 1997; Richards & Berger, 1997;
Walsh & Vaughn, 1993).
Noted in the health literature, there stands the hypothesis that some of the health
benefits of forgiveness are owed to the emergence of positive feelings. This is consistent
with forgiveness theory, which maintains that overcoming negative emotions and
replacing them with positive emotions is one of the most central aspects of forgiveness
(Enright & F1DSG, 1991a). As negative emotions are diminished through the forgiveness
process, allowing love and compassion to emerge, this lays the groundwork for physical
well-being to flourish (Shapiro, 1996). Furthermore, prospective studies indicate that

121
sustained positive emotional states may positively impact physical health outcomes.
When people forgive, their responses toward people-what they think of, feel about, desire
to do to, or how they actually behave towards people who have hurt or slighted
them-become more positive and less negative (McCullough, Pargament, & Thoresen,
2000). A sense of joy and eagerness and enthusiasm for life was found to be the most
convincing predictor of survival in a group of women cardiovascular patients (Levy, Lee,
Bagley, & Lippman, 1988). In a study of 119 men and 40 women undergoing coronary
angioplasty, strikingly it was the degree of reported love and support received that
coincided to the degree of blockages in the coronary arteries (Seeman & Syme, 1987).
Further, nearly 10,000 men participants who received high levels of expressed love and
support from their spouses displayed significantly less angina (Medalie, Strange,
Zyzanoki, & Goldbourt, 1972).
The relationship between forgiveness and positive emotions still needs empirical
investigation; correlational data offers hopeful signs by showing significant positive
relations between forgiveness and a sense of well being (Ashleman, 1996; Nousse, 1997).
Forgiveness as a primary coping style for handling life’s inevitable hurts, frustrations, and
offenses often produces a calmer and more caring way of living (Kushner, 1996). By
utilizing forgiveness skills, it can conceivably enhance health status not only through
reduced sympathetic hyper-arousal and risky health behaviors but also through a more
optimistic and positive outlook on life. Such a perspective has traditionally been promoted
by various religiously inspired “wisdom traditions” as the key to living a life with greater
purpose, direction, and health (e.g., Smith, Allred, Morrison, & Carlson, 1989).

122
A Theoretical Framework
To acquire an understanding of the relationship among forgiving and unforgiving
responses in physiology, emotions, and in one’s health, it may prove beneficial to view it
from the established framework of bioinformational theory (Lang, 1979,1995). Lang held
that physiological responses are uniquely tied to an essential product of emotional
experiences, memories, and imagined responses. Considerable amount of literature has
supported this view, demonstrating that physiological responses reliably vary depending
on the emotional experiences people ponder or imagine (e.g., Cook, Hawk, Davis, &
Stevenson, 1991; Lang, 1979; Witvliet & Vrana, 1995,2000). Primarily, two emotional
dimensions greatly influence the physiological reactions, valence (negative-positive), and
arousal (e.g., Lang, 1995; Witvliet & Vrana, 1995). One example is the valence of
emotion that is so important for facial expressions through negative imagery, which
stimulates greater muscle tension in the brow than would positive imagery (Witvliet &
Vrana, 1995). With a heightened emotional arousal, cardiovascular measures, such as
blood pressure (e.g., Yogo, Hama, Yogo, & Matsuyama, 1995) and heart rate display
greater reactivity. Skin conductance, which is an index of SNS activity, appears more
reactive (e.g., Witvliet & Vrana, 1995).
Interpersonal transgressions are emotionally laden experiences that quite often
arouse negative and painful memories or engage emotional responses (e.g., grudges).
Adhering to Lang’s theory (1995), unforgiving memories and negative mental images
may induce negative facial expressions and increased cardiovascular and sympathetic
reactivity, much like the other negative and other stimulating emotions (e.g., fear, anger).
Forgiving responses, in contrast, ought to reduce the negativity, frequency, and intensity
of a victim’s emotional response by transforming these physiological reactions into more

123
pleasant and relaxing imagery (Witvliet & Vrana, 1995). In terms of allostasis (McEwen,
1998), emotional states (e.g., unforgiving responses) that magnify and lengthen
cardiovascular and sympathetic reactivity would increase allostatic load, whereas those
that counteract these physiological reactions (e.g., a forgiveness response) would improve
health.
Based on this framework, Dr. Witvliet (2001) professor of psychology at Hope
College in Holland, Michigan, conducted a study recording individual’s physical reaction
to certain imagery processes. Dr. Witvliet placed electrodes on 72 college students. These
volunteers were put through a four-stage mental imaging process. They were first asked to
think about a hurt that had been done to them and then “actively rehearse” it for 16
seconds. At the sound of a tone, the individuals escalated their thoughts to “nursing a
grudge” and making the offender feel horrible. Following the next cue, they would shift
gears and “empathize with the offender.” Finally, at the last stage, they imagined ways to
“wish that person well.” Throughout this two-hour session for each distinct stage, Dr.
Witvliet measured their heart rate, blood pressure, sweat, and muscle tension.
The results were quite consistent with the bioinformational theory (Lang, 1979,
1995). The imagery of unforgiving and forgiving responses to a particular offender
yielded differences in not only self-reported emotion but physiological responding.
Participants felt significantly more negative arousal-angry and despondent and less in
control-while in the unforgiving condition than during the forgiving condition. They
displayed greater facial tension at the corregator (brow) muscle region during unforgiving
imagery. During the unforgiving imagery, participants experienced significantly greater
SNS arousal and greater cardiovascular reactivity in terms of heart rate and blood
pressure.

124
Lang (1979) posited that physiological effects during emotional imagery mirror
naturally occurring effects but are less potent. In daily life we fortify the painful memories
by rehearsing them in our minds, embellishing them, and accentuating them negatively by
overt behaviors (slamming doors, shouting, throwing objects) thereby intensifying and
extending blood pressure surges, heart rate elevations and SNS activation (Witvliet,
2001).
Chronic, unforgiving, bitter responses may contribute to poor health outcomes by
perpetuating anger and increasing SNS arousal and cardiovascular reactivity. The
expression and display of anger has been strongly associated with chronically elevated
blood pressure (Schwenkmezger & Hank, 1996) and with the aggregation of platelets that
may heighten the risk for heart disease (Wenneberg et al., 1997), particularly if
expressions of anger are common and enduring (Thoresen et al., 1996).
Fox and Fox (1988) have hypothesized that when one refuses to forgive, the
human body produces components like adrenocorticotrophic hormone and cortisone in
response to perpetual and chronic negative emotions. As these chemical compounds build
up in perpetual negative emotions, they exert their adverse outcomes by contributing to
anything from clogged arteries to ulcers and cardiovascular problems and by retarding
healing or recovery from disease.
Correlational data have shown significant negative relations between forgiveness
and anxiety, and forgiveness and anger. Subkoviak et al. (1995) found that when deeply
wounded by others, forgivers who experienced a wide variety of interpersonal injuries are
less anxious than those who decide not to forgive. Sarinopoulos (1996) reported a
significant negative correlation between forgiveness and anger in the range of .50 for both
college students and middle-aged adults. Huang (1990) found lower anger and blood

125
pressure in a Taiwanese sample of people who practiced forgiveness as an expression of
love compared to those who did not.
Forgiveness has had a long rich history, particularly in the religious and
philosophical field. Entering the 21st century it may now be acknowledged in the
psychotherapeutic and counseling professions as a means for healing not only for the soul
but mind and body. For if forgiveness does promote sound physical health, that may be
the impetus needed to place it as a viable option in the healing professions.

CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
Overview
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between the attitude of
forgiveness and an individual's physical health. Included was an examination of the
relationship between health and hostility and anger expression. The cohort was senior
citizens (N = 203; males = 58, females = 145). Correlational analyses and multiple
regression were performed between the forgiveness, hostility, and health risk variables.
Content analyses on the reports of the offense involved classifying responses on the basis
of eight categories (Rique & Enright, 1998).
Data were gathered on forgiveness as estimated by the Enright Forgiveness
Inventory (EFI) (Enright, Rique, & Coyle, 2000), hostility by the 27-Item Version of the
Cook and Medley Hostility Scale (Barefoot, 1989), anger expression by State-Trait Anger
Expression Inventory-2 (STAXI-2) (Spielberger, 1999), and self-report health condition
through the Physical Health Status (Vandervoort, 2001). Health risk variables were also
provided. A demographic component provided information on participants' age, gender,
religion, occupation, and socioeconomic status.
This chapter describes the methodology employed in this study. Included are
descriptions of the sample, sampling procedures, research design, instrumentation, and
data analysis.
126

127
Definitions
''Anger is a strong feeling of displeasure and antagonism aroused by a sense of
injury or wrong” (Fitzgibbons, 1986, pg. 64.)
A chronic condition is "one that has existed for at least 3 months" (National
Center for Health Statistics, 1993, p. 3).
Elderly is the term equated to the category referred to as “older population,”
persons 65 years and older, as identified by the U.S. Bureau of the Census and the
National Center for Health Statistics (Department of Health and Human Services, 2002).
"Hostility is more or less an enduring pattern of suspiciousness, resentment,
frequent anger, and cynical mistrust of others" (Koenig, McCullough & Larson, 2001, p.
205).
Health is a unitary concept defined be the World Health Organization as, "the
presence of physical, mental, and social well being" (1980, p. 11).
Empathy is the "cognitive awareness of another person's internal states that is
their thoughts, feelings, perceptions, and intentions" (Ickes, 1997, p. 29).
Forgiveness is the “overcoming of negative affect and judgement toward the
offender, not by denying ourselves the right to such affect and judgement but by
endeavoring to view the offender with benevolence, compassion and even love, while
recognizing that he or she has abandoned the right to them (Subkoviak et al., 1992, p. 3)
State anger is defined as a "psychological emotional state or condition marked by
subjective feelings that vary in intensity from mild irritation or annoyance to intense fury
and rage" (Spielberger, 1999, p. 1).

128
Trait anger is defined in terms of "individual differences in the disposition to
perceive a wide range of situations as annoying or frustrating and by the tendency to
respond to such situations with elevations in state anger (Spielberger, 1999, p. 1)?
Participants
The sample (n=203) was senior citizens with ages ranging from 65- to 83-years-
old (65-69= 29%; 70-75= 37%; 76-79=23%; 80+=l 1%). Participants were volunteers
primarily from two Catholic churches in Central Florida, Indialantic and Ormond Beach.
The overwhelming majority listed themselves as Catholic (97%). The volunteers were
contacted primarily through two ways. From the church in Indialantic a list of those
members 65 and older was obtained and those listed received a letter of invitation. An
announcement was placed in the Sunday bulletin for both churches seeking volunteers for
the study. As compensation the volunteers were treated to a free meal for participating in
the study.
For the church in Indialantic there were three testings. The first had 204
participants, the next two testings, offered for those unable to attend the first, had 32 and
5 respectively. In Ormond Beach there were 21 volunteers for the single testing. From a
total of 262 participants, 59 had to be rejected. The reasons for the disqualifications were
as follows: 18 reported no hurts on the EFI, 11 did not complete the EFI entirely, 29
failed to complete two or more of the instruments, and 1 chose not to fill out any of the
instruments.
Procedure
The participants were given an envelope that contained all the instruments. Inside
each packet there were general instructions on how to complete each instrument. The
directions were given orally, and time was allowed for any needed clarification and
questions. Due to its complexity and core value to the study, the EFI was completed first

129
and instructions directed the participants to complete each instrument in the packaged
order, which were previously randomized.
Psychological Variable Instruments
The following instruments, Enright Forgiveness Inventory, the Anger Expression
Inventory (STAXI-2), the 27-item Version of the Cook and Medley Hostility Scale,
Physical Health Status, and the Health-Risk Inventory, were given to each participant
which took from sixty to ninety minutes to complete.
The Enright Forgiveness Inventory fEFD
The EFI is an objective measure of the degree to which one person forgives
another who has hurt him or her deeply and unfairly. The Enright Forgiveness Inventory
has been utilized in several studies and possesses a variety of desirable psychometric
properties. Its purpose is to assess six aspects of forgiving another individual: presence of
positive affect, cognition, and behavior and the absence of negative affect, cognition, and
behavior. Internal consistency reliabilities for all six subscales are high, and internal
consistency reliability for the total scale score is in the high .90s (Subkoviak et al., 1995).
The EFI has 60 items and three subscales of 20 items each that assess the domains
of Affect, Behavior, and Cognition. Each subscale is further divided into two internal
subscales composed of 10 positive items and 10 negative items (i.e., Positive affect,
Negative affect, Positive behavior, Negative behavior, Positive cognition, and Negative
cognition). Five final items are added for construct validity. As well, understanding that
the word forgiveness may generate conceptual biases, the word “forgiveness” is not used
in the EFI or during the verbal instruction prior to administration. To complete the EFI,
the participants focus on a particular experience of someone hurting them unjustly and

130
deeply and respond to each statement on a six-point scale of agreement-disagreement
which is scored so that the larger values represent a more forgiving attitude.
The Inventory
The inventory is composed of 60 items, each on a 1 -6 Likert scale from Strongly
Disagree to Strongly Agree. Each item is in one and only one subscale of Affect,
Behavior, or Cognitive. Each subscale is further divided into positive and negative
subscales.
The EFI presents five additional items to measure pseudo-forgiveness. The
pseudo-forgiveness items are not included in the total score of the EFI. Hunter (1978)
and Augsburger (1981) have discussed pseudo-forgiveness as a form of denial or
condonation.
Internal Consistency Reliability
Forgiveness is conceptualized to be a homogeneous construct. Therefore, the
reliability estimate for the EFI is Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient of external reliability
across the 60 items. Findings provide evidence that EFI is internally reliable with strong
Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients across samples at .98 (Subkoviak et al., 1995); .98
(Sarinopoulos, 1996) and .99 (Sarinopoulos, 1999).
Validity for the EFI
The one-item Forgiveness scale that accompanies the EFI has been the primary
measure to provide evidence that the EFI measures forgiveness and not a different
construct. The Wade Forgiveness Scale (Wade, 1989), which has similar theoretical
constructs to the EFI, has been used as a concurrent measure. The findings have indicated
that the correlation between the EFI and one-item Forgiveness Scale is positive, strong,
and approaches the expected magnitude: .60-.68 (Sarinopoulos, 1996; Subkoviak 1995;

131
Waltman et al., 1999). Other evidence that EFI passes construct validity was
demonstrated by significant and negative correlations with anxiety and anger (Subkoviak
etal., 1995; Sarinopoulos, 1996).
The EFI contains 60 items evenly divided among the six areas noted above. Each
item is scored on a five-point scale and the range of scores for the 60-item form is from
60-360 (10-60 within each of the subscales). Subkoviak et al. (1995) report interval
consistency reliabilities for the subscales as assessed by alpha coefficients in the high
90s, well within the acceptable range for social science research instruments.
The Anger Expression Inventory
A major motivation for constructing the anger expression scale was to develop an
instrument that would facilitate the investigation of how various components of anger
contribute to the etiology of hypertension and coronary heart disease.
The State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI-2), consists of 57 items,
which provide concise measures of experience, expression, and control of anger. The
STAXI-2 was developed primarily for two reasons: (a) to assess components of anger for
detailed evaluations of normal and abnormal personality, and (b) to offer a means of
measuring the effects of various components of anger to the development of medical
conditions, particularly hypertension, coronary heart disease, and cancer.
The experience of anger as measured by the STAXI-2 is conceptualized as having
two major components: state and trait anger. State anger is defined as a psychological
emotional state or condition characterized by subjective feelings that range in intensity
from mild irritation or annoyance to intense fury and rage. Anger as a psychological
emotional state is commonly accompanied by muscular tension and by arousal of the
neuro-endocrine and autonomic nervous systems (Spielberger, 1999).

132
Trait anger is defined in terms of individual differences in the disposition to
perceive a wide range of situations as annoying and frustrating and by the tending to each
to seek situations with elevations in state anger. Individuals with high anger scores
experience state anger more often and with greater intensity than individuals who are low
in trait anger (Spielberger, 1999).
Descriptive Statistics for the Normative Samples
The normative data for the STAXI-2 are based on the responses of more than
1,900 individuals from two populations: heterogeneous samples of normal adults
(N = 1,644; 977 females, 667 males) and hospitalized psychiatric patients (N = 276; 105
females, 1712 males). Alpha coefficient measures of internal consistency were uniformly
high across all scales and subscales (.84 or higher median r = .88), The internal
consistency reliabilities of the scales and subscales are satisfactory and were not
influenced by either gender or psychopathology.
Aneer Expression and Anger Control
Anger expression and anger control are thought of as having four major
components. The first component, Anger Expression-out, involves the expression of
anger toward other persons or objects in the environment while the second component,
Anger-in, is anger directed inward (i.e., holding in or suppressing angry feelings). The
third component, Anger Control-out, is primarily based on the control of angry feelings
by the prevention of the expression of anger toward other persons or objects in the
environment. The fourth component, Anger Control-in, is related to the control of
suppressed angry feelings by relaxing, calming down, or cooling off when angered.
The STAXI-2 has been used primarily in research in behavioral medicine and
health psychology. The effects of the components of anger measured by the STAXI-2
scales on elevated blood pressure and hypertension, cardiovascular reactivity, heart

133
disease, PTSD, and other medical and psychological disorders have been examined in a
number of studies (Culbertson & Spielberger, 1996; Julkunen, 1996; Lawler et al., 1998;
Spicer & Chamberlain, 1996).
STAXI-2 Scales and Subscales
The STAXI-2 consists of six scales, five subscales, and an Anger Expression
Index, which provides an overall measure of the expression and control of anger. The
Anger-Out scale measures anger expressed outwardly, while the Anger-In scale assesses
suppressed anger. Each scale contains 8 items and each item is scored on a 4-point scale.
The 27-Item Version of the Cook and Medley Hostility Scale
The MMPI-based Cook and Medley Hostility scale (1954) is a measure that has
been commonly utilized in a number of studies for the health consequence of hostility
(Barefoot et al., 1983; Schekelle, Gale, Ostfeld, & Paul, 1983; Williams, Haney, Lee,
Kong, Blumenthal, & Whalen, 1980). The construct hostility a broad psychological
domain encompasses various cognitive, emotional, and behavioral aspects of an
individual’s negative orientation toward interpersonal interactions. The hostility domain
includes most notably the traits of cynicism, anger, mistrust and aggression.
In cross-sectional studies, hostility scores correlate with the severity of coronary
artery disease (Williams, 1989), peripheral artery disease (Joesoef, Welterhall,
DeStefano, Stroup, & Fronek, 1989), and cardiovascular reactivity (Hardy & Smith,
1988; Smith et al., 1989; Suarez & Williams 1989; Weidner, Friend, Ficarrotto, &
Mendell, 1989). Hostility scores as well have been found to predict coronary heart
disease (Barefoot, Dahlstrom, & Williams, 1983; Schekelle et al., 1983), hypertension
(Barefoot et al., 1983; Barefoot, Dodge, Peterson, Dahlstrom, & Williams, 1989).

134
There are six identifiable subsets of items in the scale: Hostile Attributions,
Cynicism, Hostile Affect, Aggressive Responding and Social Avoidance, and a group of
miscellaneous items, which are in the Other Category. Hostile Attributions (12 items)
reflect a tendency to interpret the behavior of others as intended to harm the respondent.
These items are admission of suspicion, paranoia, and fear of threat to self.
Cynicism (13 items) reflect a generally negative view of humankind, depicting
others as unworthy, deceitful, and self-serving. Hostile Effect subsets (51 items) point to
the experience of negative emotions associated with social relationships. They are
admissions of anger, impatience, and frustration when dealing with others.
Aggressive Responding (9 items) highlight the respondents tendency to employ
anger and aggression as instrumental responses to difficulties or to promote those
behaviors as reasonable and justified.
Social Avoidance (41 items) reveal the respondent’s tendency to avoid others,
refrain from social interaction, or withdraw from interpersonal involvement. While the
category Other encompasses a subset of 7 items that do not correspond to a common
psychological content.
This version of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) based
Cook-Medley Hostility scale contains 27 statements in a true-or-false format. The scale
assesses the cynicism, affective, and aggressive responding aspects of hostility and is a
better predictor of mortality than the full hostility scale using full-information maximum
likelihood factor analysis. Adequate psychometric properties have been reported
(Barefoot et al., 1989).

135
Physical Health Status
Developed previously in the published work of Professor Deborah Vandervoort of
the University of Hawaii, the physical health status uses four different kinds of self-
report measures The first, Physical Symptom Checklist, asks the person to reflect on
recent ailments and “indicate how often” they were bothered by such ailments in the past
two weeks. A similar form of the Physical Symptoms Scale assesses chronic ailments by
asking the person once again to reflect on chronic ailments and “indicate how often” they
were bothered by such ailments on a regular bases but this time over a long period of
time. Two scores are obtained on recent ailments: (a) the number of ailment categories
(such as, fever, sore throat, cough, headache, skin rash, heartburn, ear infection, lower
back pain, and other symptoms) reported by the individual as being present in the past
two weeks, and (b) the frequency of the symptoms (1-5 scale).
Two similar scores were obtained for the chronic ailments as follows: (a) the
number of ailment categories (the same categories were used as in the recent ailment
section: headache, sore throat, heartburn, fever, cold, skin rash, and other symptoms)
reported by the participant as being a problem, and (b) the frequency of the symptom
(1-5 scale).
The Health Problem Scale required the participant to put a check mark by any of
29 different health problems or chronic conditions that a physician “informed you that
you have” for a second measure. The range of problems include asthma, ulcer, chronic
bronchitis, diabetes, colitis, and so forth. The list of chronic conditions was from that
used in the Alomeda County Human Population Laboratory Study (Belloc, Baslow, &
Hochstim, 1971) as collected by Vandervoort (1995). The questionnaire has been found

136
acceptably reliable and valued in comparison with medical records (Andrews, Schonell,
& Tennant, 1977; Meltzer & Hochstim, 1977).
A third measure focused on heart-related problems by including two items from
the Health Problems Scale: presence of hypertension and heart disease. Another heart-
related measure, the Heart Disease-Related Symptoms questioned the participants if they
ever experienced chest pains or shortness of breath while lying down. Both heart disease-
related measures were adopted from those originally in the Alameda County Human
Population Study that were found to predict heart disease mortality (Kaplan, Cohn,
Cohen, & Guralnik, 1988). Further evidence of the validity of subjective reports of
somatic health is garnered from a review of 39 studies by Ware, Daives-Avery, and
Donald (1978). Additional studies confirm the reported health status to be highly
predictive of mortality (LaRue, Bank, Jarvik, & Hetland, 1979; Maddox & Douglas,
1973; Mossey & Sapiro, 1982).
The health outcomes were evaluated utilizing a total of seven physical health
outcomes:
1. number of recent physical symptoms (#PSC Recent).
2. frequency of recent physical symptoms (FPSC Recent).
3. number of chronic physical symptoms (#PSC Chronic).
4. frequency of chronic physical symptoms (FPSC Chronic).
5. number of diagnosis of major health problems.
6. diagnosis of heart disease-and-hypertension.
7. heart disease related symptoms.
Health-Risk Variables
Given the notable evidence that strongly suggests the following variables are risk
factors for a variety of illnesses (Leigh, 1982; Matarazzo & Leckliter, 1988; Moos, 1979;
Weiner & Fawry, 1989), they were used as controls in the multiple regression models.
The variables are the following: age, gender, body mass index (weight (Kg)/height
(cm)2, exercise (number of hours per week), cigarette smoking (currently being a smoker

137
or not), alcohol (number of drinks of wine, beer, and hard liquor in an average week), salt
intake, and caffeine intake (the number of caffeinated coffee or soft drinks per day).
Study
Alpha coefficients, means, and standard deviations for the predictor variables, the
Enright Forgiveness Inventory and its subscales, the Anger-In and Anger-Out subscales
of the Anger Expression Scale, and the 27-item version of the Cook and Medley Hostility
scale will provide the descriptive data for the correlational analysis.
The means and standard deviations for the Physical Health measures will be
incorporated in the analysis. A correlative analysis between predictor variables, health
risk factors, and physical health measures will be processed as well as a multiple
regression analysis between predictor variables and physical health. As well, a partial
correlative analysis between forgiveness and physical health when controlling for other
predictor variables and health risk factors will be included in the study.

CHAPTER4
RESULTS
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between forgiveness
and physical health while controlling for health risk variables; e.g., sex, body mass,
smoking, alcohol, salt, caffeine, and exercise. In addition, the relationship between
hostility and anger upon one’s physical health was also examined. Forgiveness after
controlling for health risk factors was also examined. This study attempted to answer the
following research hypotheses:
1. Forgiveness will be positively related to physical health. High scorers on
forgiveness will have fewer physical health problems, and vice versa.
2. Hostility and both suppressed and expressed anger will be negatively related to
physical health. High scorers on anger and hostility will have more physical
health problems, and vice versa.
3. Forgiveness, anger, and hostility will remain significantly related to physical
health after controlling for age, sex, smoking, liquor, caffeine, body mass,
exercise, and salt.
4. Forgiveness will remain significantly related to physical health after controlling
for anger and hostility.
Descriptive Data
A total of 244 senior citizens participated in this research, although data from just
203 were used in this study. The assessment measurements were administered to 244
male and female senior citizens from two Catholic churches, one in Indialantic and the
other in Ormond Beach, Florida. The discrepancy in the number who participated and the
number used was due to insufficient data supplied by the participants. The ages ranged
138

139
from 65 to 82. There were 58 males and 146 females. There were no participants of
color.
Results
As two incidents of forgiveness were reported, in most cases the first Enright
Forgiveness Inventory (EFI) was used. The criteria for choosing an incident was to favor
those involving a close relationship and a deep hurt (4 or 5 in a 1-5 scale). We tend to
become ambivalent or worse towards those people who are most important to us (Hope,
1987). The definition of a close relationship was adopted from Subkoviak et al., (1995).
Content analysis on reports of the offenses involved classifying responses on the
basis of eight categories (False Accusations, Lack of Care, Aggression, Finances,
Rejection, Trust, Infidelity, Lacking of Praise) proposed by Rique and Enright (1998).
There were ten respondents who did not choose a category. Rejection for both male
(31%) and female (22%) was the most common category. Trust, lacking of praise, lack of
care and false accusations all registered at 12%, the second highest category for males.
For the females lack of care was 20%, lacking praise 16%, trust, 12%, and false
accusations 10%, were the most common for females.
Alpha coefficients, means and standard deviations for the predictor valuables
including the Enright Forgiveness Inventory (EFI) and its subscales, the Anger-In and
Anger-Out subscales, and the 27-item version of the Cook and Medley Hostility Scale are
presented in Table 4-1. The EFI demonstrates a strong internal consistency reliability.
The anger expression scales and the hostility scale also demonstrated adequate internal
consistency reliability.

140
Table 4-1. Descriptive Statistics for Forgiveness, Suppressed and Expressed Anger, and
Hostility.
# of Items
Means
Standard Deviation
Alpha
EFI Total Score
60
279.56
58
0.98
EFI Affect
20
86.39
22.42
0.94
EFI Behavior
20
94.54
20.45
0.94
EFI Cognition
20
98.63
20.21
0.95
Anger-in
8
16.11
4.24
0.74
Anger-out
8
13.24
3.43
0.71
Hostility
27
9.88
4.69
0.77
The EFI mean score of279.56 is considerably higher than the mean score of 257
reported in Subkoviak et al. (1995), Sarinopoulos 253.5 (1999) and far greater than the
196 reported in a more clinical sample of Coyle and Enright (1997). Most notable was
the relatively low standard deviation of 58, as compared with the 75.23 found in
Sarinopoulos’s research. Suppressed and Expressed Anger means are comparable to
national norms reported in Spielberger (1999). The mean score of 9.88 for hostility is
slightly lower compared to national norms of 10.5 (Barefoot et al., 1991).
Descriptive data for the health outcomes are presented in Table 4-2. Mean scores
for the Physical Symptoms Checklist and the Health Problems Scale measures were
slightly lower than those reported in the literature (Vandervoort, 1995, Vandervoort,
Luis, & Hamilton, 1996). The rate of heart disease and hypertension were comparable to
those reported in the Alameda County Study (Kaplan, Cohn, Cohen, & Guralnik, 1988).
Descriptive data for selected risk variable outcomes are presented in Table 4-3.
One of the measures is the body mass index (BMI), which indicates how much weight
comes from muscle verses fat. A BMI score higher than 25 is considered to be a reason
for concern. Our sample appears borderline overweight but equal to a middle-age sample

141
(Sarinopoulos 1999). The alcohol and caffeine intake is quite moderate, while exercise is
comparable to a youthful college age sample, 7.48 (Sarinopoulos 1999).
Table 4-2. Descriptive Statistics for Physical Health Measures
# of Items
Means
Standard Deviation
# PSC Recent1
90
19.11
13.19
FPSC Recent2
90
41.77
35.77
#PSC Chronic3
90
23.49
15.32
FPSC Chronic4
90
67.86
45.41
HPS5
29
3.16
2.63
Hypertension/Heart Diagnosis6
4
0.59
0.72
Heart Disease-Related Symptons7
4
1.08
1.01
'Number of physical symptoms; 2ffequency of physical symptoms; 'number of chronic
physical symptoms; ‘‘frequency of chronic physical symptoms; 'Health Problems Scale;
‘hypertension or other health problem diagnoses now or in the past; 7chest pain, tightness
or pressure, or shortness of breath when lying down, now or in the past.
Table 4-3. Descriptive Statistics for Selected Health Risk Variables
Means Standard Deviation
Age
72.89
5.12
Body Mass Index
25.38
4.40
Alcohol (drinks/week)
3.03
4.32
Exercise (hours/week)
7.19
8.74
Caffeine (drinks/day)
1.82
1.74
Correlation among predictor variables presented in Table 4-4 most notably
indicates no significance between forgiveness and the physical health symptoms. The EF1
did have an inverse correlation with hostility. The most notable observation was the
correlation between anger-in and the number of physical symptoms, chronic and recent.
Anger-in showed a significant correlation with heart disease-related symptoms. Both

142
anger-in and hostility had a significant correlation with body mass index. Suppressed
(anger-in) and expressed (anger-out) indicate a significant correlation with hostility.
Data in Table 4-4 refutes the statement presented by Hypothesis 1 that
forgiveness will be positively related to physical health and that those who forgive will
have fewer health problems and vice versa. It also responds to Hypothesis 2, that hostility
and both suppressed and expressed anger will be negatively related to physical health and
that high scorers on anger and hostility will have more physical health problems and vice
versa. Forgiveness failed to show any correlation, either positive or negative to physical
health symptoms. Hypothesis 2 had shown that anger has a significant correlation to
one's health. Expressed anger did indicate a slight positive correlation to number of
recent physical symptoms and to heart disease-related symptoms. The most notable
correlation was with suppressed anger as it was positively correlated with the number of
recent physical symptoms, frequency of these symptoms (e.g., headache, sore throat,
heartburn, fever, sin rash, and lower back pain) chronic physical symptoms and the
frequency of these symptoms of the same type (e.g., headache, sore throat, heartburn,
fever, skin rash, and lower back pain) and with heart disease-related symptoms. Hostility
showed a relation to only one symptom, hypertension/ heart diagnosis, and did not reveal
any other correlation with the other symptoms, whether recent or chronic.
Data presented in Table 4-5 pertain to Hypothesis 3. When controlling for the
eight health risk variables in separate regression models for the four predictor variables,
neither forgiveness nor hostility was significant to any of the seven health measures.
Suppressed anger was the only predictor variable that had any correlation with five of the
seven health measures. Suppressed anger was found to be related independently of risk
factors to common physical symptoms (e.g. headache, sore throat heartburn and lower

143
back pain), self-reported diagnoses of health problem or chronic conditions (e.g. diabetes,
asthma, ulcer, and chronic bronchitis), diagnoses of heart disease-and hypertension and
heart disease-related symptoms (e.g. chest pain, or shortness of breath).]
Table 4-4. Correlations Between Predictor Variables, Health Risk Factors, and Physical
Health Measures
EFI Total Score
Anger-in
Anger-out
Hostility
EFI Total Score
n.s.
n.s.
-.30***
Anger-in
.40***
.22***
Anger-out
.28***
#PSC Recent
n.s.
.32***
.16*
n.s.
FPSC Recent
n.s.
.29***
n.s.
n.s.
#PSC Chronic
n.s.
.27***
n.s.
n.s.
FPSC Chronic
n.s.
.25***
n.s.
n.s.
HPS
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
Hypertension/Heart Diagnosis
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
.16*
Heart Disease-Related Symptoms
n.s.
.21**
.15*
n.s.
Smoking
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
Sex
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
Salt
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
Age
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
Body Mass Index
n.s.
.18*
n.s.
.21**
Alcohol
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
Exercise
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
Caffeine
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
*¡2 < .05; **¡> < .01; *** g < .001
Data in Table 4-6 pertain to Hypothesis 4, that forgiveness will remain
significantly related to physical health after controlling for anger and hostility. To assess
whether forgiveness would maintain its relationship with physical health status when
controlling for expressed and suppressed anger and hostility, partial correlation analysis
were conducted. As can be seen the relationship between forgiveness and (a) the number
of recent and chronic physical symptoms, (b) frequency of recent and chronic physical

symptoms, (c) diagnoses of major health problems, (d) diagnoses of heart disease-and
hypertension, and (e) heart disease-related symptoms were not significant.
144
Table 4-5. Multiple Regression Analyses: Predictor Variables and Physical Health
EFI Total Score Anger-in Anger-out Hostility
#PSC Recent
n.s.
.28**
R2 = .14
n.s.
n.s.
FPSC Recent
n.s.
.31***
R2 = .15
n.s.
n.s.
#PSC Chronic
n.s.
.25***
R2-.13
n.s.
n.s.
FPSC Chronic
n.s.
.28***
R2 = .14
n.s.
n.s.
HPS
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
Hypertension/Heart Diagnosis
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
Heart disease-Related Symptoms
n.s.
.18**
R2 = .10
n.s.
n.s.
*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001
Table 4-6. Partial Correlation Analyses: forgiveness and Physical Health When
Controlling for Other Predictor Variables
EFI Total Score
#PSC Recent
n.s.
FPSC Recent
n.s.
#PSC Chronic
n.s.
FPSC Chronic
n.s.
HPS
n.s.
Hypertension/Heart Diagnosis
n.s.
Heart Disease-Related Symptoms
n.s.
Note: Control variables in the analyses were anger-in, anger-out, hostility, and smoking.
Partial correlation analyses were also conducted controlling for the eight health
risks, as well as the other three-predictor variables (expressed and suppressed anger and
hostility). As can be seen from Table 4-7 the relationship between forgiveness and (a) the

145
number of recent and chronic symptoms; (b) frequency of recent and chronic symptoms;
(c) diagnosis of major health problems, (d) diagnosis of heart condition and hypertension,
and (e) health condition-related symptoms. Through all this, forgiveness proved not to be
significant while suppressed anger was. Suppressed anger was significant to all
symptoms except those relating to heart and hypertension.
In Table 4-8 I looked to see if there were any differences between genders in
health predictors. By separating the data by gender no significant difference was found
in the predictor variables, forgiveness suppressed or expressed anger and hostility. In
Table 4-9 again the data were examined based on gender and two categories proved to be
significant. In the physical health variables, the frequency of chronic ailments, females
displayed a greater manifestation. For hypertension/ heart diagnosis, males were
significantly greater than females.
Table 4-7. Partial Correlation Analyses: Anger-In and Physical health When Controlling
for Other Predictor Variables and Health Risk Factors
Anger-in
#PSC Recent
.25***
FPSC Recent
.27***
#PSC Chronic
.22**
FPSC Chronic
.25***
HPS
n.s.
Hypertension/Heart Diagnosis
n.s.
Note: Control variables in the analyses were EFI total score, Anger-out, Hostility, and
Smoking.
**p < .01; ***p < .001

146
Table 4-8. Gender Differences in Predictors
Males Mean
(St. Dev.)
Females Mean
(St. Dev.)
t-value
Df
Sig
EFI Total Score
280.40
279.23
.13
201
n.s.
Anger-in
(64.11)
16.83
(55.67)
15.82
1.55
201
n.s.
Anger-out
(4-32)
13.68
(4.19)
13.07
1.15
201
n.s.
Hostility
(4.26)
10.63
(3.05)
9.59
1.43
201
n.s.
(4.78)
(4.64)
Table 4-9. Gender Differences in Physical Health Variables
Males Mean
(St. Dev.)
Females Mean
(St. Dev.)
t-value
Df
Sig
#PSC Recent
17.23
19.84
-1.27
201
n.s.
(11.79)
(13.67)
FPSC Recent
37.00
43.60
-1.14
189
n.s.
(31.27)
(37.30)
#PSC Chronic
21.19
24.38
-1.34
201
n.s.
(13.71)
(15.86)
FPSC Chronic
57.75
71.85
-2.00*
199
Sig
(42.28)
(46.05)
HPS
3.19
3.14
.12
201
n.s.
(3.81)
(2.01)
Hypertension/Heart
.82
.50
2.94**
201
Sig
Diagnosis
(.76)
(.69)
Heart Disease-Related
1.07
1.08
-.08
201
Symptoms
(1.07)
(.99)
n.s.
*p<.05; **p<.01
To explore the possibility of any relationship between health and forgiveness I
examined these variables from the perspective of the time of the hurt. Establishing the
median, I divided the data into two groups : 3 years and earlier (n=102) and 4 years or
more (n=101). As can be seen in Table 4-10 for the group 3 years or less, forgiveness did

show a significant correlation, -.26, with only one health measure, hypertension/heart
diagnosis, but did not yield any significance for the group 4 years or more. This lone
significant correlation can likely be attributed to a Type 1 error.
147
Table 4-10. Correlations Between Predictor Variables, Health Risk Factors, and
Physical Health Measures. Participant with 3 years or less (n=102)
EFI
Total Score
Anger-In
Anger-Out
Hostility
EFI Total Score
Anger-In
Anger-Out
n.s.
n.s.
40***
-.24*
.28**
.36***
# PSC Recent
n.s.
.39***
.25*
n.s.
FPSC Recent
n.s.
.35***
.26**
n.s.
# PSC Chronic
n.s.
.37***
.27**
n.s.
FPSC Chronic
n.s.
.37***
.27**
n.s.
HPS
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
Hypertension/Heart Diagnosis
-.26**
.27**
.22*
.26**
Heart Disease-Related
n.s.
.26**
.24*
n.s.
Symptoms
Smoking
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
Sex(0:male; 1: female)
n.s.
n.s.
-.25*
-.28**
Salt
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
Age
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
.20*
Body Mass Index
n.s.
.18*
n.s.
.31**
Alcohol
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
Exercise
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
Caffeine
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001
As well, I studied the relationship of health with forgiveness in long-term hurt of
20 years or more (n = 44). No significant relationship was found. Finally, I investigated
the relationship of forgiveness with health through the perspective of the type of hurt
(infidelity, lack of care, lack of praise). Once again, no significance was uncovered.
This study unlike previous studies (Sarinopoulos, 1999; Enright & Coyle, 1996),
failed to show that forgiveness has any predictor value for an individual’s health. Anger,
though not the primary study of this research, offered the strongest correlation to health.

148
Most surprising despite previous research, forgiveness, except in one case, failed to show
any correlation to physical health. Figures 4-1 through 4-5 vividly show the main effects
of anger on health.
Figure 4-1. Main Effect on Number of Recent Physical Symptoms on Anger-in
Frequency of Recent Physical Symptom
Figure 4-2. Main Effect of Frequency of Recent Physical symptoms on Anger-in

149
# of Chronic Physical Symptom
Figure 4-3. Main Effect of Number of Chronic Physical Symptoms on Anger-in
Frequency of Chronic Physical Symptom
Figure 4-4. Main Effect of Frequency of Chronic Physical Symptoms on Anger-in

150
Heart Disease-Related Symptom
Figure 4-5. Main Effect of Heart Disease-related Symptoms on Anger-in

CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
The research findings of this study will be presented individually, i.e., the
hypotheses will be presented followed by an explanation and discussion of findings. This
will be followed by a discussion of the implications of findings for the study and
conclude with limitations of findings.
The most notable finding was that forgiveness unlike in similar studies (Huang,
1990, Sarinopolous, 1999, Coyle & Enright, 1997) did not show to have any significance
in predicting physical health. Hypothesis 1 proposed that forgiveness will be positively
related to physical health and that high scorers on the forgiveness inventory will have
fewer physical health problems and vice versa. This did not prove to be true. Hypothesis
4 proposed that forgiveness will remain significantly related to physical health after
controlling for anger and hostility. This too proved unsupported by the data. This
contrasts sharply with Sarinopoulos' study (1999) where forgiveness was not only
significant but was the strongest predictor of an individual's health, even more than
hostility. This finding is somewhat surprising as the previous literature indicated the
contrary (Sarinopulos, 1999, Luskin et al., 2001, Witvliet, 2001). A distinguishing factor
of this study was the age of the cohort. This study focused on senior citizens many of
whom are in their late seventies. When one reaches an advanced age, genetics and the toll
of life play an immense role on the condition of one's health. There may come a point
where the effects of age will prevail despite a healthy lifestyle and disposition.
151

152
The population scored quite high on the Enright Forgiveness Inventory 279.56. It
clearly outdistanced previous scores, Sarinopoulos's 254 (1999), Coyle's and Enright's
196 (1997), and Subkoviak and colleague's 251 (1995). Does this indicate that the
elderly are better forgivers? Perhaps more importantly was the relatively low standard
deviation score of 58 as compared with Sarinopoulos’s 75.23. Whether they were in
strong or poor health, the sample seemingly were quite efficient at forgiving. As the older
population faces increasing physical ailments and disabilities and uncertainty about the
future, they experience a need to "put things in order" (Koenig, Larson, & Matthews,
1995). This is part of the life review process whereby integrity becomes a primary goal,
corresponding to Erikson's (1950) integrity versus despair, the last stage of his eight
psychosocial stages for ego development. Grudges, resentments, and past hurts are
surrendered or resolved (Koenig, Larson, & Matthews, 1995) Perhaps this population
desiring resolution, believed they had truly forgiven those who had hurt them but may
have failed to do so. Anger, particularly suppressed anger, was shown to be significant,
which may signify unresolved forgiveness issues. According to the Enright and the
Human Development Study Group (1992), forgiveness is an overcoming of negative
feelings and cognitions toward the one who has hurt us. Forgiveness offers one the
improved capability to deflate anger (Huang, 1990; Coyle & Enright, 1997). Forgiveness
helps decrease the level of anger and hostility (Medalie & Goldbourt, 1976; Seeman &
Syme, 1987; Shapiro, 1996) and the feelings of anger, hatred, and hostility are given up
(Richards, 1988). This suppressed anger may indicate that this has not been done
adequately and that the forgiveness is incomplete.
The instruments and setting may have been a source of discomfort for this older
population. As it was completed in a church setting and dealt with topics that reflect the

153
practice of one's faith, perhaps some found it difficult, whether consciously or
subconsciously, to answer honestly the questions pertaining to forgiveness. Though
promised complete anonymity, some may have felt uncertain about protection of their
privacy. If they had struggled with forgiveness, they may not have wanted to admit such
a seemingly moral weakness. Older persons rarely feel comfortable in discussing such
personal and private matters such as forgiveness (Koenig, Larson, & Matthews, 1995).
Older persons are religiously active. Organized religious activity is clearly the
most common form of voluntary social participation by older adults in this country. The
personal dimension of religious involvement, indicated by strength of belief, importance
of religion, and intrinsic religiosity is also widespread among the elderly, with over 75%
of persons age 65 or older indicating that religion is very important to them (Princeton
Religion Research Center, 1994). As forgiveness is closely linked to religious tenets, it is
understandable that some may be uncomfortable admitting that they are poor forgivers.
Those who are in strong or weak health may both identify themselves as genuine
forgivers, whether it is validated or not. The volunteers for the study all came from a
church setting and such volunteers are normally representative of the most active in a
church. What is lacking is not only a random sample of believers but those who hold no
strong religious beliefs. Religion, and the practice of its dictates, such as forgiveness, is
seen as a coping strategy. Approximately 24% to 40% of older adults spontaneously offer
religious responses, especially women and minority elders (Rosen, 1982; Koenig, 1994;
Koenig et al., 1992). The spontaneous response could have well been their immediate
reply to the questions when inquiring about their level of forgiveness.

154
Hypothesis 2 stated that hostility and both suppressed and expressed anger will be
negatively related to physical health. High scorers on anger and hostility will have more
physical health problems and vice versa. Furthermore Hypothesis 3 states that it will
remain significant after controlling for age, sex, smoking, liquor, caffeine, body mass,
exercise and salt. Of the three, suppressed anger had the strongest correlation. It was both
significant with recent and chronic physical symptoms and the frequency of these
symptoms as well. It also proved to be significant with heart disease -related symptoms.
These results matched favorably with those of the middle-age cohort in Sarinopoulos'
study (1999). It also compares well with the recent research. Arena, Bruno, Rozantine,
and Meador (1997) found that tension headache sufferers had significantly more
suppressed anger compared to nonpain controls. Vandervoort, Ragland, and Syme (1996)
noted that suppressed and expressed anger are related to health problems ranging from
gastrointestinal to musculoskeletal health complaints. There is additional evidence that
anger is related to impaired immune system functioning. (Esterling et al., 1990; Kiecolt-
Glaser et al, 1993; Mills & Dimsdale, 1993; Pennebaker et al., 1988). Expressed anger
did not prove to be as strong of a predictor as suppressed anger. It did share with
suppressed anger, though, a significant relationship with heart disease-related symptoms.
Haynes et al. (1980) in a longitudinal study did find that anger was related to coronary
heart disease incidence. Kawachi et al. (1996) found a relative risk of 2.66 for the effect
of anger on coronary heart disease. Anger has been found to correlate with platelet
aggregation (Wenneberg, et al., 1997) and with a decrease in diameter in narrowed
arteries (Boltwood et al., 1993).

155
Hostility showed a slight correlation with hypertension/heart disease. Hostility is
widely regarded as the "toxic" component of Type A personality. It has been found to be
a good predictor of heart disease in the research literature (Barefoot et al., 1995;
Dembroski & Costa, 1987; Friedman & Boot-Kewley, 1987; Miller et al., 1996; Shekelle
et al., 1983; Williams, 1993).
Research Implications
This research study intended to explore the relationship between forgiveness and
physical health in senior citizens. Earlier research investigating the relationship between
forgiveness and health in younger age cohorts (Sarinopoulos, 1999; Luskin & Thoresen,
1998) indicated a significant correlation. This study failed to show any relationship. It is
unknown whether the disparity between age groups is a developmental or a cohort
phenomenon. Perhaps senior citizens, when they were younger, would have been similar
to the middle-aged population of Sarinopoulos' (1999) research. Is there something about
the senior years that diminishes the efficacy of forgiveness? Perhaps if there is a positive
resolution of Erikson's eighth stage in psycho-social development, integrity versus
despair, other factors along with or above forgiveness help diminish the pain of
undeserved hurts.
Various explanations need to be explored. Is it possible that there is an unknown
protective factor for older adults who do not forgive? As they seek integrity do older
adults subconsciously let go of past hurts in order to achieve peace of mind? There may
be a dynamic that takes place that is yet to be discovered. It may well be that even if they
do not feel good, which may be attributed to advanced age, they are still able to forgive.
In this case, health and forgiveness would have no relationship with each other. Possibly

156
for some, even if they are in good health, they still may choose to be unforgiving with no
apparent consequence on their health.
Practical Implications
An objective of this study was to explore the efficacy of forgiveness in improving
or maintaining one's physical health. If forgiveness proved to be a strong predictor for
health then counselors/therapists may be encouraged to recommend and utilize the gift of
forgiveness as a tool for healing of past hurts. It would both empower the client and
prove cost effective saving the individual, health, and insurance industry millions of
dollars.
Though forgiveness did not show any significance with physical health in this
study, suppressed anger did. Anger is quite often a primary or secondary issue for many
clients. It appears that the releasing of anger is quite advantageous for one's health.
Forgiveness, even though no relationship with health was found in this study, would still
be a worthy tool to use to assist in bringing healing to clients. Forgiveness has
demonstrated the ability to deflate anger (Coyle & Enright, 1997; Huang, 1990;
Sarinopoulos, 1996;). If forgiveness is successful in diminishing anger, then it will
indirectly be beneficial to an individual's health. It still can be recommended with a
certain confidence as a means to achieve balance and wholeness.
Limitations
This study was limited by the exclusive pooling of volunteers from two Catholic
churches. The population for the most part was homogenous not only in religion, but race
and socioeconomic level. There was a glaring underrepresentation (nil) of any minority
group. A broader range of participants offering a greater diversity may have offered

157
different insights and findings. A flagrant oversight was that there was no question taking
into account the individual's race and ethnic background. It would have been very
valuable to see if any difference would have been noted in people of different ethnicity,
religion, and socioeconomic backgrounds.
A second limitation was the total reliance on a pen and paper instrument. In
working with a senior population one must recognize that some capabilities may be
severely diminished. In this population, a significant number had been unaccustomed to
applying themselves to a pen and paper instrument of this length. For many, most likely
it had been many years since they filled out such lengthy questionnaires. Weariness may
have been a factor. Following and/or remembering instructions for later instruments was
possibly a posing challenge for some. Though directions were given and time for
questions and assistance was available, there were still incomplete instruments that had to
be discarded. This may have been by choice, misunderstanding, or the inability to hear
clearly or stay on task. Possibly even the attraction of a hot meal could have enticed
some to answer quickly or incompletely. In the future it may be judicious to interview the
volunteers in a one-on-one setting in order to obtain an accurate portrayal of their
thoughts and feelings.
A third limitation was the size of the first testing. The first testing had over 200
participants. Now more sensitive to their possible diminished physical stamina,
concentration, and ability to follow directions, I would have divided the group into
smaller groups and had multiple testing opportunities. The room, though adequate, may
have been too congested, which may have detracted from their ability to concentrate.

158
A fourth limitation was treating all hurts as equivalent. The participants were
asked to reflect on an unfair, unjust painful incidence, and they ranged from infidelity to
not being invited to breakfast. Seemingly the gravity of the hurt would have a greater
effect on an individual. Yet there was no accounting for the severity of the hurt. The time
frame was also treated as if homogeneous. Some recalled a recent experience of a few
days, while others went back many years. There was no distinction or clarification of the
time element. If a lack of forgiveness is detrimental to an individual's health, then it
would seem the longer the duration, greater would be the harm. Yet, all incidents were
treated equally. Limiting the time frame from when the incident occurred would offer a
more valid and congruent example.
Future Research
Forgiveness is now an exciting and enthralling new frontier for psychological
research and investigation. Though scientific research on forgiveness has increased
dramatically over the last 15 years, questions about forgiveness continue to increase.
This fertile ground remains largely untapped. One preliminary area for study is clarifying
and obtaining a consensus of what precisely the term forgiveness means. Theorists and
practitioners appear to have no problem in identifying and agreeing on those things that
forgiveness is not (pardoning, excusing, forgetting) (Enright & Coyle, 1998) but continue
to struggle to agree on what forgiveness is. Researchers and practitioners will need to
agree on this foundational definition that will guide and direct research and practice.
Longitudinal research would be extremely helpful in studying forgiveness,
particularly when studying an older population. Changes in health may be recognized and

159
correlated with major life events. It may enable theorists to better determine changes in
health coinciding with major injustices and transgressions.
Another area for research is to explore what enables an individual to forgive.
What traits are necessary to allow an individual to forgive even in the face of tremendous
injustice? Why is it that some are more inclined to choose forgiveness while others
struggle with it? Is this remarkable ability to forgive linked to a personality trait, moral
strength, or spiritual quality? Perhaps certain personality traits or social supports are
more health promoting than the specific act of forgiving. It is worth our effort to
investigate this.
As forgiveness is closely linked to spirituality and is a core tenet of the major
religions, what role does religion play? Is there a significant difference in the ability to
forgive found in those who profess and practice religion compared to those who claim no
such affiliation? Will those having no religious affiliation and feeling no divine
ordinance to forgive suffer any consequence to their health if they choose unforgiveness?
Guilt may also be a key factor in the study. Those with a strong religious background and
who fail to forgive, may be overwhelmed by sentiments of guilt. What would be the
negative outcome, if any, from this? Perhaps those who have no religious background
and feel no compunction to forgive may be perfectly satisfied in choosing not to forgive.
What would the data indicate for those who choose not to forgive without any remorse ?
A prime area of research is the health/forgiveness factor of senior citizens from
different socioeconomic background, race, and religion. How does the availability of
more resources due to economic privilege affect the health and attitude of forgivers
compared to those with no such opportunity? Another intriguing area of study would be

160
to analyze the health of those people who have suffered a history of discrimination. There
are many people have suffered a lifetime of unjust treatment and prejudice and have dealt
with it in different ways. Would there be a measurable difference in the health of
forgivers and nonforgivers? A study enlisting the participation of Native Americans,
African Americans, or holocaust survivors would be quite enlightening.
Though forgiveness did not prove significant in this study, it still may prove to be
advantageous for one’s health. Noted in the results was that anger, particularly
suppressed anger, was strongly related to health. A valuable study would be to research
the relationship between forgiveness and anger. If forgiveness can be shown to reduce
anger it would subsequently improve the individual’s health. Forgiveness may very well
be quite important as a means to improve one’s health.
These are just some of the areas where I believe research should set its course.
Forgiveness is still a relatively unknown entity with broad parameters. It just might be an
efficient remedy for the pains from injustice and inequity that afflicts the mind, body,
soul, and spirit.

APPENDIX A
VOLUNTEER INVITATION LETTER
AND CEIURCH BULLETIN NOTICE
My Dear Friend,
How would like to be part of a groundbreaking study that will help connect and foster
a relationship between health and spirituality in senior citizens (ages 65 years and older)?
You can by filling out questionnaires on Tuesday, July 24th at 10:00 a.m. in the Parish
Hall. The questionnaires should take approximately an hour and 15 minutes. Then we
have a free LUNCH!. Your assistance is appreciated. This study is under the auspices of
the University of Florida.
Gratefully,
Fr. Tom Connery
Please detach and either mail in, bring to parish office, or drop in the collection basket.
Name
Phone
â–¡ Yes, I will be there
â–¡ I am interested in helping but cannot make it that date
161

162
The following notice appeared in the church bulletin on July 22,2001.
SIXTY MORE PEOPLE NEEDED FOR SURVEY AND FREE FOOD!
Come be part of a ground-breaking study that will help connect and foster
a relationship between health and spirituality in senior citizens (ages 65
and older). Join us Tue., July 24,10:00 a.m., Paris Hall-help us by
completing a questionnaire followed by a delicious free meal!

APPENDIX B
INFORMED CONSENT
I ask your assistance with this research project. The project should fulfill two
objectives. First, this work fulfills, in part, the requirements for my dissertation. More
importantly, I hope that the results of this effort will benefit research in the field of health
psychology. If you agree to participate, please complete the attached questionnaires.
There are 9 questionnaires (some of them are very short) which should take you a total of
60 to 75 minutes to complete. The questionnaires will center on health and relationship
issues. Your participation is totally voluntary and you may withdraw participation at any
time without penalty or loss of benefit. The questionnaires will be given random
numbers to maintain your anonymity. You are assured of complete anonymity. Please
keep one copy of this consent form for your personal files. Thank you kindly for your
help.
I certify that I have read and understand the foregoing and that I have been
advised that I am free to withdraw my consent and discontinue participation in the
project or activity at any time without penalty or loss of benefit. I herewith give my
consent to participate in this project with the understanding that such consent does not
waive my legal rights.
ID#
Signature of the Participant
Date
If you have questions about this research, please feel free to contact
Dr. Thomas Connery, 3050 North Highway A1A, Indialantic, FL 32903, (321) 773-2783
or
Dr. Lee Rachiele, Counseling Center, (321) 773-6010
163

APPENDIX C
BASIC INFORMATION QUESTIONNAIRE
Please fill out the information
(1) Age (2) Gender: M 1 F 2
(3) Highest education level attained (check one):
Elementary school _1
Some high school _2
High school graduate _3
Some college 4
College graduate _5
Some graduate school _6
Master’s degree _7
Ph.D. degree _8
(4) Occupation (If student please say so) Before Retirement
Housewife _1 Clerical _3 Student _5 Business 7
Factory _2 Manager _4 Teacher _6 Doctor/lawyer _8
(6) Average number of hours worked per week
(7) Marital status: Single ¡.
Separated 4
Married 2
Remarried 5
Divorced 3
Widowed 6
(8) Height.
(9) Weight
(10)Income:
1 <$5,000
2 $5,000 to 9,999
3 $10,000 to 19,999
4 $20,000 to 29,999
5 $30,000 to 39,999
6 $40,000 to 49,999
7 $50,000 to 69,999
8 $70,000 to 89,999
9 $90,000 or more
164

165
(11) Are you a member of a religious group? Yes No
If yes, which group
Prot 1_ Luth 3 Unit_5 Meth 7
Cath 2 Jew 4 Bapt 6

APPENDIX D
ACTIVITIES AND HABITS QUESTIONNAIRE
1. How many blocks (or an equal distance) do you walk each day?
# of blocks
2. On the average, about how many hours a week do you spend in a moderately hard
physical activity such as walking fast, using a lawnmower, bicycling, dancing or
sports?
# of hours per week
3. Are you more or less physically active than most people your age?
Much less A little less A little more Much more
4. How often do you add salt to your food at the table?
Most of the time Sometimes
Rarelv
Never
How much salt do you usually add to your food?
A lot A moderate amount
A little
None
How much salty food do you eat?
A lot A moderate amount
A little
None
Is your weight too much, about right, or too little?
Wav too high Moderately high
A little high
Way too low
About right A little low
8. How much of the following beverage do you usually drink on an average day?
(a) Regular coffee (with cafeeine) # of cups a day
(b) Soft drinks with cafeine # of drinks or cans a day
(such as Coke, Tab, Dr. Pepper)
9. In an average week, how much of the following do you drink? (if none, mark 0)
(a) Wine # of glasses a week (b) Beer # of cans or bottles/week
(c) Hard liquor (gin, vodka, etc.) # of glasses a week
166

167
Have you ever smoked cigars or pipes regularly?
Yes
No
(a) Do you smoke cigars or a pipe presently?
Yes
No
(b) Do you smoke cigarettes presently?
Yes
No
Have you ever smoked cigarettes regularly?
Yes
No
Present smokers
How many cigarettes
# of cigarettes
How many years have you smoked all
together (i.e., not including times you
quit)?_# of cigarettes
Past smokers
How many cigarettes did you smoke a
day? # of cigarettes
How many years did you smoke all
together?(i.e., not including times you
quit) # cigarettes
How many years ago did you quit?
# years

REFERENCES
Achterberg, S., Matthews, S., & Simonton, O. C. (1776). Psychology of the exceptional
cancer patient: A description of patients and outlived predicted expectancies.
Psychotherapy: Theory and Research and Practice. 6. 13-14.
Ackerman, R. (1987). Let go and grow: Recovery for adult children. Pompano Beach,
FL: Health Communications.
Affleck, G., Tennen, H., Croog, S., & Levine, S. (1987). Casual attribution, perceived
benefits and morbidity after heart attack: An 8 year study. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology. 55. 29-35.
Albom, M. (1997). Tuesdays with Morrie. New York: Doubleday
Ali, M. A., Rye, M. S., Pargament, K .1.,. Beck, G. L., Dorff, E. N., Hallisey, C.,
Narayanan, V., & Williams, J. G. (2000). Religious perspectives on forgiveness.
In M. E. McCullough, K. I. Pargament, & C. E. Thoresen (Eds.), Forgiveness:
theory, research and practice (pp. 17-40). New York: Guilford Press.
Allport, G. W. (1961). Pattern and growth in personality. New York: Holt, Rhinehart
& Winston.
Alcoholics Anonymous (1952). Twelve steps and twelve traditions. New York:
Alcoholics Anonymous World Services.
Al-Mabuk, R. H. (1991). The commitment to forgive in parentally love-deprived
college students. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison).
Dissertation Abstracts International. 511101. 3361A.
Al-Mabuk, R. H., Enright, R. D., & Cardis, P. A. (1995). Forgiveness education with
parentally love-deprived late adolescents. Journal of Moral Education. 24.
427-444.
American Heart Association. (1999a). Stroke statistics. Stroke risk factors. 1999 heart
and stroke statistical update. Dallas: Author. Retrieved January 6,2002 from
http://www.americanheart.org
American Heart Association. (1999b). 1999 heart and stroke statistical update. Dallas:
Author. Retrieved December 10,2001, from http://www.americanheart.org
168

169
American Heart Association. (1999c). National Health and Nutrition Examination
Survey III (NHANES III), 1988-94, CDC/NCHS and American Heart
Association. 1999 heart and stroke statistical update. Dallas: Author. Retrieved
December 10,2001, from http://www.americanheart.org
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental
disorders (4th ed., rev.). Washington, DC: Author.
Anderson , O. K., Almgren, A., & Persson, B. (1998). Hypertensive men have shortened
life spans, despite treatment. Geriatrics. 53. 67-69.
Andrews, G., Schonell, M., &Tennant, C. (1977). The relation between physical,
psychological, and social morbidity in a suburb community. American Journal of
Epidemiology. 105. 324-329.
Arena, J. G., Bruno, G. M., Rozantine, G. S., & Meador, K. J. (1997). A comparison of
tension headache sufferers and non pain controls on the State-trait Anger
Expression Inventory: An exploratory study with implications for applied
psychophysiologists. Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback. 22. 209-14.
Arendt,H. (1958). The human condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Arnold, J. R. (1997). Seventy times seven. Farmington, PA: Plough.
Asad, M. (1980). The message of the Our’am. Gibralter: Dar Al-Andalus
Ashleman, K. A. (1996). Forgiveness as a resiliency factor in divorced or permanently
separated families. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Wisconsin-
Madison.
Augsburger, D. (1981). Caring enough to forgive. True forgiveness. Chicago: Moody.
Augsburger, D. (1988). The freedom of forgiveness. Chicago: Moody.
Augustine. (1963). The confessions of St. Augustine ÍR. Warren. Trans í. New York:
New American Library. (Original work published 397 A.D.)
Augustine. (1972). The city of God. New York: Doubleday.
Ayoub, M. (1997). Repentance in the Islamic tradition. In A. Etzioni & D. E. Carney
(Eds.), Repentance: A comparative perspective (pp. 96-121). New York:
Rowman & Littlefield.
Badger, T. A. (2001). Depression, psychological resources and health-related quality of
life in older adults 75 and above. Journal of Clinical Geropsvchologv. 7. 189-
200.

170
Barefoot, J. C. (1989). The Cook-Medley Hostility Scale. Durham, NC: Duke
University Medical Center.
Barefoot, J. C., Dahlstrom, D. W. G., & Williams, R. B., Jr. (1983). Hostility, CHD
incidence and total mortality: A 25-year follow-up study of 255 physicians.
Psychosomatic Medicine, 45. 59-63.
Barefoot, J. C., Dodge, K. A., Peterson, B. L., Dahlstrom, N. G., & Williams, R. B.
(1989). The Cook-Medley hostility scale: Item content and ability to predict
survival. Psychosomatic Medicine. 51.46-57.
Barefoot, J. C., Larsen, L., Von der Lieth, L., Schroll, M. (1995). Hostility, incidence of
acute myocardial infarction and mortality in a sample of older Danish men and
women. American Journal of Epidemiology. 142, 477-484.
Barefoot, J .C., Patterson, J. C, Haney, T. L., Cayton, T. G., Hickman, R .J., & Williams,
R. B. (1994). Hostility in asymptomatic man with angiographically confirmed
coronary artery disease. American Journal of Cardiologv.74. 439-442.
Bass, E., & Davis, L. (1988). The courage to heal. New York: Harper and Row.
Batson, C. D. (1990). The altiuism question. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Batson, C. D., & Oleson, K. C. (1991). Current status of the empathy-altuism
hypothesis. In M.S. Clark (Ed.), Prosocial behavior (pp. 62-85). Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Beatty, J. (1970). Forgiveness. American Philosphical Quarterly. 7. 246-252.
Beck, G. L., Rye, M. S., Pargament, K. I., Ali, M. A., Dorff, E. N., Hallisey, C.,
Narayanan, V., & Williams, J. G. (2000). Religious perspectives on forgiveness.
In M. E. McCullough, K. I. Pargament, & C. E. Thoresen (Eds.), Forgiveness:
Theory, research and practice (pp. 168-188). New York: Guilford.
Beck, T. V. (1988). Forgiving. In J. Norris (Ed.~). Daughters of the elderly: Building
partnerships in caregiving (pp. 207-211). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University
Press.
Belguim, D. (1970). Guilt: Where religion and psychology meet. Minneapolis:
Augsburg.
Belloc, N. B., Breslow, L., & Hochstim, J. R. (1971). Measurement of physical health in
a general population survey. American Journal of Epidemiology. 93. 328-336.
Benson, C. K. (1992). Forgiveness and the psychotherapeutic process. Journal of
Psychology and Christianity. 4. 76-81.

171
Bergin, A. E. (1980). Psychotherapy and religious values. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology. 48. 95-105.
Bergin, A. E. (1986). Psychotherapy and religious factors. A review of R. J. Lovinger’s
“Working with religious issues in therapy” and M. H. Spero’s “Psychotherapy of
the religious patient.” Contemporary Psychology. 31. 85-87.
Bergin, A. E. (1988). Three contributions of a spiritual perspective to counseling,
psychotherapy, and behavioral change. Counseling and Values. 33. 21-31.
Boltwood, M. D., Taylor, C. B., Burke, M. B., Grogen, H., & Giacomini, R. (1993).
Anger, report predicts coronary artery vascomotor response to mental stress.
American Journal of Cardiology. 72. 1361-1365.
Boon, S. P., & Sulsky, L. M. (1997). Attributions of blame and forgiveness in romantic
relationships: A policy-capturing study. Journal of Social Behavior and
Personality. 12. 19-44.
Borysenko, A. (1990). Guilt is the teacher, love is the lesson. A book to heal you, heart
and soul. New York: Warner.
Brabeck, M. M. (Ed.). (1989). Who cares? New York: Praeger.
Brandsma, J. M. (1982). Forgiveness: A dynamic theological and therapeutical view of
forgiving. Pastoral Psychology. 31.40-50.
Brody, D. S. (1980, March). Psychological distress and hypertension control. Journal of
Human Stress. 2-6.
Burg, M. M., Jain, D., Soufer, R., Kerns, R. D., & Zaret, B. L. (1993). Role of
behavioral factors in mental stress-induced silent left ventricular dysfunction in
coronary artery disease. Journal of American College of Cardiology. 22.
440-448.
Butler, R. N. (1997). Depression in the primary care practice. Geriatrics. 52. 7-9.
Butler, R. N., Cohen, G., Lewis,M. I., Simmons-Clemmons, W., & Sunderland, T.
(1997). Late-life depression: Treatment strategies for primary care practice.
Geriatrics. 52. 51-64.
Calían, C. S. (1981). Christian faith as forgiveness. Theology Today. 37. 439-443.
Carney, R. M., Rich, M. W., Freedland, K. E., Sainé, J., TeVelde, A., Simeone, C., &
Clark, K. (1998). Major depressive disorder predicts cardiac events in patients
with coronary artery disease. Psychosomatic Medicine. 50. 627-633.

172
Casaijian, R. (1992). Forgiveness: A bold choice for a peaceful heart. New York:
Bantam.
Cemey, M. S. (1988). “If only--” remorse in grief therapy. Psychotherapy Patient. 5,
235-248.
Cesana, G., Ferario, M, & Sega, R. (1996). Job strain in the ambulatory blood pressure
levels in a population-based employed sample of men from Northern Italy.
Scandanavian Journal of Work. Environment and Health. 22. 294-305.
Chesney, M. A., Hecker, M. H., & Black, G. W. (1988). Coronary-prone components of
Type A behavior in the WCGS: A new methodology. In B. K. Houston & C.
Snyder (Eds.), Type A behavior pattern: Research, theory, and intervention
(pp. 168-188). New York: Wiley.
Chesney, M. A., & Rosenman, R. H. (Eds). (1985). Anger and hostility in
cardiovascular and behavioral disorders. New York: Hemisphere.
Childs, B. (2001). Forgiveness and AIDS: Accepting the diagnosis, assuaging the
blame. Retrieved October 21, 2001, from http://www.forgiving.org.
Cleveland, S. E., & Johnson, D. L. (1962). Personality patterns in young males with
coronary heart disease. Psychosomatic Medicine. 24. 600-610.
Close, H. T. (1970). Forgiveness and responsibility: A case study. Pastoral Psychology.
21,19-25.
Cobb, S., & Rose, R. M. (1973). Hypertension peptic ulcer, and diabetes in air traffic
controllers. Journal of the American Medical Associaton. 224. 489-492.
Colantonio, A., Kasl, S. V., & Ostfeld, A. M. (1992). Depression symptoms and other
psychosocial factors as predictors of stroke in the elderly. American Journal of
Epidemiology. 136. 884-894.
Cole, B. (1998). Education of social workers for intervention with families of children
with special needs. Child and Adolescent Social Work. 6. 327-338.
Coleman, P. W. (1989). The forgiving marriage. Chicago: Contemporary.
Coleman, P. W. (1998). The process of forgiveness in marriage and the family. In R. D.
Enright & J. North (Eds.), Exploring forgiveness (pp. 75-94). Madison, WI:
University of Wisconsin.
Cook, E. W., Ill, Hawk, L. W., Davis, T. L., & Stevenson, V. E. (1991). Affective
individual differences and startle reflex modulation. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 100, 5-13.

173
Cook, W., & Medley, D. (1954). Proposed hostility and pharisaic-virtue scales for the
MMPI. Journal of Applied Psychology. 38. 414-418.
Cortis, B. (1995). Heart and soul: A psychological and spiritual guide to preventing and
healing heart disease. New York: Pocket Books.
Coyle, C. T., & Enright, R. D. (1997). Forgiveness intervention with post-abortion men.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 65. 1042-1046.
Culbertson, F. M., & Spielberger, C. D. (1996). Relations of anger expression to
depression and blood pressure in high school students. In C. D. Spielberger, I. G.
Sarason, J. M. T. Brebner, E. Greenglass, P. Laungani, & A. M. O’Roark (Eds.),
Stress and emotion: Anxiety, anger, and curiosity (Vol. 16, pp. 194-202).
Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis.
Cunningham, B. B. (1985). The will to forgive: A pastoral theological view of forgiving.
Journal of Pastoral Care. 39. 141-149.
Dembroski, T. M., & Costa, P.T. (1987). Coronary-prone behavior:Components of the
Type A pattern and hostility. Journal of Personality. 55. 211-235.
Dembroski, T. M., MacDougall, J. M., Williams, R. B., Haney, T. L., & Blumenthal, J.
A. (1985). Components of Type A, hostility and anger in relationship to
angiographic findings. Psychosomatic Medicine. 47. 219-231.
Denton, R. T., & Martin, M. W. (1998). Defining forgiveness. An empirical exploration
of process and role. American Journal of Family Therapy. 26. 281 -292.
Department of Health and Human Services. (2001). A profi le of older Americans: 2001.
Retrieved February 9,2002, from http://www.aoa.gov/aoa/STATS/profile/default.htm
Diagnosis and treatment of depression in late life. (1991, November 4-6). NIH Consensus
Statement Online. 9(33:1-27. Retrieved April 3,2002, from
http://consensus.nih.gov/cons/086/086_statement.htm
Diamond, E. L. (1982). The role of anger in essential hypertension and coronary heart
disease. Psychological Bulletin. 92.410-433.
DiBlasio, F. A. (1991). Helping family members to forgive: Role of social workers’
religious beliefs. Manuscript submitted for publication.
DiBlasio, F. A. (1992). Forgiveness in psychotherapy: A comparison of older and
younger therapists. Journal of Psychology and Christianity. 11. 181-187.
DiBlasio, F. A., & Benda, B. B. (1991). Practitioners religion and the clinical use of
forgiveness. Journal of Psychology and Christianity. 11. 181-187.

174
DiBlasio, F.A., & Proctor, J. H. (1993). Therapists and the clinical use of forgiveness.
American Journal of Family Therapy. 21.175-184.
Domar, A., & Dreher, H. (1996). Healing minds, healing woman: Using the mind-bodv
connection to manage stress and take control of vour life. New York: Bantam
Doubleday.
Dorf, E. N. (1992). Individual and communal forgiveness. In D. H. Frank (Ed.),
Autonomy and Judaism (pp. 193-218). Albany, NY: State University of New
York Press.
Dorf, E. N. (1998). The elements of forgiveness. A Jewish approval. InE. L.
Worthington, Jr. (Ed.), Dimentions of forgiveness (pp. 29-55). Philadelphia:
Templeton.
Dorf, E. N., Rye, M. S., Pargament, K. I., Ali, A., Beck, G. L., Hallisey, C., Narayanan,
V., & Williams, J. G. (2000). Religious perspectives on forgiveness. In M. E.
McCullough, K. I. Pargament, & C. E. Thoresen (Eds.), Forgiveness: Theory.
research, and practice inp. 17-40). New York: Guilford Press.
Downie, R. S. (1965). Forgiveness. Philosophical Quarterly. 15.128-134.
Droll, D. M. (1984). Forgiveness: Theory and research. Doctoral dissertation,
University of Nevada, Reno.
Dumortier, F. X. (1993). Dimensions socio-politiques du mal et du pardon. InL-M
Chauvet & P. De Clerck (Eds.), Le sacrement du pardon: Entre hier et domain
(pp. 125-138). Paris: Editions Desclee.
Dychtwald, K. (1999). “Age Power”: How the new-old will transform medicine in the
2 Ia century. Geriatrics. 54. 22-27.
Eastin, D. (1988). The treatment of adult female incest survivors bv psychological
forgiveness processes. Doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Ehrenberg, M. F., Hunter, M. A., & Elterman, M. F. (1996). Shared parenting
agreements after marital separation: The roles of empathy and narcissism.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 64. 808-818.
Eisenberg, N., & Fabes, R. A. (1990). Empathy’s conceptualization, measurement, and
relation to prosocial behavior. Motivation and Emotion. 14, 131-149.
Eisenberg, N., & Miller, P. A. (1987). The relation of empathy to prosocial and related
behaviors. Psychosocial Bulletin. 101. 91-119.

175
Elder, J. W. (1998). Anger and the healing power of forgiveness: A psychiatrist’s view.
In R. D. Enright & J. North (Eds.), Exploring forgiveness (pp. 150-161).
Madison: University of Wisconsin.
Elias, J., & Ketcham, K. (1995). Feminine healing: A woman’s guide to healthy, body,
mind and spirit. New York: Warner.
Elizondo, V. (1986). 1 forgive but I do not forget. Concilium. 184. 69-79.
Ellis, A. (1960). There’s no place for the concept of sin in psychotherapy. Journal of
Counseling Psychology. 7. 188-192.
Ellis, A. (1980). Psychotherapy and atheistic values: A response to A. E. Bergin’s
“Psychotherapy and religious values.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology. 48. 635-639.
Engebretson, T. O., Matthews, K. A., & Scheier, M. F. (1989). Relations between anger
expression and cardiovascular reactivity: Reconciling inconsistent findings
through a matching hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57.
513-571.
Engel, G. (1955). Studies of ulerative collitis III. The nature of the psychological
processes. American Journal of Medicine. 19. 231-256.
Enright, R. D. (1999). Forgiveness for the 21st century. The World of Forgiveness. 3.
1-15.
Enright, R. D. (2001). Forgiveness is a choice. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Enright, R. D., & Coyle, C. T. (1998). Researching the process model of forgiveness
within psychological interventions. In E. L. Worthington, Jr. (Ed.), Dimensions
of forgiveness inn. 138-161). Philadelphia: Tempelton.
Enright, R. D., Eastin, D. L., Golden, S., Sarinopoulos, L, & Freedman, S. (1992).
Interpersonal forgiveness within the helping professions: An attempt to resolve
differences of opinion. Counseling and Values. 36. 84-103.
Enright, R. D., Franklin, C. C., & Manheim, L. A. (1980). Children’s disruptive justice
reasoning: A standardized and objective scale. Developmental Psychology. 16.
193-202.
Enright, R. D., Freedman, S., & Rique, J. (1998). The psychology of interpersoanal
forgiveness. In R. D. Enright, & J. North (Eds.), Exploring forgiveness
(pp. 46-62). Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press.

176
Enright, R. D., Gassen, E. A., & Wu, C. (1992). Forgiveness a development view.
Journal of Moral Education. 21. 99-114.
Enright, R. D., & Flebl., J. H. (1993). Forgiveness as a psychotherapeutic goal with
elderly females. Psychotherapy. 30. 658-667.
Enright, R. D., & The Human Development Study Group. (1991a). The moral
development of forgiveness. In W. Kurtines & J. Gewirtz (Eds.), Handbook of
moral behavior and development. Vol. 1. Hillsdale, NJ: Erbaum.
Enright, R. D., & The Human Development Study Group. (1991b). Five points on the
construct of forgiveness within psychotherapy. Psychotherapy. 28. 493-496.
Enright, R. D., & The Human Development Study Group. (1994). Piaget on the moral
development of forgiveness. Human Development. 37. 63-80.
Enright, R. D., & The Human Development Study Group. (1996). Counseling within the
forgiveness triad: On forgiving, receiving forgiveness, and self-forgiveness.
Counseling & Values. 40. 107-126.
Enright, R. D., & North, J. (1998). The Ideal of Forgiveness: A Philosopher’s
Exploration. In R. D. Enright & J. North (Eds.), Exploring forgiveness (pp. 15-
34). Madison: University of Wisconsin.
Enright, R. D., Rique, J., Coyle, C. T. (2000). The Enright Forgiveness Inventory user’s
manual. Madison, WI: International Forgiveness Institute.
Enright, R. D., Santos, M. J. D., & Al-Mabuk, R. (1989). The adolescent as forgiver.
Journal of Adolescence. 12. 95-110.
Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and society (2nd ed.l New York: Norton.
Esterling, B. A., Antoni, M. H., Kumar, M., & Schneideran, N. (1990). Emotional
repression, stress, disclosure responses, and Epstein-Barr viral capsid antigen
titers. Psychosomatic Medicine. 52.397-410.
Evans, D. L. (1997). Depression in patients with comorbid illness raises morbidity,
death. Geriatrics. 52. 24-27.
Everson, S. A., Goldberg, D. E., Kaplan, G. A., Julkeunen, J., & Salonen, J. T. (1998).
Anger expressed and incident hypertension. Psychosomatic Medicine. 60.
730-735.
Everson, S. A., Kauhanen, J., & Kaplan, G. A. (1997). Hostility and increased risk of
mortality and acute myocardial infarction. The mediating role of behavioral risk
factors. American Journal of Epidemiology. 146. 142-152.

177
Exline, J. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Expressing forgiveness and repentance:
Benefits and barriers. In M. E. McCullough, K. I. Pargament, & C. E. Thoresen
(eds). Forgiveness: Theory research and practice (dd.133-155). New York:
Guilford.
Farmer, S. (1989). Adult children of abusive parents. Los Angeles: Lowell Flouse.
Fenell, D. L. (1993). Characteristics of long-term first marriages. Journal of Mental
Health Counseling. 15. 446-460.
Fitzgibbons, R. P. (1986). The cognitive and emotional uses of forgiveness in the
treatment of anger. Psychotherapy. 23.629-633.
Fitzgibbons, R. P. (1998). Anger and the healing power of forgiveness: A psychiatrist’s
view. In R. D. Enright & J. North (Eds.), Exploring forgiveness (pp. 63-74).
Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press.
Flanigan, B. (1987, September 25). Forgiving. Workshops at the Mendota Mental
Health Institute, Madison, WI.
Flanigan, B. (1992). Forgiving the unforgivable: Overcoming the bitter legacy of
intimate wounds. New York: MacMillan.
Flanigan, B. (1998). Anger and the healing power of forgiveness: A psychiatrist’s view.
In R. D. Enright & J. North (Eds.), Exploring forgiveness (pp. 95-105). Madison,
WI: The University of Wisconsin Press.
Forward, S. (1989). Toxic parents. New York: Bantam Books.
Fow, N. R. (1988). An empirical phenomenological investigation of the experience of
forgiving another. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1988).
Dissertation Abstracts International. 50 (03), 1097B.
Fow, N. R. (1996). The phenomenology of forgiveness and reconciliation. Journal of
Phenomenological Psychology. 21. 219-239.
Fox, A., & Fox. B. (1988). Wake up! You are alive. Deerfield, FL: Health
Communications.
Frank, L. (1959). The will to meaning: Foundations and applications of therapy. New
York: World Publishing House.
Frankena, W. K. (1973). Ethics (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N J: Prentice Hall.
Frasure-Smith, N., Lesperance, F., & Talajic, M. (1993). Depression following
myocardial infarction: Impact on 6-month survival. Journal of the American
Medical Association. 270. 1819-1825.

178
Frasure-Smith, N., Lesperance, F., & Talajic, M. (1995). Depression and 18n month
prognosis after myocardial infarction. Circulation. 91. 999-1005.
Freedman, S. R., & Enright, R. D. (1996). Forgiveness as an intervention goal with
incest survivors. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 64. 983-992.
Freud, S. (1963). Collected Papers. New York: Collier.
Friedman, E. FI. (1996). Neurobiology of anger-hostility and coronary risk.
Psychotherapy and Psvchosomatics. 64,222.
Friedman, H. S. (Ed.). (1990). Personality and disease. New York: Wiley.
Friedman, H. S. (Ed). (1992). Hostilitv.coning. and health. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Friedman, H. S. (1996). Anger and myocardial infarction. Circulation. 94. 178-86.
Friedman, H. S., & Booth-Kewley, S. (1987). The “disease-prone personality”: Ameta-
analytic view of the construct. American Psychologist. 42, 539-555.
Friedman. M., & Rosenamn, R. FI. (1974). Tvne A behavior and vour heart. New York:
Knopf.
Friedman, M., Thorensen, C., Gill, J., Ulmer, D., Powell, L. H., Price, V. A., Brown, B.,
Thompson, L., Rabin, D., Breall, W. S., Boorg, W., Levy, R., & Dixon, T.
(1986). Alterations of type A behavior and its effects on cardiac recurrence in
past-myocardial infarction patients: Summary results of the coronary prevention
recurrence project. American Health Journal. 112. 653-665.
Gabbard, G. (1990). Psvchodvnamic psychiatry in clinical practice. Washington, DC:
American Psychiatric Press.
Gardner, G. E. (1971). Aggression and violence-The enemies of precision learning in
children. American Journal of Psychiatry. 128. 77-82.
Gartner, J. (1988). The capacity to forgive: An object relations perspective. Journal of
Religion and Health. 21. 313-320.
Gartner, J., Larson, D. B., & Allen, G. D. (1991). Religious commitment and mental
health: A review of the enperical literature. Journal of Psychological and
Theology. 19.6-25.
Gassin, E. A., & Enright, R. D. (1995). The will to meaning in the process of
forgiveness. Journal of Psychology and Christianity. 14. 38-49.

179
Gentilone, F., & Regidor, T. R. (1986, April). The political dimension of reconciliation:
A recent Italian experience. In C. Floristan & C, Duquoc (Eds.), Forgiveness (pp.
22-31). Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.
Gentry, W. E. (1985). Relationships of anger-coping styles and blood pressure among
black Americans. In M.A. Chesney & R.H. Rosenman (Eds.), Anger and hostility
in cardiovascular and behavioral disorders. New York: Hemisphere.
Gentry, W. E., Chesney, A. P., Gary, H. G., Hall, R. P., & Harburg, E. (1982). Habitual
anger-coping styles: Effect on mean blood pressure and risk for essential
hypertension. Psychosomatic Medicine. 44, 195-202.
Gerritsen, W., Heijnen, C. J., Wiegant, V. M., Bermond, B., & Frijda, N. H. (1996).
Experimental social fear: Immunological hormonal and autonomic concomitants.
Psychosomatic Medicine. 58. 273-86.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s
development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard.
Gilligan, C., Ward, J. V., & Taylor, J. M. (Eds.). (1988). Mapping the moral domain.
Cambridge, MA: Center for the study of Gender, Education, and Human
Development.
Gingell, J. (1974). Foregiveness and power. Analysis. 34, 180-183.
Gladson, J. (1992). Higher than the heavens: Forgiveness in the Old Testament. Journal
of Psychology and Christianity. 11. 125-135.
Goldbourt, U., Yaari, S., & Medalie, J. H. (1993). Factors predictive of long-term
coronary heart disease mortality among 10,059 male Israeli civil servants and
municipal employees. A 23 year mortality follow-up in the Israeli Ischemic Heart
Disease Study. Cardiology. 82.100-121.
Golding, M. P. (1984). Forgiveness and regret. The Philosophical Forum. 16,121-137.
Gorsuch, R., & Hao, J. (1993). Forgiveness: An exploratory factor analysis and its
relationship to religious variables. Review of Religious Research. 34(41.
333-347.
Govier, T. (1999, July-August). Forgiveness and the unforgivable. American
Philosophical Quarterly. 36. 59-75.
Greenwald, D. F., & Harder, D. W. (1994). Outcome predictors in a longitudinal study
of high risk Boys. Journal of Clinical Psychology. 50, 705-708.
Guest, J. L. (1988). Forgiving vour parents. Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press.

180
Hagglof, B., Blom, L., Dahlquist, G., Lonnberg, G. & Sablin, B. (1991). The Swedish
childhood diabetes study: Indications of severe psychological stress as a risk
factor for Type 1 (insulin-dependent) diabetes mellitus in childhood.
Diabetoloeica. 34, 579-583.
Hammerstein, J. F., Cathey, C. W., Redmond, R. F., & Wolf, S. S. (1957). Serum
cholesterol diet and stress in patients with coronary disease. Journal of Clinical
Investigation. 36. 987.
Harburg, E., Blakelock, E. H. & Roeper, P. J. (1979). Resentful and reflective coping
with arbitrary authority and blood pressure: Detroit. Psychosomatic Medicine. 3.
189-202.
Harburg, E., Erfurt, J. C., Havenstein, L. S., Chape, C., Schull, W. J., & Schork, M.A.
(1973). Socio-Ecological stress suppressed hostility, skin color, and black-white
male blood pressure: Detroit. Psychosomatic Medicine. 35. 276-296.
Hardy, J., & Smith, L. (1988). Cynical hostility and vulnerability to disease: Social
support, life stress and physiological responses to conflict. Health Psychology. 7.
447-459.
Hargrave, T. D. (1994). Families and forgiveness. New York: Brunner/Mazel.
Hargrave, T. D., & Sells, J. N. (1997). The development of a forgiveness scale. Journal
of Marital and Family Therapy. 23. 41-62.
Hathout, H. (1997, July-August). Forgiveness: An Islamic obligation. The Minaret. 27-
29.
Haynes, S. G., Feinleib, M., & Kannel, W. B. (1980). The relationship of psychosocial
factors to coronary heart disease in the Framington Study III. Eight year
incidence of coronary Heart disease. American Journal of Epidemiology. 3. 37-
58.
Heatherton, T. F., & Renin, R. J. (1995). Stress and the disinhibition of behavior.
Mind/Bodv Medicine. 1. 72-81.
Hebl, J. H. (1990). Forgiveness as a psychotherapeutic goal with elderly females.
(Doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison). Dissertation Abstracts
International. 51. (04), 1119A.
Hebl, J. H., & Enright, R. D. (1993). Forgiveness as a psychotherapeutic goal with
elderly females. Psychotherapy. 30. 658-667.
Hecker, M. H. L, Chesney, M. A., Black, G. W., & Frautchi, N. (1988). Coronary prone
behaviors in the Western Collaborative Group Study. Psychosomatic Medicine.
50* 153-164.

181
Hershey, T. (1984). Beginning again: Life after a relationship ends. Laguna Hills, CA:
Merit.
Hoffman, M. (1981). The development of empathy. In J. P. Rushton & R. M.
Sorrentino (Eds.), Altruism and helping behavior: Social personality and
development perspectives fpp. 41-531. Hillsdale, NJ: Erbaum.
Hoffman, M. (1990). Empathy and justice motivation. Motivation and Emotion. 14,
151-172.
Hoffman, M. L. (2000). Empathy and moral development: Implications for caring and
justice. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Holbrook, M. I., White, M. H., & Hutt, M. J. (1995). The Vengeance scale:
Comparison of gorups and an assessment of external validity. Psychological
Reporter. 77.224-226.
Holmgren, M. R. (1993). Forgiveness and the intrinsic value of persons. American
Philosophical Quarterly. 30. 340-352.
Holy Bible. ( 1984). International Version fNIYl. East Brunswick, NJ: International
Bible Society.
Hooper, J. (1999, February). A new germ theory. Atlantic Monthly. 41-53.
Hope, D. (1987). The healing paradox of forgiveness. Psychotherapy. 24.240-244.
House, J. S., Landes, K. R., & Umberson, D. (1988). Social relationships and health.
Science. 241. 540-545.
Horsbrugh, H. J. N. (1974). Forgiveness. Canadian Journal of Philosophy. 4. 269-282.
Huang, S. T. (1990). Cross-cultural and real-life validations of the theory of forgiveness
in Taiwan, the Republic of China. Doctoral dissertation, University of
Wisconsin-Madison.
Huang, S. T., & Enright, R. D. (2000). Forgiveness and anger-related emotions in
Taiwan: Implications for therapy. Psychotherapy. 37. 71-79.
Hughes, M. (1975). Forgiveness. Analysis. 35.113-117.
Hunter, R. C. A. (1978). Forgiveness, retaliation, and paranoid reactions. Canadian
Psychiatric Association Journal. 23. 167-173.
Ickes, W. (1997). Emnathic accuracy. New York: Guillford Press

182
Idler, E. L. (1987). Religious involvement and the health of the elderly. Social Forces.
66,226-238.
Idler, E. L., & Kasl, S.,V. (1992). Religion disability, depression and the timing of
death. American Journal of Sociology. 97.1052-1079.
Jacob, R. G., Kramer, H. C., & Agras, W. S. (1977). Relaxation therapy in the treatment
of hypertension. Archives of General Psychology. 34. 1417-1427.
Jampolsky, G. G. (1985). Goodbye to guilt. New York: Bantam Books
Janov, A. (1970). The primal scream. New York: Dell
Jenco, L. (1995). Bound to forgive: The pilgrimage to reconciliation of a Beirut hostage.
Notre Dame, IN: Ave Maria.
Jiang, W., Babyak, M., Krantz, D. S., Waugh, R. A., Coleman, R. E., Hanson, M. M.,
Frid, D. J., McNulty, S., Morris, J. J., & O’Connor, C. M. (1996). Mental
stress—Induced myocardial ischemia and cardiac events. Journal of the
American Medical Association. 275. 1651-1656.
Joesoef, M. R., Welterhall, S. F., DeStefano, F., Stroup, N. E., & Fronek, A. (1989). The
association of peripheral arterial disease with hostility in a young, healthy
population. Psychosomatic Medicine. 51. 285-289.
Johnson, E. J. (1990). The deadly emotions: The role of anger, hostility, and aggression
in health and emotional well being. New York: Praeger.
Johnson, E. H., & Broman, C. L. (1987). The relationship of anger expression to health
problems and black Americans in a national survey. Journal of Behavioral
Medicine. 10.103-116.
Jonas, B. S., Franks, P., & Ingram, D. D. (1997). Are symptoms of anxiety and
depression risk factors for hypertension? Longitudinal evidence from the
National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey 1 epidemiolgic follow up
study. Archives of Family Medicine. 6. 43-49.
Julius, S., & Johnson, E. H. (1985). Stress, autonomic hyperactivity and essential
hypertension: An enigma. Journal of Hypertension. 3. 11-18.
Julkunen, J. (1996). Suppressing your anger: Good manners, bad health? InC. D.
Spielberger & I. G. Sarason (Eds.), Stress and emotion IVol. 16, pp. 227-240).
Washington, DC: Taylor and Francis.
Kahrhoff, R. E. (1988). Forgiveness: Formula for peace of mind. St. Charles, MO:
Capital Planning.

183
Kant, I. (1964). Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals (H. J. Patón. Trans. Y New
York: Harper and Row.
Kaplan, B. H. (1992). Social health and the forgiving heart: The Type B story. Journal
of Behavioral Medicine. 15. 3-14.
Kaplan, H. I. (1980). Treatment of psychosomatic disorders. In H. I. Kaplan, A. M.
Freedman, & B. J. Saddock (Eds.), Comprehensive textbook of psychiatry IV:Vol
2 (3rd ed., pp.1973-1980). New York: Williams & Williams.
Kaplan, G. A., Cohn, B. A., Cohen, R. D., & Guralnik, J. (1988). The decline in
ischemic heart disease mortality: Prospective evidence from the Almeda County
study. American Journal of Epidemiology. 127. 1131-1142.
Kaufman, M. E. (1984). The courage to forgive. Israeli Journal of Psychiatry and
Related Sciences. 21. 177-187.
Kawachi, F., Sparrow, D., Spiro, A., Ill, Vokonas, P., & Weiss, S.T. (1996). Myocardial
ischemia/coronary artery vasoconstriction/thrombosis/myocardial infarction: A
prospective study of anger and coronary heart disease: The normative aging
study. Circulation. 94. 2090-2095.
Kellenberger, J. (1995). Relationship morality. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State
University Press.
Keltikangas-Javinen, L., Raskonen, K., Hantanen, A., & Adlercreutz, H. (1996). Vital
exhaustion,anger expression, pituitary and adrenocortical hormones.
Arterioslerosis Thombosis and Vascular Biology, 16. 275-280.
Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K. (1999). Stress, personal relationships, and immune function.
Health implications. Brain. Behavior and Immunity. 13.61-72.
Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., Malarlkey, W. B., Chee, M., Newton, T., Cacioppo, J. T., Mao, H.,
& Glaser, R. (1993). Negative behavior during marital conflict is associated with
immunological down-regulation. Psychosomatic Medicine. 57. 269-274.
Kiel, D. V. (1986). I’m learning to forgive. Decisions. 12-13.
Kim, H. F., Braun, U., & Kunik, M. E. (2001). Anxiety and depression in medically ill
older adults. Journal of Clinical Geropsvchologv. 7. 117-130.
Klassen, W. (1966). The forgiving community. Philadelphia: Westminister.
Koenig, H. (1999). Late-life depression: How to treat patients with comorbid chronic
illness. Geriatrics. 54. 56-62.
Koenig, H. G. (1994). Aging and God. New York: Haworth.

184
Koenig, H. G., Cohen, H. J„ Blazer, D. G„ Kudler, H. S., Krishnan, K. R. R., & Sibert T.
E. (1995). Cognitive symptoms of depression and religious coping in elderly
medical patients. Psvchosoroatics. 36, 369-375.
Koenig, H. G, Cohen, H. J„ Blazer, D. G., Pieper, C., Meador, K. G., Shelp, F., Goli, V.,
& DiPasquale, R. (1992). Religious coping and depression in elderly
hospitalized medically ill men. American Journal of Psychiatry, 149. 1693-1700.
Koenig, H. G., Larson, D. B., & Matthews, D. A. (1995, March 25). Wisdom and
spirituality: Their special importance in clinical work with older adults. A paper
presented at the Scientific Meeting of the Boston Society for Gerontologic
Psychiatry, Inc.. Boston, MA.
Koenig, H. G., McCullough, M. E., & Larson, D. B. (2001). Handbook of religion and
health. Oxford, UK: University Press.
Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach to
socialization. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and
research (pp. 347-480). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
Kohlberg, L. (1973). Stages and aging in moral development—Some speculations. The
Gerontologist. 13, 497-502.
Kohlberg, L. (1976). Moral stages and moralization: The cognitive-developmental
approach. In T. Lickona (Ed.), Moral development and behavior: Theory,
research and social issues (pp. 31-53). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Kohlberg, L. (1985). A current statement on some theoretical issues. In S. Modgil & C.
Modgil (Eds.), Lawrence Kohlberg: Consensus and controversy (pp. 485-546).
London: Taylor & Francis.
Kohlberg, L., & Power, C. (1981). Moral development, religious thinking, and the
question of a seventh stage. In L. Kohlberg (Ed.), The philosophy of moral
development (pp. 311-372). San Francisco: Harper & Row.
Kolnai. A. (1973-74?). Forgiveness. Proceedings of the Aristotelian society. 74.
91-106.
Krantz, D. S., Baum, A., & Singer. J. E. (Eds.). (1983). Handbook of psychology and
health. Vol. 3: Cardiovascular disorders and behavior. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kushner, H. (1996). How good do we have to be? New York: Brown.
Ladwig, K. H„ Roll, G., Breithardt, G., Budde, T., & Borggrefe, M. (1994). Post¬
infarction depression and incomplete recovery 6 months after acute myocardial
infarction. Lancet. 343. 20-23.

185
Lambert, J. C. (1985). The human action of forgiveness. New York: University Press.
Lampman, J. (1999). The power of forgiveness. Christian Science Monitor. 91(43).
13-18.
Landman, I. (Ed.). (1941). Forgiveness. In The universal Jewish encyclopedia ÍVol. 4.
pp. 136-142). New York: Universal Jewish Encyclopedia.
Landsbergis, P.A., Schnall, P. L, & Warren, K. (1994). Association between ambulatory
blood pressure and alternative formulation of job stress. Scandinavian Journal of
Work. Environment and Health. 20. 349-363.
Lang, B. (1994). Forgiveness. American Philosophical Quarterly. 31. 105-117.
Lang, E. J. (1979). A bio-informational theory of emotional imagery. Psycho
physiology. 16.495-512.
Lang, P. J. (1995). The emotion probe. Studies of motivation and attention. American
Psychologists. 50. 372-385.
Larson, D. B., Koenig, H. G., Kaplan, B. FL, Greenberg, R. S., Logue, E., & Tyroler, H.
(1989). The impact of religion on men’s blood pressure. Journal of Religion &
Health. 28.265-278.
LaRue, A., Bank, L., Jarvik, L., & Hetland, M. (1979). Health in old age: How do
physician ratings and self-ratings compare? Journal of Gerontology. 34. 687-691.
Lauritzen, P. (1987). Forgiveness: Moral prerogative or religious duty? Journal of
Religious Ethics. 15. 141-150.
Lawler, K. A., Kline, K., Seabrook, E., Krishnamoorthy, J., Anderson, S. F., Wilcox, Z.
C., Craig, F., Adlin, R., & Thomas, S. (1998). Family history of hypertension: A
psychophysiological analysis. International Journal of Psychophysiology. 28.
207-222.
Lehman, C., Rodin, J., McEwen, B. S., & Brinton, R. (1991). Impact of environmental
stress on the expression of insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus Behavioral
Neuroscience. 105. 241-245.
Leigh, H. (1982). Evaluation and management of stress in general medicine: The
psychosomatic approach. In L. Goldberger & S. Breznitz (Eds.), Handbook of
stress: Theoretical and clinical aspects. New York: Free Press.
Lemer, H. G. (1985). The dance of anger. New York: Harper and Row.
Levin, R. F. (1996). Heartmates: A guide for the spouse and family of heart patient.
Minneapolis: Minerva Press.

186
Levine, S. (1985). Who dies? An investigation of conscious living and conscious dying.
Garden City, NJ: Anchor.
Levy, S. M., Lee, J., Bagley, C., & Lippman, M. (1988). Survival hazards analysis in
first recurrent breast cancer patients: Seven-year follow up. Psychosomatic
Medicine. 50. 520-528.
Linden, W., & Feuerstein, M. (1981, March). Essential hypertension and social coping
behavior. Journal of Human Stress, 28-34.
Linn, M., & Linn, D. (1978). Healing life’s hurts: Healing memories through five stages
of forgiveness. New York: Paulist Press.
London, P. (1986). The modes and morals of psychotherapy (2nd ed.l New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Lowe, C. M. (1976). Value orientations in counseling and nsvchotheraphy (2nd ed.l.
Cranston, RI: Carroll Press.
Luskin, F., & Thoresen, C. (1998). The effect of forgiveness training on psychosocial
factors in college age adults. Stanford Forgiveness Project. 1-7. Retrieved
August 17,2001, from http://www.leamingtoforgive.com
Luskin, F., Thoresen, C., Harris, A., Benisovich, S., Stadard, S., Bruning. J., & Evans, S.
(2001). Effects of group forgiveness intervention on perceived stress, state and
trait anger, symptoms of stress, self-reported health and forgiveness. Stanford
Forgiveness Project. 5-6. Retrieved August 17, 2001, from
http://www.leamingtoforgive.com
MacKintosh, H. R. (1927). The Christian experience of forgiveness. London: Nisbet.
Maddox, G. L., & Douglas, E. B. (1973). Self-assessment and health: A longitudinal
study of elderly subjects. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 14. 89-93.
Malcom, W. M., & Greenberg, (Initials). (2000). Forgiveness as a process of change in
individual psychotherapy. In M. E. McCullough, K. I. Pargament, & C. E.
Thoresen (Eds.), Forgiveness: Theory, research and practice (pp.79-202). New
York: Guilford.
Mandela, N. (1999). After such crimes what forgiveness? Civilization. 6. 78-80.
Marlatt, G. A. (1985). Relapse prevention. Theoretical rationale and overview of the
model. In G. A. Marlatt & J. R. Gordon (Eds.), Relapse prevention (pp. 3-70).
New York: Gillford.

187
Matarazzo, J. D., & Leckliter, I. N. (1988). Behavioral health: The role of good and bad
habits in health and illness. In S. Maes, C. D. Spielberger, P. B. Defares, & I. G.
Saranson (Eds.), Topics in health psychology (pp. 37-52). New York: Wiley.
Matthews, K. A., Glass, D. C., Rosenman, R. H., & Bortner, R.W. (1977). Competitive
drive, pattern A, and coronary heart disease: A further analysis of some data from
the Western Collaborative Group Study. Journal of Chronic Disability, 30 489-
498.
Matthews, K. A., Weiss, S. M., Detre, T., Dembroski, T. M., Falkner, B., Manuck, S. G.,
& Williams, R. B., Jr. (Eds.). (1986). Handbook of stress reactivity and
cardiovascular disease. New York: Wiley.
Mauger, P. A., Freeman, T., McBride, A. G., Perry, J. E., Grove, D. C., McKenny, K. E.
(1992). The measurement of forgiveness: Preliminary research. Journal of
Psychology and Christianity. 11. 170-180.
Mazor, A., Gampel, Y., Enright, R. D., & Orenstein, R. (1990). Holocaust survivors:
Coping with post-traumatic memories in childhood and forty years later. Journal
of Traumatic Stress. 3. 1-14.
McCraty, R., Atkinson, M., Tiller, W., Rein, G., & Walkins, A. (1995). The effects of
emotions on short term power spectrum analysis on heart rate variability.
American Journal of Cardiology. 76. 1089-1093.
McCullough, M. E. (1995). Forgiveness as altruism: Toward a social-psychological
theory of forgiveness and tests of its validity. Doctoral dissertation, Virginia
Commonwealth University, Richmond.
McCullough, M. E. (1997). Marriage and forgiveness. Marriage and Family: A
Christian Journal. 1. 81-96.
McCullough, M. E., Bellah, C. G., Kilpatrick, S. D., & Johnson, J. L. (2001).
Vengefulness: Relationships with forgiveness, rumination, well-being, and the big
five. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 27f5J. 6010610.
McCullough, M. E., Exline, J. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (1998). An annotated
bibliography of research and related concepts. In E. L. Worthington, Jr. (Ed.),
Dimensions of forgiveness: Psychological research and theological perspectives
(pp. 193-317). Philadelphia: Templeton Foundation Press.
McCullough, M. E., Pargament, K. I., & Thoresen, C. E. (2000). Forgiveness. New
York: Guilford.
McCullough, M. E., Sandage, S. J., & Worthington, E. L. (1997). To forgive is human:
How to put your past in the nast. Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press.

188
McCullough, M. E., & Worthington, E. L., Jr. (1994a). Encouraging clients to forgive
people who have hurt them: Review, critique, and research prospectus. Journal of
Psychology and Theology. 22. 3-20.
McCullough, M. E., & Worthington, E. L., Jr. (1994b). Models of interpersonal
forgiveness and their applications to counseling: Review and critique. Counseling
and Values. 39. 2-14.
McCullough, M. E., & Worthington, E. L. (1999). Religion and the forgiving
personality. Journal of Personality. 67. 1141-1163.
McCullough, M. E., Worthington, E. L., Jr., & Rachal, K. C. (1997). Interpersonal
forgiving in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
73,321-336.
McDowell, J. (1986). Forgiveness. Tape recording of talk given at Torrey Conference,
Biola University, La Mirada.
McEwen, B. S. (1998). Protective and damaging effects of stress mediators. New
England Journal of Medicine. 338. 171-179.
McEwen, B. S., & Stellar, E. (1993). Stress and the individual. Mechanisms leading to
disease. Archives of Internal Medicine. 151. 2093-2101.
McGary, H. (1989). Forgiveness. American Philosophical Quarterly. 26. 343-351.
McMinn, M. R. (1984). Religious values and client-counselor matching on psycho
therapy. Journal of Psychology and Theology. 12.24-33.
Means, J. R., Wilson, G. L., Sturm, C., & Biron, J. E. (1990). Humility as
psychotherapeutic formulation. Counseling Psychology Quarterly. 3. 211-215.
Medalie, J. H., & Goldbourt, U. (1976). Angina pectores among 10,000 men. II.
Psychological and other risk factors as evidenced by a multivariate analysis of a
five year incidence study. American Journal of Medicine. 60. 910-921.
Medalie, J. H., Strange, K. C., Zyzanoki, S. J., & Goldbourt, U. (1992). The importance
of biophysiological factors in the development of duodental ulcer in a cohort of
middle-aged men. American Journal of Epidemilogy, 136. 1280-1287.
Meltzer, J. W., & Hochstim, J. R. (1977). Reliability and validity of survey data on
physical health. Public Health Reports. 85. 1075-1086.
Middleton-Moz, J., & Dwinell L. (1986). After the tears: Reclaiming the personal losses
of childhood. New York: Health Communications.

189
Miller, W., & Thorensen, C. E. (in press). Spirituality and health. In W. Miller (Ed.),
Integrating spirituality into treatment. Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Miller, T. Q., Smith, T. W., Turner, C. W., Guijarro, M. I., & Hallet, A. J. (1996). A
meta-analytic review of the research on hostility and physical health.
Psychological Bulletin. 119. 322-348.
Mills, P. J., & Dimsdale, J. E. (1993). Anger suppression: Its relationship to beta
adrenergic receptor sensitivity and stress—Induced changes in blood pressure.
Psychological medicine. 23. 673-678.
Mills, P. J., Schneider, R. H., & Dimsdale, J. E. (1988). Anger assessment and reactivity
to stress. Journal of Psychosomatic Research. 33. 379-382.
Monbourquette, J. (1992). Comment nardonner. Paris: Novalis et les Editions du
Centurion.
Moos, R. H. (1979). Social-ecological perspective on health. In G. C. Stone, G. Cohen,
& N. E. Adler (Eds.), Health psychology: A handbook (pp. 235-248). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Moore, B. (1990). The origins and development of empathy. Motivation and Emotion.
Ü 75-80.
Morrow, L. (1984, January 9). “I spoke as a brother.” Time. 26-33.
Mossey, J. M., & Shapiro, E. (1982). Self-rated health: A predictor of mortality among
the elderly. American journal of Public Health. 12. 800-808.
Muranaka, M., Monou, H., Suzuki, J., Lane. J. D., Anderson, N. B., Kuhn, C. M.,
Schanberg, S. M., McCown, N., & Williams, R. B. (1988). Physiological
responses to catecholamine infusions in type A and type B men. Health
Psychology. 1. 145-163.
Murasko, D. M., Weiner, P., & Kaye, D. (1988). Association of lack of mitogen-
induced lymphocyte proliferation with increased mortality in the elderly. Aging.
Ll-6.
Murphy, J. G. (1982). Forgiveness and resentment. Midwest Studies in Philosophy. 7.
503-516.
Murphy, J. G., & Hampton, J. (1988). Forgiveness and mercy. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.

190
National Center for Health Statistics. (1992). Current estimates from the National
Interview Survey. 1991 (DHHS Series 10, No. 184, PHS 93-1512). Washington,
DC: Government Printing Office.
Neblett, W. R. (1974). Forgiveness and Ideals. Mind. 83. 269-275.
Nelson, M. K. (1992). A new theory of forgiveness. Detached Forgiveness, limited
forgiveness, full forgiveness. (Doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, 1992).
Dissertation Abstracts International. 531081.4381B.
Neusner, J. (1997). Repentance in Judaism. In A. Etzioni & D. E. Carney (Eds.),
Repentance: A comparative perspective (pp. 60-75). New York: Bowman &
Littlefield.
Newman, L. E. (1987). The quality of mercy: On the duty to forgive in the Judaic
tradition. Journal of Religious Ethics. 15. 141-150, 155-172.
Nietzsche, F. W. (1887). The genealogy of morals (P. Watson. Trans.Y London:
S.P.C.K.
North, J. (1998). The “Ideal” of forgiveness: A philosopher’s exploration. InR. D.
Enright & J. North (Eds.), Exploring forgiveness (pp 15-34). Madison, WI: The
University of Wisconsin Press.
North, J. (1987). Wrongdoing and forgiveness. Philosophy. 62. 499-508.
Nousse, V. E. (1997). Forgiveness as related to post-abortion healing. Unpublished
master’s thesis, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Novoca, R. (1975). Anger control. Lexington, MA: Lexington.
Oman, D., Thoresen, C. E., & McMahon, K. (1999). Volunteerism and mortality among
the community-dwelling elderly. [Special issue]. Spirituality and Health.
Journal of Health Psychology. 4131.301-316.
Ornish, D. (1998) . Love and survival: The scientific basis for the healing power of
intimacy. New York: Harper Collins.
Omish, D., Brown, S. E., Scherwitz, L. W., & Billings, J. (1990). Can lifestyle changes
reverse coronary health disease? Lancet. 336.129-133.
Ormel, J., Kemper, G. T., Deeg, D. J., Brilman, E. L, Van Sonderen, E., & Relyveld, J.
(1998). Functioning, well-being, and health perception in the late middle-aged
and older people: Comparing the effects of depressive symptoms and chronic
medical conditions. Journal American Geriatric Society. 46. 39-48.
O’Shaughnessy, R. J. (1967). Forgiveness. Philosophy. 42. 336-352.

191
Pargament, B. B. (1997). The psychology of religion and coning: Theory, research, and
practice. New York: Guilford.
Pargament, K. I., & Rye, M. S. (1998). Forgiveness as a method of religious coping. In
E. L. Worthington, Jr. (Ed.), Dimensions of forgiveness (pp 59-78). Radnor, PA.:
Templeton.
Park, Y. U., Enright, R. D., & Gassin, E. A. (1993). The development of forgiveness in
the context of friendship conflict on Korea. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the Christian Association of Psychological Studies (CADS), Kansas
City, MO.
Patton, J. (1985). Is human forgiveness possible? Nashville: Abingdon.
Peck, M. S. (1987). The different drum: Community making and peace. New York:
Simon & Schuster.
Pennebaker, J. W., Kiecolt-Glaser, J., & Glaser, R. (1988). Disclosure of traumas and
immune function: Health implications for psychotherapy. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology. 56. 239-245.
Pennington, J., & Tecce, M. A. (1997). Heart protection: Controlling risk factors for
cardiovascular disease. Geriatrics. 52. 40-47.
Penninx, B. W., & Leveille, S. (1999). Depressed older persons are at risk for physical
disability, mobility loss. Geriatrics. 54. 66-67.
Pert, C. (1997). Molecules of emotion: Why you feel the wav you feel. New York:
Scribner.
Petrie, K. J, Booth, R. J., & Pennebaker, J. W. (1998). The immunological effects of
thought suppression. Journal of Personality and Social Psvchologv.75.
1264-1272.
Phillips, L. J., & Osborne, J. W. (1989). Cancer patients’ experiences of forgiveness
therapy. Canadian Journal of Counseling. 23. 236-251.
Piaget, J. (1965). The moral judgment of the child. New York: Free Press. (Original
work published 1932)
Piaget, J. (1932). Le iueement moral chez l’enfant. Paris: Alcan.
Pingleton, J. P. (1989). The role and function of forgiveness in the psychotherapeutic
process. Journal of Psychology and Theology. 17. 27-35.
Porcerelli, J. H., & Sandler, B. A. (1995). Narcissism and empathy in steroid users.
American Journal of Psychiatry. 152. 1672-1674.

192
Powell T. (1997). Free yourself from harmful stress. Chesham, UK: DK Publishing.
Pressman, P., Lyons, J. S., Larson, D. B., & Strain, J. J. (1990). Religious belief,
depression and ambulation status in elderly women with broken hips. American
Journal of Psychiatry. 147.758-760.
Princeton Religious Research Center. (1985). Religion in America. Princeton: Gallup
Poll.
Redfield, R. (2001). Forgiveness and bionsvchosocial well-being in persons living with
HfV/AIDS. Retrieved October 21, 2001, from http://www.forgiving.org.
Richards, N. (1988). Forgiveness. Ethics. 99. 77-97.
Richards, P. S., & Berger, A. E. (1997). A spiritual analogy for counseling and
psychotherapy. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Roberts, R. C. (1993). Taking the word to heart: Self and other in an age of therapies.
Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Roberts, R. C. (1995). Forgiveness. American Philosophical Quarterly. 32. 289-306.
Rodden, J. (1997). Dimensions of forgiveness. Vital Speeches of the Day. 63. 712-719.
Romig, C. A., & Veenstra, G. (1998). Forgiveness and psychosocial development:
Implications for clinical practice. Counseling and Values. 42.185-199.
Roose, S. P., Devanand, D., & Suthers, K. (1999). Depression: Treating the patient with
comorbid cardiac disease. Geriatrics. 54. 20-28.
Rosen, C. C. (1982). Ethnic differences among impoverished rural elderly in use of
religion as a coping mechanism. Journal of Rural Community Psychology. 3. 27-
34.
Rosenak, C. M., & Hamden, G. M. (1992). Forgiveness in the psychotherapeutic
process: Clinical applications. Journal of Psychology and Christianity. 11.188-
197.
Rosenman, R. H., Brand, R. J., Jenkins, C. D., Friedman, M., Strauss, R., & Wurm, M.
(19 75). Coronary heart disease in the western collaborative group study: Final
follow-up experience of 8 years. Journal of the American Medical Association.
233. 872-77.
Rowe, J. O., Hailing, S., Davies, E., Leifer, M., Powers, D., & Von Bronkhorst, J.
(1989). Exploring the breadth of human experience. In R. S. Valle & S. Hailing
(Eds.), Existential phenomenological perspectives in psychology (pp. 233-244).
New York: Plenum.

193
Rowe, J., & Leiter, M. (1987). The forgiveness of forgiving. Tape recording of paper
given at CAPS-West Convention, Seattle.
Rubin, T. I. (1970). The angry book. New York: Collier.
Rubio, M. (1986). The Christian virtue of forgiveness. Concilium. 184, 80-94.
Rusbult, C. E., Verette, J., Whitney, G. A., Slovik, L. F., & Lipkus, I. (1991).
Accommodation processes in close relationships: Theory and preliminary
empirical evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 60. 53-78.
Russek, L. G., King, S. H., Russek, S. J., & Russek, H. I. (1990). The Harvard mastery
of stress study 35-year follow-up: Prognostic significance of patterns of
psychophysiological arousal and adaption. Psychosomatic Medicine. 52,271-
285.
Rye, M. S., Pargament, M., Ali, A., Beck, G. L., Dorff, E. N., Hallisey, C., Narayanan,
V., & Williams, J. G. (2000). Religious perspectives on forgiveness. In M. E.
McCullough, K. I. Pargament, & C. E. Thoresen (Eds.), Forgiveness: Theory,
research, and practice fpp. 17-40). New York: Guilford.
Sarinopoulos, I. (1996). Forgiveness in adolescence and middle adulthood: Comparing
the Enright Forgiveness Inventory with the Wade Forgiveness Scale. Master’s
thesis, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Sarinopoulos, I. (1999). Forgiveness and physical health. Doctoral dissertation,
University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1999.
Schalling, D. (1985). Personality correlates of elevated blood pressure: Anxiety,
unexpressed anger, and lack of assertiveness. In C. D. Spielberger, I. Sarason, &
P. Defares (Eds.), Stress and anxiety (pp. 241-251). Washington, DC:
Hemisphere.
Scheidt, S. (1998). A whirlwind tour of cardiology for the mental health professional.
In R. Allan & S. Scheidt (Eds.), Heart and mind: The practice of cardiac
psychology (pp.15-1241. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Schekelle, R. B., Gail, M., Ostfelt, A. M., & Paul, O. (1983). Hostility, risk of coronary
heart disease and mortality. Psychosomatic Medicine. 45. 109-114.
Schnall, P. L, Lansbergis, P. A., & Peiper, C. F. (1992). The impact of anticipation of
job loss on psychological distress and work site blood pressure. American
Journal of Indian Medicine. 21. 417-432.
Schwenkmezger, P., & Hank, P. (1996). Anger expression and blood pressure. InC. D.
Spielberger & J. G. Sarason (Eds.), Stress and emotions: Anxiety, anger and
curiosity (Vol. 16, pp. 241-259). Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis.

194
Scogin, F., Shackelford, J., Rohen, N., Stump, J., Floyd, M., McKendree, T. M., Smith,
N., & Jamison, C. (2001). Residual geriatric depression symptoms: A place for
psychotheraphy. Journal of Clinical Geroosvchologv. 7. 271-283.
Seamands, D. A. (1981). Healing for damaged emotions. Wheaton, IL: Victor.
Seeman, T., & Syme, S. L. (1987). Social networks and coronary artery disease: A
comparison of the structure and function of social relations as predictors of
disease. Psychosomatic Medicine. 49. 341-354.
Segerstrom, S. C., Taylor, S. E., Kemeny, M. E., & Fahey, J. L. (1998). Optimism is
associated with mood, coping and immune change in response to stress. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology. 74. 1646-1655.
Selman, A. (1980). The growth of interpersonal understanding. New York: Academic
Press.
Seybold, K. S., Hill, P. C, Newman, J. K., & Chi, D. S. (in press). Physiological and
psychological correlates of forgiveness. Journal of Psychology and Christianity.
Shapiro, D. S. (1978). The doctrine of the image of God and imitatio Dei. In M. M.
Kellner (Ed.l. Contemporary Jewish ethics ton. 127-1510). New York:
Sanhedrin.
Shapiro, D. (1996). Your body speaks vour mind: How your thoughts and emotions
affect vour health. Freedom, CA: The Crossing.
Shapiro, D., Jamner, L. D., Goldstein, I. B., & Huy, R. (1991). Ambulatory blood
pressure in paramedics: Effects of cynical hostility and defensiveness.
Psychosomatic Medicine. 53. 393-406.
Shapiro, D. H., Schwartz, C. E., & Aston, J. A. (1996). Controlling ourselves,
controlling our world. American Psychologist. 51. 1213-1230.
Shontz, F. C., & Rosenak, C. (1988). Psychological theories and the need for
forgiveness: Assessment and critique. Journal of Psychiatry and Christianity. 7.
23-31.
Simon, S. B., & Simon, S. (1990). Forgiveness. How to make peace with vour nast and
get on with vour life. Warner: New York.
Sinatra, S. T. (1996). Heartbreak and heart disease: A mind body presentation for the
healing heart. New Canaan, CT: Keats.
Smart, A. (1968). Mercy. Philosophy. 43. 345-359.

195
Smedes, L. B. (1984). Forgive and forget. Healing the hurts we don’t deserve. San
Francisco: Flarper & Row.
Smedes, L. A. (1996). The art of forgiving. Nashville: Morrings.
Smith, M. (1981). The psychology of forgiveness. The Month. 14. 301-307.
Smith, T. W. (1992). Hostility and health: Current status of a psychosomatic hypothesis.
Flealth Psychology. 11.139-150.
Smith, T. W., Allred, K. D., Morrison, C. A., & Carlson, S. D. (1989). Cardiovascular
reactivity and interpersonal influence. Active coping in a social context. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology. 56.209-218.
Soares-Prabhu, G. (1986). As we forgive: Interhuman forgiveness in the teaching of
Jesus. Concilium. 184. 80-94.
Sobel, D. S., & Omstein, R. (1996). The healthy mind, healthlv body handbook. New
York: Time Medical.
Sobrino, J. (1986). Latin America: Place of sin and forgiveness. Concilium. 184.45-56.
Spicer, J., & Chamberlain, K. (1996). Cynical hostility, anger and resting blood
pressure. Journal of Psychosomatic Research. 40, 359-368.
Spiegel, D., Bloom, FI. C., Kraemer, E., & Gottheil, E. (1989). Effect of psychosocial
treatment on survival of patients with metastatic breast cancer. The Lancet. 367.
888-891.
Spielberger, C. D. (1983). Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto,
Calif: Consulting Pschologists.
Spielberger, C. D. (1999). State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory: Professional
manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resource.
Spielberger, C. D., Johnson, E. FL, Russell, S. F., Crane, R. S., Jacobs, G. A., & Worden,
T. J. (1985). The experience and expression of anger: Construction and
validation of an anger expression scale. In M. A. Chesney & R. H. Rosenman
(Eds.), Anger and hostility in cardiovascular and behavioral disorders
(pp. 89-108). New York: Springer/Verlag.
Spidell, S., & Liberman, D. (1981). Moral development and the forgiveness of sin.
Journal of Psychology and Theology. 9. 159-163.
Stanley, M. A. (2001). Mental health issues for older adults in medical settings:
Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Clinical Geronsvchology, 7. 91-92.

196
Stapleton, R. C. (1977). The experience of inner healing. Waco, TX: Ward.
Strauss, M. (1974). Leveling, civility, and violence in the family. Journal of Marriage
and the Family. 36.13-29.
Stone, G. C., Cohen, F., & Adler, N. E. (Eds). (1979). Health psychology: A handbook.
San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Strong, J. (1984). A concise dictionary of the words in the Hebrew Bible with their
renderings in the authorized version. In J. Strong (Ed.), The new Strong’s
exhaustive concordance of the Bible (pp. 38-72). Nashville: Nelson
Studzinski, R. (1986). Remember and forgive: Psychological dimensions of forgiveness.
Concilium. 184.12-21.
Suarez, E. C., & Williams, R. B. (1991). Situational determinants of cardiovascular and
emotional reactivity in high and low hostile men. Psychosomatic Medicine. 51.
404-418.
Suarez, E. C., Williams, R. B., Kuhn, C. M., Zimmerman, E., & Schanberg, S. M.
(1991). Biobehavioral bases of coronary-prone behaviors in middle aged men.
Part II: Serum cholesterol, the type A behavior pattern and hostility as interactive
modulators of physiological reactivity. Psychosomatic Medicine. 53. 529-537.
Subkoviak, M. J., Enright, R. D., & Wu, C. R. (1992). Measuring interpersonal
forgiveness. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-Western
Educational Research Association, Chicago.
Subkoviak, M. J., Enright, R. D., Wu, C. R., Gassin, E. A., Freedman, S., Olson, L. M.,
& Sarinopoulos, I. (1995). Measuring interpersonal forgiveness in late
adolescence and middle adulthood. Journal of Adolescence. 18. 641-655.
Tangney, J. (1991). Moralaffect: The good, the bad and the ugly. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology. 61. 598-607.
Taub, E. A. (1994). The wellness RX: Dr, Taub’s 7-dav program to radiant health
energy, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Tavris, C. (1984). Anger: The misunderstood emotion. New York: Simon & Shuster.
Taylor, C. B., & Fortman, S. P. (1983). Psycholsomatic illness review: Hypertension.
Psvchosomatics. 24. 433-448.
Taylor, S. E., & Singer, J. E. (Eds). (1983). Handbook of psychology and health. Vol. 4:
Social psychological aspects of health. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

197
Telfer, W. (1960). The forgiveness of sins: An essay in the history of Christian doctrine
and practice. Philadelphia: Muhlenberg.
Tennen, H., & Affleck, G. (1990). Blaming others for threatening events. Psychological
Bulletin. 108. 209-232.
Thomas, S. P. (1997). Women’s anger: Relationship of suppression to blood pressure.
Nursing Research. 46.324-330.
Thompson, R. D. (1983). The Wesleyan and the struggle to forgive. Western
Theological Journal. 18. 81-92.
Thoresen, C. E., Harris, A. H., & Luskin, F. (2000). Forgiveness and health: An
unanswered question. In M. E. McCullough, K. I. Pargarment, & C. E. Thoresen
(Eds.), Foregiveness: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 254-280). New York:
Guildford Press.
Torrance, A. (1986). Forgiveness: The essential socio-political structure of personal
being. Journal of Theology for Southern Africa. 56. 47-59.
Trainer, M. (1981). Forgiveness: Intrinsic, role-expected expedient, in the context of
divorce. ( Doctoral dissertation, Boston University, 1981). Dissertation Abstracts
International. 45(041. B1325.
Tutu, D. (Archbishop). (1995). Speech, First National Conference on Forgiveness,
University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Tutu, D. (Archbishop). (1997, April 17). “It is the deed that is evil, not the doer.” Cane
Times. 7.
Twambly, P. (1976). Mercy and forgiveness. Analysis. 36. 84-90.
Vandervoort, D. J. (1995). Depression, anxiety, hostility, and physical health. Current
Psychology. 13. 69-82.
Vanderwoort, D. J. (2001). Physical health status. Hilo, HI: University of Hawaii.
Vandervoort, D. J., Luis, P. K., & Hamilton, S. E. (1997). Some correlates of control
among multicultural individuals. Current Psychology. 16. 167-178.
Vandervoort, D. J, Ragland, D. K., & Syme, L. S. (1996). Expressed and suppressed
anger and health problems among transit workers. Current Psychology. 15. 179-
193.
VanBiema, D., & Cole, W. (1999). Should all be forgiven. Time. 54. 54-59.

Van Leeuwen, M. S. (1982). The sorcerer’s apprentice: A Christian looks at the
changing face of psychology. Downer’s Grove, IL: Inter Varsity.
198
Veenstra, G. (1992). Psychological concepts of forgiveness. Journal of Psychology and
Christianity, 11,160-169.
Vickers, R. (1988). Medical aspects of aging. In L. Lazarus (Ed.l. Essentials of geriatric
psychiatry (pp. 65-101). New York: Springer.
Vine, W. E. (19851. An expository dictionary of biblical words. Nashville, TN: Thomas
Nelson.
Wade, S. H. (1989). The development of a scale to measure forgiveness. (Doctoral
dissertation, Fuller Theological Seminary, School of Psychology, Pasadena, CA,
1989). Dissertation Abstracts International. 50 (111. 5338B.
Walsh, R., & Vaughn, F. (1993). Paths beyond ego: The transpersonal vision. New
York: Plenum Press.
Walters, R. P. (1984). Forgiving: An essential element in effective living. Studies in
Formative Spirituality. 5. 365-374.
Waltman, A. B. (1999, June 14). Healing power. People. 51.93-95.
Waltman, M., Lin, W., Wee, D., & Engstrand, E. A. (1999). Measuring interpersonal
forgiveness in high school students. In J. Rique, M. Waltman, I. Sarinopoulos,
W. Lin, D. Wee, E. A. Engstrand, & R. D. Enright (Eds.), The tools of
forgiveness education. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Wapnick, K. (1985). Forgiveness: A spiritual psychotherapy. Psychotherapy Patient. I,
47-53.
Ware, J. E., Daives-Avery, A., & Donald, C. A. (1978). Conceptualization and
measurement of health for adults in the health insurance study: General health
perceptions. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
Watson, P. J, Grisham, S. O., Trotter, M. V., & Biderman, M. D. (1984). Narcissism
and empathy: Validity evidence for the narcissistic personality inventory. Journal
of Personality Assessment. 48. 301-305.
Wayne, S. J., Rhyne, R. L., & Garry, P. J. (1990). Cell-mediated immunity as a
predictor of morbidity and mortality in subjects over 60. Journal of Gerontology.
45,45-48.
Weidner, G., Friend, R., Ficarrotto, T. J., & Mendall, N. R. (1989). Hostility and
cardiovascular reactivity to stress in women and men. Psychosomatic Medicine.
5L 36-45.

199
Weil, A. (1997). 8 weeks to optimum health. New York: Knox.
Weiner, B., & Fawzy, F. I. (1989). An integrative model of health, disease, and illness.
In S. Cheren (Ed.), Psychosomatic medicine: Theory, physiology, and practice.
New York: Free Press.
Weiner, H. (1979). The psychobiology of hypertension. New York: Elsevier.
Wenneberg, S. R., Schneider, R. H., Walton, K. G., MacClean, C. R., Levitsky, D. K.,
Mandarino, J. V., Waziri, R., & Wallace, R. K. (1997). Anger expression
correlates with platelet aggregation. Behavioral Medicine. 22. 174-177.
Williams, J. G. (2000). Religious perspectives on forgiveness. In M. E. McCullough, K.
I. Pargament, & C. E. Thoresen (Eds.), Forgiveness theory research and practice
(pp. 17-40). New York: Guilford.
Williams, R. (1989). The trusting heart: Great news about Type A behavior. New York:
Times Books.
Williams, R. B., Haney, T. L., Lee, K. L., Kong, Y.,Blumenthal, J. A., & Whalen, R. E.
(1980). Type A behavior, hostility, and coronary atherosclerosis. Psychosomatic
Medicine. 42. 539-549.
Williams, D. R., Larson, D. B., Buckler, R. E., Heckmann, R. C., & Pyle, C. M. (1991).
Religion and psychological distress in a community sample. Social Science and
Medicine. 32. 1257-1262.
Williams, R., & Williams, V. (1993). Anger kills: Seventeen strategies for controlling
the hostility that can harm your health. New York: Harper
Wilson, H. P. (1994). Forgiveness and survivors of sexual abuse: Relatioships and
forgiveness of the perpetrator, spiritual well-being, depression and anxiety.
(Doctoral dissertation, Boston University, 1994). Dissertation Abstract
International. 55(031. A616.
Witvliet, C. V. O. (in press). Forgiveness and health: Review and reflections on a
matter of faith, feelings and physiology. American Psychological Bulletin.
Witvliet, C.V.O, Ludwig, T. E., & Vander Laam, K. L. (2001). Granting forgiveness or
harboring grudges: Implications for emotion, physiology and health. American
Psychological Society. 12. 117-123.
Witvliet, C. V. O., & Vrana, S. R. (1995). Psycho physiological responses as indices of
affectective dimensions. Psychophysiology. 32.436-443.

200
Wituliet, C. V. O., & Vrana, S. R. (2000). Emotional imagery: The visual startle and
covariation bias: An affective matching account. Biological Psychology, 52,187-
204.
Wolberg, A. R. (1973). The borderline patient. New York: Intercontinental Medical
Book Co.
World Health Organization. (1980). International classification of impairments,
disabilities, and handicaps: A manual of classification relating to the
consequences of disease. Geneva: Author.
Worthington, E. L., Jr. (1989). Religious faith across the lifespan: Implications for
counseling and research. The Counseling Psychologist. 17. 555-612.
Worthington, E. L., Jr. (1997). The pyramid model of forgiveness: Some
interdisciplinary speculations about unforgiveness and the promotion of
forgiveness. In E. L. Worthington, Jr. (Ed.), Dimensions of forgiveness (pp. 107-
138). Philadelphia: Templeton.
Worthington, E. L., Jr. (1998). An empathy-humility-commitment model of forgiveness
applied within family dyads. Journal of Family Therapy. 20. 59-76.
Worthington, E. L., Sandage, S. J., & Berry, J. W. (2000). Group interventions to
promote forgiveness. In M. E. McCullough, K. I. Pargament, C. E. Thoresen
(Eds.), Forgiveness theory, research, and practice (pp. 228-253). New York:
Guilford.
Wulff, D. M. (1996). The psychology of religion: An overview. In E. P. Shaffanske
(Ed.), Religion and the clinical practice of psychology (pp. 43-70). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
Yoga,Y. Hama, H. Yogo, M., & Matsuyama, Y. (1995). A study of physiological
response during emotional imaging. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 81.43-49.
Yoshikawa, T. T. (1983). Geriatric infectious diseases: An emerging problem. Journal
of American Geriatric Society. 31. 34-39.
Zelin, M. L., Adler, G., & Myerson, P. G. (1972) Anger self-report: An objective
questionnaire for the measurement of aggression. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology. 39. 340.
Zhou, Y. F., Leon, M. B., Waclawiw, M. A., Popma, J. J., Yu, Z. X. Finkel, T., &
Epstein, S. E. (1996). Association between prior cytomegalouirus infection and
the risk of restenosis after coronary atherectomy. New England Journal of
Medicine. 1335. 624-630.

201
Zuckerman, D. M., Kasl, S. V., & Ostfeld, A. M. (1984). Psychosocial predictors of
mortality among the elderly poor: The role of religion, well-being, and social
contacts. American Journal of Epidemiology. 119. 410-423.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Father Thomas Connery is one of six children bom and raised in New York City.
With a strong desire to serve others, he entered the seminary and was ordained a priest in
1983. He has taught in high school, has served in summer missionary work, and is
presently working in a parish maintaining a strong interest in youth. Clowning and
puppetry are just two of the means that he employs to reach others. Tom acquired his
master’s degree in counseling from the University of South Florida and his Master of
Divinity from the Pontifical College Josephinum, Ohio. In the future, he would like to
use his skill and knowledge to assist runaway youth.
As a priest, he remains unmarried but does have two beautiful basset hounds,
Molly and Sweetpea, whom he loves deeply.
202

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to
acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Associate Professor of Educational
Leadership, Policy, and Foundations
I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to
acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to
acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Silvia Echevarria-Doan
Associate Professor of Counselor Education
I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to
acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
M. David Miller
Professor of Educational Psychology

This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the College of
Education and to the Graduate School and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
May 2002
Dean, Graduate School

LD
1780
20£i2_
,C. 7T2
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
3 1262 08556 5827




PAGE 1

)25*,9(1(66 $ &255(/$7,21$/ 678'< %(7:((1 7+( 63,5,7 2) )25*,9(1(66 $1' 3+<6,&$/ +($/7+ ,1 6(1,25 &,7,=(16 &/0 Y U 7+20$6 &211(5< $ ',66(57$7,21 35(6(17(' 72 7+( *5$'8$7( 6&+22/ 2) 7+( 81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$ ,1 3$57,$/ )8/),//0(17 2) 7+( 5(48,5(0(176 )25 7+( '(*5(( 2) '2&725 2) 3+,/2623+< 81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$

PAGE 2

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

PAGE 3

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fV 7KHRU\ RI 0RUDO 'HYHORSPHQW 7KH )RUJLYHQHVV 0RGHO 8QFRYHULQJ :RUN 2XWFRPH LLL

PAGE 4

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

PAGE 5

5()(5(1&(6 %,2*5$3+,&$/ 6.(7&+ Y

PAGE 6

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fV SHDFH RI PLQG &OLHQWV DUH UHOXFWDQW WR FKRRVH IRUJLYHQHVV IRU LW FDUULHV WKH VWLJPD RI GHIHDW .QRZLQJ WKDW IRUJLYHQHVV LV FRQQHFWHG WR LPSURYHG RXWFRPHV PD\ EH WKH DSSHDO WR VHOHFW IRUJLYHQHVV 7KLV VWXG\ LQYROYHG VHQLRU FLWL]HQV PDOH DQG IHPDOH ZKRVH DJHV UDQJHG IURP WR 6L[W\VL[ SHUFHQW ZHUH EHWZHHQ DQG b UDQJHG IURP WR DQG b ZHUH DQG ROGHU 7KH YROXQWHHUV ZHUH SULPDULO\ IURP D &HQWUDO )ORULGD &DWKROLF &KXUFK 7KH IROORZLQJ LQVWUXPHQWV ZHUH JLYHQ WR HDFK SDUWLFLSDQW (QULJKW )RUJLYHQHVV ,QYHQWRU\ 7KH $QJHU ([SUHVVLRQ 6FDOH 7KH ,WHP 9HUVLRQ RI WKH &RRN DQG 0HGOH\ +RVWLOLW\ 6FDOH DQG WKH 3K\VLFDO +HDOWK 6WDWXV DQG +HDOWK5LVN 9DULDEOHV YL

PAGE 7

6HSDUDWH FRUUHODWLRQ DQDO\VHV ZHUH SHUIRUPHG IRU WKH (), DQG DQJHU DQG (), DQG KRVWLOLW\ (), $QJHU DQG KRVWLOLW\ DQG SUHGLFWRU YDULDEOHV DQG SK\VLFDO KHDOWK PHDVXUHV 0XOWLSOH UHJUHVVLRQ DQDO\VHV ZHUH SHUIRUPHG ZLWK SUHGLFWRU YDULDEOHV DQG SK\VLFDO KHDOWK 8QOLNH SUHYLRXV UHVHDUFK WKHVH UHVXOWV GLG QRW VKRZ DQ\ VLJQLILFDQW FRUUHODWLRQ EHWZHHQ IRUJLYHQHVV DQG SK\VLFDO KHDOWK YLL

PAGE 8

&+$37(5 ,1752'8&7,21 6WDWHPHQW RI WKH 3UREOHP +HDOWKUHODWHG TXDOLW\ RI OLIH RU WKH FDSDELOLW\ WR IXQFWLRQ LQ WKH SK\VLFDO SV\FKRVRFLDO DQG VRFLRORJLFDO GRPDLQ RI KHDOWK LV RI JURZLQJ LQWHUHVW LQ WKH ILHOG RI DJLQJ %DGJHU f 7RGD\ WKHUH DUH PLOOLRQ $PHULFDQ EDE\ ERRPHUVf§SHUVRQV EHWZHHQ DJHV DQG f§FRPSULVLQJ QHDUO\ RQHWKLUG RI WKH WRWDO 86 SRSXODWLRQ $FFRUGLQJ WR SV\FKRORJLVW DQG HQWUHSUHQHXU 'HQ '\FKWZDOG f WKH OK FHQWXU\ KDG EHHQ LQ WKH GRPDLQ RI WKH \RXQJ EXW WKH VW FHQWXU\ ZLOO EHORQJ WR WKH fQHZROGf 7ZRWKLUGV RI DOO WKH SHRSOH ZKR KDYH HYHU OLYHG SDVW DJH LQ WKH HQWLUH KLVWRU\ RI WKH ZRUOG DUH SUHVHQWO\ DOLYH WRGD\ +H SUHGLFWV WKDW WKLV SRSXODWLRQ WKH DJLQJ EDE\ ERRPHUV ZLOO FUDYH YLJRU YLWDOLW\ DQG OLIH H[WHQVLRQ 7KH LURQ\ RI SDVW PHGLFDO VXFFHVVHV KH EHOLHYHV LV WKDW WKH\ KDYH SURGXFHG OHJLRQV RI ORQJOLYHG HOGHUV ZKR ZUHVWOH ZLWK WKH YHU\ SUREOHPV WKDW WKH $PHULFDQ KHDOWK FDUH V\VWHP LV LOOHTXLSSHG WR KDQGOH VXFK DV KHDUW GLVHDVH FDQFHU DUWKULWLV RVWHRSRURVLV DQG $O]KHLPHUfV 7KHVH DUH WKH KHDOWK ULVNV WKDW HOGHUO\ IDFH DV WKH\ DUH JUDFHG ZLWK ORQJHYLW\ $ VHYHUH SUREOHP RIWHQ XQPHQWLRQHG WKDW SODJXHV WKH VHQLRU \HDUV LV WKH VWUXJJOH ZLWK GHSUHVVLRQ 'HSUHVVLRQ LV D VHULRXV SUREOHP DPRQJ SHUVRQV DJHG DQG ROGHU DQG RIWHQ LV PLVVHG LQ SULPDU\ FDUH SUDFWLFH %XWOHU &RKHQ /HZLV 6LPPRQV&OHPPRQV t 6XQGHUODQG f 7KRXJK WKH SUHYDOHQFH RI PDMRU GHSUHVVLRQ DPRQJ SHRSOH DJH DQG RYHU LQ FRPPXQLW\ VXUYH\V VWDQGV DW b DQRWKHU b VXIIHU IURP VRPH GHJUHH RI

PAGE 9

DGMXVWPHQW GLVRUGHU FKURQLF GHSUHVVLRQ DQG RWKHU IRUPV RI PLQRU GHSUHVVLRQ 'LDJQRVLV DQG 7UHDWPHQW f 3UHYDOHQFH LQ QXUVLQJ KRPHV LV b WR b IRU PDMRU GHSUHVVLRQ GLVRUGHU DQG RYHU b WR b IRU PLQRU GHSUHVVLRQ $PHULFDQ 3V\FKLDWULF $VVRFLDWLRQ f 7KLV LV QRWHZRUWK\ EHFDXVH GHSUHVVLRQ LV OLQNHG ZLWK SK\VLFDO KHDOWK SUREOHPV .RHQLJ f 'HSUHVVLRQ DORQJ ZLWK DQ[LHW\ LQ PHGLFDOO\ LOO VHQLRUV ERWK LQFUHDVHV WKH PRUELGLW\ DQG PRUWDOLW\ DQG EXUGHQV QRW RQO\ WKH LQGLYLGXDO EXW VRFLHW\ ZLWK KLJKHU KHDOWK FRVWV DQG XWLOL]DWLRQ ,W LV DOVR OLQNHG WR D SRRUHU IXQFWLRQDO VWDWXV DQG RXWFRPHV IRU SDWLHQWV .LP %UDXQ t .XQLFN f 2UPHO DQG FROOHDJXHV f QRWHG WKDW GHSUHVVLYH V\PSWRPV FRQWULEXWH PRUH WR IXQFWLRQDO GLVDELOLW\ SRRU KHDOWK SHUFHSWLRQ DQG SRRU ZHOOEHLQJ WKDQ PRVW FKURQLF PHGLFDO FRQGLWLRQV ,Q SHUVRQV DJHG DQG ROGHU WKH LQFLGHQFH RI GHSUHVVLRQ LQFUHDVHV ZLWK WKH GHJUHH RI SK\VLFDO KHDOWK SUREOHPV +LJKHU OHYHOV RI PRUWDOLW\ DPRQJ GHSUHVVHG SDWLHQWV PD\ KDYH DV D FRQWULEXWRU SV\FKRORJLFDO VWUHVV ZKLFK WULJJHUV WKH SURGXFWLRQ RI FRUWLVRO E\ WKH DGUHQDO JODQGV DQG WKHUHE\ DGYHUVHO\ DIIHFWV WKH LPPXQH V\VWHP 8QIRUWXQDWHO\ b WR b RI ODWHOLIH GHSUHVVLRQ LV XQGLDJQRVHG .RHQLJ f 8QWUHDWHG GHSUHVVLRQ DPRQJ ROGHU SHRSOH FDQ EH GHDGO\ 7KH VXLFLGH UDWH LQ ROG DJH LV WKH KLJKHVW RI DQ\ DJH JURXS VXLFLGHV SHU LQ SHUVRQV DJH DQG ROGHU ILYH WLPHV WKH QDWLRQDO UDWH IRU DOO DJHV RI SHU %XWOHU f $Q HVWLPDWHG RQH RXW RI VL[ SDWLHQWV VHHQ E\ D SULPDU\ FDUH SK\VLFLDQ LV VXIIHULQJ IURP GHSUHVVLRQ ,Q DERXW b RI FDVHV RI GHSUHVVLRQ D FRQWULEXWLQJ IDFWRU PD\ EH FKURQLF SK\VLFDO LOOQHVV VXFK DV KHDUW GLVHDVH VWURNH FDQFHU OXQJ GLVHDVH DUWKULWLV DQG 3DUNLQVRQfV GLVHDVH %XWOHU f 'HSUHVVLRQ HVSHFLDOO\ LQ ROGHU DGXOWV LV SUHYDOHQW EXW RIWHQ XQUHFRJQL]HG LQ SDWLHQWV ZLWK RWKHU PHGLFDO GLVRUGHUV ,I OHIW XQWUHDWHG FRPRUELG

PAGE 10

GHSUHVVLRQ PD\ OHDG WR D ZRUVHQLQJ RI FHUWDLQ PHGLFDO FRQGLWLRQV VXFK DV FRURQDU\ DUWHU\ GLVHDVH (YDQV f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t 6XWKHUV f 'HSUHVVLRQ LQ ROGHU SHUVRQV LV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK VLJQLILFDQW GHFUHDVH LQ SK\VLFDO PRELOLW\ DQG LQFUHDVH LQ GLVDELOLW\ DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK DFWLYLWLHV RI GDLO\ OLYLQJ 'HSUHVVLRQ FDQ DGYHUVHO\ DIIHFW ELRORJLFDO SURFHVVHV WKDW PD\ HQKDQFH VXVFHSWLELOLW\ WR GLVHDVH RU FDXVH QHXURPXVFXODU IDFWLRQDO GHFOLQH 3HQQLQ[ t /HYHLOOH f 3HRSOH ZKR DUH GHSUHVVHG KDYH VLJQLILFDQWO\ JUHDWHU PRUWDOLW\ IROORZLQJ D P\RFDUGLDO LQIDUFWLRQ 0,f DQG DUH PRUH OLNHO\ WR KDYH D UHLQIDUFWLRQ 6HQLRU FLWL]HQV VXIIHULQJ IURP P\RFDUGLDO LQIDUFWLRQ RIWHQ SUHVHQW ZLWK UHVWOHVV DJLWDWLRQ RU FRQIXVLRQ &RQJHVWLYH KHDUW IDLOXUH FDQ SURGXFH DQ[LHW\ IDWLJXH RU SRRU FRQFHQWUDWLRQ +\SHUWHQVLRQ ZKLFK DIIHFWV b RI WKH HOGHUO\ LV RIWHQ WUHDWHG ZLWK PHGLFDWLRQ WKDW KDV D KLJK SRWHQWLDO RI FDXVLQJ GHSUHVVLRQ 9LFNHUV f 'HSUHVVLRQ SXWV HQRUPRXV VWUHVV RQ D SHUVRQfV SV\FKRORJLFDO V\VWHP 6HURWRQLQ OHYHOV DUH GHFUHDVHG LQ WKH EUDLQ RI DQ\RQH ZKR LV GHSUHVVHG ,W KDV EHHQ UHSRUWHG WKDW VHURWRQLQ OHYHOV LQ SODWHOHW FHOOV DOVR PLJKW EH GHFUHDVHG LQ GHSUHVVHG SHRSOH PDNLQJ SODWHOHWV PRUH FRDJXODEOH DQG LQFUHDVLQJ WKH ULVN RI 0, .RHQLJ f

PAGE 11

%HVLGHV GHSUHVVLRQ DQRWKHU GLVRUGHU FRQIURQWLQJ QRW RQO\ WKH VHQLRU SRSXODWLRQ EXW DOVR DOO $PHULFDQV LV FDUGLRYDVFXODU GLVHDVH &DUGLRYDVFXODU GLVHDVH LV WKH OHDGLQJ FDXVH RI LOOQHVV DQG GHDWK LQ WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV $Q HVWLPDWHG PLOOLRQ $PHULFDQV KDYH D KLVWRU\ RI 0, ZLWK FRVWV WR WKH KHDOWK FDUH V\VWHP UHDFKLQJ ELOOLRQ SHU \HDU 7KH WKUHH ULVN IDFWRUV WKDW FDQ EH PRGLILHG WR ORZHU WKH ULVN RI FDUGLRYDVFXODU GLVHDVH DQG GHDWK DUH K\SHUFKROHVWHUROHPLD K\SHUWHQVLRQ DQG FLJDUHWWH VPRNLQJ 3HQQLQJWRQ t 7HFFH f 7KHVH DUH MXVW WZR VWULNLQJ H[DPSOHV RI D P\ULDG RI LOOQHVVHV WKDW DIIHFW LQ SDUWLFXODU WKH VHQLRU SRSXODWLRQ 8QGHUVWDQGDEO\ GHSUHVVLRQ LV QRW VROHO\ OLQNHG WR D ODFN RI IRUJLYHQHVV DV WKHUH DUH PDQ\ FDXVHV DQG IDFWRUV \HW OHDUQLQJ WR IRUJLYH FDQ EH DQ LPSRUWDQW DQWLGRWH )RUJLYLQJ LV HIIHFWLYH LQ UHVROYLQJ IHHOLQJV RI UHPRUVH JXLOW DQJHU DQ[LHW\ DQG IHDU &HPH\ )LW]JLEERQV f 7KH ILHOG LV QRZ ULSH IRU LQQRYDWLYH FKDOOHQJLQJ WUHDWPHQW ZLWK LQFUHDVHG SRWHQWLDO WR SRVLWLYHO\ LPSDFW WKH OLYHV RI VHQLRU FLWL]HQV ZLWK SV\FKLDWULF V\PSWRPV DQG GLVRUGHUV 6WDQOH\ f &RQVLGHULQJ WKH KLJK UDWH RI LQFRPSOHWH UHVSRQVH WR DQWLGHSUHVVDQWV WKH QHJDWLYH HIIHFWV RQ WKH TXDOLW\ RI OLIH DQG FRVWO\ LQFUHDVHV LQ KHDOWK FDUH LW SRVHV D FKDOOHQJH WR WKH PHGLFDO ILHOGV WR ILQG D VXLWDEOH RSWLRQ 6FRJLQ HW DO f 8VLQJ SV\FKRVRFLDO WUHDWPHQWV DV DGMXQFWV WR WKH DQWLGHSUHVVDQW PHGLFDWLRQ LV DQ DSSHDOLQJ RSWLRQ 3V\FKRWKHUDS\ LV GHVLJQHG WR JHW WR WKH URRW RI WKH SUREOHP ZKLFK PHGLFDWHG WUHDWPHQW LV XQDEOH WR WDUJHW 3V\FKRVRFLDO WUHDWPHQWV FDQ SUHVHQW FRSLQJ VWUDWHJLHV WR XWLOL]H ZKHQ IDFLQJ VWUHVVRUV DQG WKH PHDQV IRU GHDOLQJ ZLWK GHPRUDOL]DWLRQ DQG IHHOLQJV RI KRSHOHVVQHVV DQG GHVSDLU 6FRJLQ HW DK f )RUJLYHQHVV FDQ EH D PDMRU FRPSRQHQW LQ WKH KHDOLQJ SURFHVV )RUJLYHQHVV LQWHUYHQWLRQV KDYH EHHQ UHODWHG WR UHGXFWLRQV LQ DQ[LHW\ $O0DEXN (QULJKW t &DUGHV &R\OH t (QULJKW )UHHGPDQ t (QULJKW f UHGXFWLRQV LQ DQJHU &R\OH t

PAGE 12

(QULJKW f DQG UHGXFWLRQV LQ GHSUHVVLRQ )UHHGPDQ t (QULJKW f (YLGHQFH KDV HPHUJHG WKDW SRVLWLYH HPRWLRQDO VWDWHV VXFK DV ORYH DQG FRQGLWLRQV WKDW IRVWHU SRVLWLYH HPRWLRQV VXFK DV LQWLPDWH UHODWLRQVKLSV KDYH KHDOWKHQKDQFLQJ HIIHFWV 0HGDOLH t *ROGERXUW 0HGDOLH 6WUDQJH =\]DQRNL t *ROGERXUW 6HHPDQ t 6\PH f )RUJLYHQHVV TXLWH SRVVLEO\ FDQ KDYH DQ HPSLULFDOO\ GLVFHPDEOH SRVLWLYH LQIOXHQFH RQ SK\VLFDO KHDOWK )RUJLYHQHVV LQYROYHV WKH DIIHFWLYH FRJQLWLYH DQG EHKDYLRUDO V\VWHPV :KHQ RQH IRUJLYHV FHUWDLQ HOHPHQWV DUH VXEWUDFWHG IURP HDFK V\VWHP $ NH\ EHQHILW LV WKDW QHJDWLYH HPRWLRQV VXFK DV DQJHU KDWUHG UHVHQWPHQW KRVWLOLW\ VDGQHVV DQGRU FRQWHPSW DUH JLYHQ XS 5LFKDUGV f ,Q WKH FRJQLWLYH V\VWHP RQH JLYHV XS FRQGHPQLQJ DQG EODPLQJ MXGJPHQW DQG WKH SORWWLQJ RI UHYHQJH ZKHUH WKLV ZDV RFFXUULQJ ,Q WKH EHKDYLRUDO V\VWHP RQH FKRRVHV WR QR ORQJHU DFW RXW RI UHYHQJH 1RUWK f :KHQ RQH IRUJLYHV FHUWDLQ HOHPHQWV DUH DGGHG WR HDFK V\VWHP ,Q WKH DIIHFWLYH V\VWHP WKH QHJDWLYH HPRWLRQV DUH UHSODFHG E\ PRUH QHXWUDO HPRWLRQV DQG HYHQWXDOO\ E\ SRVLWLYH DFWV VXFK DV XQVHOILVK ORYH &XQQLQJKDP 'RZQLH 1RUWK f 2Q WKH FRJQLWLYH V\VWHP WKH RIIHQGHU PD\ UHDOL]H KH RU VKH KDV D ULJKW WR QHJDWLYH HPRWLRQV \HW LV PRVW ZLOOLQJ WR JLYH WKHP XS 1RUWK f 3RVLWLYH WKRXJKWV QRZ HPHUJH WRZDUG WKH RIIHQGHU 6PHGHV f 7KHUH LV WKH SURPLVLQJ SRWHQWLDO IRU WKH IRUJLYHU WR H[SHULHQFH ERWK LQQHU UHOHDVH DQG KHDOHG UHODWLRQVKLS $XJVEXUJHU f $OWKRXJK WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ IRUJLYHQHVV DQG SRVLWLYH HPRWLRQV KDV \HW WR EH LQYHVWLJDWHG HPSLULFDOO\ SUHVHQW FRUUHODWLRQDO GDWD KDYH VKRZQ VLJQLILFDQW SRVLWLYH UHODWLRQV EHWZHHQ IRUJLYHQHVV DQG D VHQVH RI ZHOO EHLQJ $VKOHPDQ 1RXVVH f :KHQ RQH VLQFHUHO\ IRUJLYHV HPHUJLQJ SRVLWLYH HPRWLRQV PD\ JUHDWO\ LQIOXHQFH WKH

PAGE 13

TXDOLW\ RI WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ WKH WZR SDUWLHV &RQVHTXHQWO\ IRUJLYHQHVV PD\ KDYH D VXEVWDQWLDO DQG ODVWLQJ LPSDFW RQ WKH SK\VLFDO KHDOWK RI WKH RIIHQGHG 7KH EHQHILWV IURP WKH HIIRUW WR IRUJLYH RXWZHLJK WKH VWUXJJOH WR DFKLHYH LW 6LJQLILFDQW DPRQJ WKHP DUH D GHFUHDVHG OHYHO RI DQJHU DQG KRVWLOLW\ DQG LQFUHDVHG IHHOLQJV RI ORYH DQG FRPSDVVLRQ 0HGDOLH t *ROGERXUW 6HHPDQ t 6\PH 6KDSLUR 6FKZDUW] t $VWRQ f LPSURYHG DELOLW\ WR GHIODWH DQJHU &R\OH t (QULJKW +XDQJ 6DULQRSRXORV f HQKDQFHG FDSDFLW\ WR WUXVW DQG IUHHGRP IURP WKH VXEWOH FRQWURO RI LQGLYLGXDOV DQG HYHQWV RI WKH SDVW 2I SDUWLFXODU LPSRUWDQFH LV WKH GHFUHDVH RI WKH IHHOLQJV RI DQJHU DQG KRVWLOLW\ $OWKRXJK QRW HQWLUHO\ FRQVLVWHQW WKHUH LV VWULNLQJ HYLGHQFH IRU D UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ KRVWLOLW\ DQG FRURQDU\ KHDUW GLVHDVH &+'f 0LOOHU DQG FROOHDJXHV 0LOOHU 6PLWK 7XUQHU *XLMDUUR t +DOOHW f QRWHG WKDW KRVWLOLW\ ZDV LQGHSHQGHQWO\ DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK REMHFWLYH HYLGHQFH RI &+' IRU H[DPSOH FRQILUPHG P\RFDUGLDO LQIDUFWLRQ 6RPH HYLGHQFH LV EHJLQQLQJ WR HPHUJH RQ VRPH RI WKH GLUH HIIHFWV WKDW KRVWLOLW\ PLJKW SRVVLEO\ KDYH RQ WKH FDUGLRYDVFXODU V\VWHP +RVWLOLW\ ZDV IRXQG WR EH DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK DQJLRJUDSKLF FRURQDU\ VWHQRVLV %DUHIRRW HW DO :LOOLDPV HW DO f DQG VLOHQW YHQWULFXODU G\VIXQFWLRQ %XUJ -DLQ 6RXIHU .HUQV t =DUHW f )XUWKHU KRVWLOLW\ KDV EHHQ FRQQHFWHG WR RWKHU OLIH WKUHDWHQLQJ LOOQHVVHV DQG PRUWDOLW\ &KHVQH\ t 5RVHQPDQ )ULHGPDQ -RKQVRQ 0DWWKHZV HW DO 6PLWK f 6FKHNHOOH *DLO 2VWIHOW DQG 3DXO f IRXQG KRVWLOLW\ VFRUHV WR SUHGLFW PRUWDOLW\ IURP QRW RQO\ &+' EXW IURP RWKHU LOOQHVVHV DV ZHOO ,PSUHVVLYHO\ %DUHIRRW 'DKOVWURP DQG :LOOLDPV f DQG %DUHIRRW 'RGJH 3HWHUVRQ 'DKOVWURP DQG :LOOLDPV f IRXQG WKDW KRVWLOLW\ VLQJXODUO\ SUHGLFWHG DOOFDXVH PRUWDOLW\ RYHU DQG \HDU IROORZXS SHULRGV

PAGE 14

$Q LPSUHVVLYH ERG\ RI HYLGHQFH KDV EHHQ JDWKHUHG RQ WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ DQJHU H[SUHVVLRQ DQG K\SHUWHQVLRQ 1RW RQO\ VXSSUHVVHG 'LDPRQG +DUEXUJ %ODNHORFN t 5RHSHU +DUEXUJ HW DO -XOLXV t -RKQVRQ 7KRPDV f EXW H[SUHVVHG DQJHU (QJHEUHWVRQ 0DWWKHZV t 6FKHLHU *HQWU\ *HQWU\ &KHVQH\ *DU\ +DOO t +DUEXUJ 6FKDOOLQJ 6SLHOEHUJHU HW DO f KDYH EHHQ IRXQG WR EH VLJQLILFDQWO\ UHODWHG WR HOHYDWHG EORRG SUHVVXUH DQG K\SHUWHQVLRQ /LQNV EHWZHHQ VWUHVV RU GLVWUHVV DQG LPPXQLW\ PD\ KDYH HYHQ PRUH SRWHQW KHDOWK FRQVHTXHQFHV IRU ROGHU DGXOWV EHFDXVH LPPXQH IXQFWLRQ GHFOLQHV ZLWK DJH SDUWLFXODUO\ IXQFWLRQDO DVSHFWV RI WKH FHOOXODU LPPXQH UHVSRQVH 0XUDVNR :HLQHU t .D\H :D\QH 5K\QH t *DUU\
PAGE 15

KDSSLHU DQG HQMR\ JUHDWHU OLIH VDWLVIDFWLRQ DQG DUH OHVV GHSUHVVHG DQ[LRXV DQG ORQHO\ .RHQLJ f 5HOLJLRXV FRSLQJ KDV EHHQ UHODWHG WR ORZHU UDWHV RI GHSUHVVLRQ LQ ERWK FURVVVHFWLRQDO ,GOHU .RHQLJ &RKHQ %OD]HU .XGOHU .ULVKQDQ t 6LEHUW 3UHVVPDQ /\RQV /DUVRQ t 6WUDLQ f DQG ORQJLWXGLQDO VWXGLHV ,GOHU t .DVO .RHQLJ HW DO f $ QXPEHU RI VWXGLHV KDYH GHPRQVWUDWHG WKDW UHOLJLRXVO\ DFWLYH ROGHU DGXOWV KDYH ORZHU EORRG SUHVVXUH /DUVRQ HW DO f IHZHU VWURNHV &RODQWLQLR .DVO t 2VWIHOG f IHZHU GHDWKV IURP FRURQDU\ KHDUW GLVHDVH *ROGERXUW +'6*@ Df GHYHORSHG WKHLU GHILQLWLRQ IURP D WKUHHIROG DSSURDFK KRZ RQH WKLQNV IHHOV DQG DFWV WRZDUG WKH RIIHQGHU 7KH GHILQLWLRQ LQFOXGHV MXGJPHQWV KRZ WKH IRUJLYHU WKLQNV DERXW WKH RIIHQGHUf HPRWLRQV KRZ RQH IHHOV WRZDUG WKH RIIIHQGHUf DQG EHKDYLRU KRZ WKH IRUJLYHU DFWV WRZDUG WKH RIIHQGHUf LQ WKH IRUJLYHQHVV SURFHVV 7KLV GHILQLWLRQ KDV EHHQ RSHUDWLRQDOL]HG LQ WKH (QULJKW )RUJLYHQHVV ,QYHQWRU\ 6XENRYLDN (QULJKW t :X f ZKLFK SURYLGHV WKH PHDQV IRU TXDQWLWDWLYHO\ PHDVXULQJ OHYHOV RI LQWHUSHUVRQDO IRUJLYHQHVV LQ WKH DIIHFWLYH EHKDYLRUDO DQG FRJQLWLYH GRPDLQV 7KH GHILQLWLRQ LV DV IROORZV )RUJLYHQHVV LV WKH RYHUFRPLQJ RI QHJDWLYH DIIHFW DQG MXGJPHQW WRZDUG WKH RIIHQGHU QRW E\ GHQ\LQJ RXUVHOYHV WKH ULJKW WR VXFK DIIHFW DQG MXGJPHQW EXW E\ HQGHDYRULQJ WR YLHZ WKH RIIHQGHU ZLWK EHQHYROHQFH FRPSDVVLRQ DQG HYHQ ORYH ZKLOH UHFRJQL]LQJ WKDW KH RU VKH KDV DEDQGRQHG WKH ULJKW WR WKHP 6XENRYLDN HW DO S f

PAGE 16

7KH 3XUSRVH RI WKH 6WXG\ 7KLV VWXG\ LV DQ LQYHVWLJDWLRQ RI WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ IRUJLYHQHVV DQG SK\VLFDO KHDOWK LQ VHQLRU FLWL]HQV WKDW KDV \HW WR EH HPSLULFDOO\ LQYHVWLJDWHG 7KH VFLHQWLILF HYLGHQFH WKDW DQJHU DQG LWV UHODWHG FRQFHSW RI KRVWLOLW\ DUH KHDOWK KD]DUGV KDV JURZQ UDSLGO\ RYHU WKH SDVW IHZ GHFDGHV HJ )ULHGPDQ %&UDQ] %DXP t 6LQJHU 6WRQH &RKHQ t $GOHU :LOOLDPV t :LOOLDPV f DQG ZLOO EH DQDO\]HG $V ZHOO WKHUH LV HYLGHQFH WKDW LQGLFDWHV WKDW ZKROHVRPH HPRWLRQV VXFK DV ORYH DQG KHDOWK\ UHODWLRQVKLSV ZLWK WKRVH FORVH WR XV KDYH KHDOWKHQKDQFLQJ HIIHFWV HJ &ROHPDQ 2UQLVK f $V IRUJLYHQHVV LV D SURFHVV LQ ZKLFK QHJDWLYH HPRWLRQV DUH UHSODFHG E\ SRVLWLYH HPRWLRQV DQG ZRXQGHG UHODWLRQVKLSV FDQ EH KHDOHG +RSH f IRUJLYHQHVV PLJKW KDYH DQ HPSLULFDOO\ GLVFHPDEOH SRVLWLYH LQIOXHQFH RQ SK\VLFDO KHDOWK 7KHUHE\ WKH PDLQ JRDO RI WKH SUHVHQW VWXG\ LV WR DFFHVV WKH UHODWLRQVKLS RI IRUJLYHQHVV KRVWLOLW\ DQG VXSSUHVVHG DQG H[SUHVVHG DQJHU ZLWK SK\VLFDO KHDOWK ZKLOH WDNLQJ LQWR DFFRXQW WKH LPSDFW RI D QXPEHU RI GHPRJUDSKLF DQG KHDOWK ULVN IDFWRUV HJ VH[ ERG\ PDVV VPRNLQJ DOFRKRO VDOW FDIIHLQH DQG H[HUFLVHf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

PAGE 17

)RUJLYHQHVV ZLOO UHPDLQ VLJQLILFDQWO\ UHODWHG WR SK\VLFDO KHDOWK DIWHU FRQWUROOLQJ IRU DQJHU DQG KRVWLOLW\ 6LJQLILFDQFH RI WKH 6WXG\ )RUJLYHQHVV FDQ SOD\ D PDMRU UROH LQ WKH KHDOLQJ SURFHVV $ QXPEHU RI PHQWDO KHDOWK SURIHVVLRQDOV KDYH VXJJHVWHG WKH H[SUHVVLRQ RI DQJHU DV D PRUH DSSURSULDWH ZD\ WR GHDO ZLWK QHJDWLYH HPRWLRQV )UHXG -DQRY 1RYRFD 5XELQ f 7KH H[SUHVVLRQ RI DQJHU LV QRW RQO\ LPSRUWDQW EXW VDOXWDU\ EXW ZKHQ VROHO\ UHOLHG RQ IRU UHOLHI LW LV LQDGHTXDWH WR SUHYHQW VHULRXV FRPSOLFDWLRQV EHFDXVH RI WKH GHJUHH DQG VWUHQJWK RI XQUHVROYHG DQJHU IURP SUHYLRXV GLVDSSRLQWPHQWV HQFRXQWHUHG LQ FKLOGKRRG DGROHVFHQFH DQG DGXOW OLIH )LW]JLEERQV f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f $V FOLHQWV PD\ UHVLVW RU EH KHVLWDQW WR FKDQJH RU HPSOR\ WKH SDUDGR[LFDO DFW RI IRUJLYHQHVV WKH KRSH RI HQKDQFHG SK\VLFDO KHDOWK PD\ SURYH WR EH DQ LQYDOXDEOH LQFHQWLYH ,I IRUJLYHQHVV FDQ EH VHHQ DV D JLIW WKDW ZH JLYH RXUVHOYHV )UHHGPDQ t (QULJKW f FOLHQWV PD\ EH PRUH ZLOOLQJO\ WR DYDLO WKHPVHOYHV RI WKLV VDOXWDU\ DFW OHDGLQJ WR IUHHGRP DQG KHDOLQJ RI WKH PLQG ERG\ DQG HPRWLRQV

PAGE 18

&+$37(5 5(9,(: 2) /,7(5$785( :LWKRXW IRUJLYHQHVV UHVHQWPHQW EXLOGV LQ XV D UHVHQWPHQW ZKLFK WXUQV LQWR KRVWLOLW\ DQG DQJHU +DWUHG HDWV DZD\ DW RXU ZHOOEHLQJ $UFKELVKRS 7XWX f )RUJLYHQHVV DV D SV\FKRWKHUDSHXWLF JRDO ZDV YLUWXDOO\ XQWDSSHG XQWLO WKH V ,I RQH ZRXOG H[DPLQH WKH SXEOLVKHG YRLFHV H[DPLQLQJ LQWHUSHUVRQDO IRUJLYHQHVV WKH OLNHO\ FRQFOXVLRQ ZRXOG EH WKDW WKH SV\FKRORJLFDO WUHDWPHQW RI IRUJLYHQHVV KDV EHHQ RYHUORRNHG XQWLO UHFHQWO\ 0F&XOORXJK :RUWKLQJWRQ t 5DFKDO f %HVLGHV WKH WKHRORJLFDO FLUFOHV IRUJLYHQHVV DSSHDUV WR KDYH EHHQ LJQRUHG WKURXJKRXW DOO RI DFDGHPLD QRW MXVW LQ WKH VRFLDO VFLHQFHV (QULJKW t 1RUWK f 7KH PDMRU WKHRULHV RI SHUVRQDOLW\ DSSHDU WR KDYH QRW EHHQ LQWHUHVWHG LQ WKH SURFHVV RI IRUJLYHQHVV 6KRQW] t 5RVHQDN f ,W KDV EHHQ D ORQJ WLPH VLQFH $XJXVWLQHfV &LW\ RI *RG f GLVFXVVHG LQWHUSHUVRQDO IRUJLYHQHVV DQG LW LV IURP WKDW GDWH LQ KLVWRU\ WKDW IRUJLYHQHVV EHWZHHQ SHRSOH IHOO GHDIO\ VLOHQW LQ SXEOLVKHG OLWHUDWXUH $XJXVWLQH f )URP WKLV GRUPDQW VWDWH IRUJLYHQHVV QRZ FODLPV D UHSXWDEOH SODFH LQ WKH PDLQ VWUHDP RI SV\FKRWKHUDSHXWLF OLWHUDWXUH IURP PDQ\ DQG GLYHUVH SHUVSHFWLYHV /RRNLQJ RYHU WKH SDVW \HDUV IRUJLYHQHVV KDV FURVVHG RYHU IURP LWV DFNQRZOHGJHG GRPDLQ LQ UHOLJLRXV OLWHUDWXUH DQG SUDFWLFH LQWR WKH VFLHQWLILF FRPPXQLW\ (PSLULFDO UHVHDUFK KDV VKRZQ LPSUHVVLYH UHVXOWV DQG SUDFWLWLRQHUV DUH GHYHORSLQJ ERWK DQ HQWKXVLDVP DQG LQWHUHVW IRU LWV ZLGH DQJOH SRWHQWLDO /DPSPDQ f 2QFH UHOHJDWHG WR UHOLJLRXV FLUFOHV DQG FRQVLGHUHG DV WKH H[WUD PLOH RI PHUF\ WRZDUG WKH RIIHQGHU WKDW LV UHTXLUHG IURP D

PAGE 19

fEHOLHYHUf IRUJLYHQHVV LV QRZ D YLDEOH WRRO IRU WKRVH VWULYLQJ WR RYHUFRPH HVWUDQJHPHQW DQG QHJDWLYH HPRWLRQV 6PHGHV f )RUJLYHQHVV LV QRZ HPHUJLQJ LQ SKLORVRSK\ 1RUWK 5LFKDUGV f SV\FKRWKHUDS\ 0F&XOORXJK 3DUJDPHQW t 7KRUHVHQ f PDULWDO FRXQVHOLQJ %RRQ t 6XOVN\ f IDPLO\ WKHUDS\ 'L%ODVLR t 3URFWRU f DQG GHYHORSPHQWDO SV\FKRORJ\ (QULJKW t +'6* Df DV DQ LPSRUWDQW FRPSRQHQW IRU SRVLWLYH KHDOWK RXWFRPHV &R\OH t (QULJKW )UHHGPDQ t (QULJKW .DXIPDQ f DQG HYHQ LQQHU KHDOLQJ IRU +,9$,'6 SDWLHQWV &KLOGV 5HGILHOG f DQG SK\VLFDO KHDOWK 6DULQRSRXORV /XVNLQ HW DO :LWYOLHW LQ SUHVVf )RUJLYHQHVV KDV EHHQ UDUH LQ WKH HPSLULFDO OLWHUDWXUH SRVVLEO\ EHFDXVH LW KDV EHHQ VR FORVHO\ WLHG WR WKHRORJ\ QRW VFLHQFH )LW]JLEERQV 1RUWK 6KRQW] t 5RVHQDN f 8QGHUVWDQGDEO\ IRUJLYHQHVV KDV DOZD\V EHHQ UHFRJQL]HG DV LPSRUWDQW IRU WKH KHDOLQJ SURFHVV LQ ELEOLFDO OLWHUDWXUH SDUWLFXODUO\ LQ &KULVWLDQ OLWHUDWXUH 0RVW OLNHO\ GXH WR LWV VWURQJ UHOLJLRXV FRQQRWDWLRQ IRUJLYHQHVV ZDV LJQRUHG LQ SV\FKRWKHUDS\ ZLWK RQO\ WZR SURIHVVLRQDO DUWLFOHV EHIRUH )LW]JLEERQV f )LW]JLEERQV f VSHFXODWHV WKDW WKH DEVHQFH RI IRUJLYHQHVV VWXGLHV LQ SV\FKRORJ\ LV OLNHO\ GXH WR WKH FRQFHSWfV LGHQWLILFDWLRQ ZLWK WKHRORJ\ 6HFXODU SV\FKRORJ\ KDV QRW GHDOW DGHTXDWHO\ ZLWK WKH WRSLF 6HHPLQJO\ WKLV KDV EHHQ LQ WKH SDVW GXH WR WKH fSDUDQRLDf RI VHFXODU SV\FKRORJ\ FRQFHUQLQJ LWV PXFKGHVLUHG fVFLHQWLILFf VWDWXV 3V\FKRORJLVWV KLVWRULFDOO\ KDYH QRW ZDQWHG WR DGGUHVV DQ\ WRSLF WKDW LV SKLORVRSKLFDO RU UHOLJLRXV 9DQ /HHXZHQ f 1R GRXEW WKLV EHOLHI LV SDUWLDOO\ URRWHG LQ WKH KLVWRULFDO VHSDUDWLRQ EHWZHHQ WKH WKHUDSHXWLF SURIHVVLRQV DQG UHOLJLRQ 'HQWRQ t 0DUWLQ f 'L%ODVLR DQG %HQGD f IRXQG WKDW WKHUH LV D VWURQJ ELDV LQ WKH SV\FKRORJLFDO FRPPXQLW\ DJDLQVW XVLQJ FRQFHSWV WKDW KDYH UHOLJLRXV FRQQRWDWLRQV 7KH\

PAGE 20

SRLQW RXW WKDW UHOLJLRXVO\ RULHQWHG FRQFHSWV DUH IUHTXHQWO\ SUHVHQWHG LQ KLJKO\ DEVWUDFW ZD\V ZLWKRXW SUDFWLFDO DSSOLFDWLRQ WR HYHU\GD\ SUREOHPV (YHQ FRXQVHORUV ZLWK D UHOLJLRXV EDFNJURXQG VLPLODU WR WKDW RI WKHLU FOLHQWV PD\ EHOLHYH WKDW UHOLJLRXV LVVXHV EHORQJ RXWVLGH WKH VHFXODU FRXQVHOLQJ VHVVLRQ :RUWKLQJWRQ f :XOII f ZURWH WKDW WKH SV\FKRORJ\ RI UHOLJLRQ LV UDWKHU GHVFULSWLYH GRFXPHQWLQJ WKH YDULHWLHV DQG W\SHV RI UHOLJLRXV H[SHULHQFHVf RU H[SODQDWRU\ VHHNLQJ WKH RULJLQV RI UHOLJLRXV H[SHULHQFH DQG SV\FKRORJLFDO ELRORJLFDO RU HQYLURQPHQWDO HYHQWVf 7KH H[SODQDWRU\ DSSURDFK KDUERULQJ VXFK GLVWLQJXLVKHG QDPHV DV 6LJPXQG )UHXG -DPHV /HXED DQG % ) 6NLQQHUf W\SLFDOO\ KDV EHHQ KRVWLOH WR UHOLJLRQ VHHLQJ LW DV D FDXVH RI SDWKRORJ\ 7KLV VHSDUDWLRQ KDV EHHQ VDLG WR UHIOHFW KXPDQLVWLF YDOXHV WKRXJKW WR XQGHUOLH WKHUDSHXWLF V\VWHPV DQG WKHUDSLVWV %HUJLQ 0F0LQQ f :ULWHUV VXFK DV (OOLV f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f $ PDMRU FRQWULEXWLRQ RI D VSLULWXDO SHUVSHFWLYH LV WKDW LW DQFKRUV YDOXH LQ XQLYHUVDO WHUPV 7KLV LV LPSRUWDQW EHFDXVH WKHUDSHXWLF LQWHUYHQWLRQV DUH QRW YDOXHIUHH 9DOXHV GHWHUPLQH WKH JRDOV RI WKH WUHDWPHQW 7KH\ DOVR SOD\ D YLWDO UROH LQ WKH VHOHFWLRQ RI WHFKQLTXHV DQG LQ WKH HYDOXDWLRQ RI RXWFRPHV /RQGRQ /RZH f :KDW YDOXHV GHWHUPLQH WKH JRDOV RI WUHDWPHQW" +RZ GR ZH VHW WKRVH JRDOV" $OO JRDOV ZKHWKHU WKH\ DUH JRDOV IRU V\PSWRP UHOLHI RU JRDOV WR PRGLI\ D OLIHVW\OH DUH VXSSRUWHG E\ YDOXH V\VWHPV

PAGE 21

5DWKHU WKDQ EHLQJ D VWXPEOLQJ EORFN IRUJLYHQHVVf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f 7KLV QHZ XQGHUVWDQGLQJ H[SODLQV WKHLU SDUHQWVf EHKDYLRU LQ D ZD\ WKDW PDNHV WKHP KHOSOHVV YLFWLPV RI WKHLU RZQ FRQGLWLRQLQJ 5DWKHU WKDQ UHPDLQ WUDSSHG LQ WKH SDWWHUQV WKDW WUDSSHG WKHLU SDUHQWV SDWLHQWV FKRRVH WR ILQG QHZ ZD\V RI OLYLQJ IRU WKHPVHOYHV 7KH\ JR IRUZDUG RQ WKHLU RZQ UDWKHU WKDQ JR EDFN WR ZRUN WKLQJV RXW ZLWK WKHLU SDUHQWV ZKR DUH H[FXVHG UDWKHU WKDQ IRUJLYHQ 9HHQVWUD f $V ZHOO WKH SDUDGR[LFDO QDWXUH RI IRUJLYHQHVV OHDYHV LW YXOQHUDEOH QRW WR EH XQGHUVWRRG RU DSSUHFLDWHG DV D KHOSIXO KHDOLQJ HOHPHQW ,W DSSHDUV RQ WKH VXUIDFH DV WRR VLPSOH LPSUDFWLFDO RU QRW DSSOLFDEOH WR WKH VHULRXV SUREOHPV RI OLIH +RSH f :K\ 1RZ )RUJLYHQHVV" 7R ZKDW FDQ RQH DWWULEXWH WKLV UHODWLYHO\ QHZ LQWHUHVW DQG UHVSHFW IRU WKH UROH RI IRUJLYHQHVV LQ WKH ILHOG RI PHQWDO KHDOWK" 7ZR PRYHPHQWV PD\ KDYH KHUDOGHG WKH UROH RI IRUJLYHQHVV )LUVW WKH $OFRKROLFV $QRQ\PRXV DSSURDFK H[SDQGHG WR DVVLVW WKH DGXOW FKLOGUHQ RI DOFRKROLF SDUHQWV JUDSSOLQJ ZLWK WKH HPRWLRQDO DIWHUPDWK RI WKHLU FKLOGKRRG DEXVH $FNHUPDQ 0LGGOHWRQ0R] t 'LYLQHOO f DQG VHFXODU DEXVH EHJDQ WR XQFRYHU WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI IRUJLYHQHVV LQ UHOHDVLQJ WKHLU SDWLHQWV IURP GHVWUXFWLYH UHODWLRQVKLSV ZLWK WKHLU DEXVLYH SDUHQWV %DVV t 'DYLV )DUPHU f 7KLV LQVLJKW SURYLGHG D FUDFN LQ WKH GHIHQVLYH ZDOO DJDLQVW IRUJLYHQHVV $ORQJ ZLWK WKLV WKH V

PAGE 22

VDZ DQ DSSUHFLDWLRQ WRZDUG LVVXHV RI FDUH DQG UHVSRQVLYHQHVV DV ZD\V WR VROYH PRUDO GLOHPPDV *LOOLJDQ f 1RWDEO\ DEVHQW IURP WKH GLVFRXUVH RI PRUDO SV\FKRORJ\ KDV EHHQ WKH LVVXH RI PHUF\ RQ KRZ SHRSOH GHDO ZLWK LQMXVWLFHV WKDW KDYH DOUHDG\ WDNHQ SODFH 0HUF\ DV D QHZ DUHD RI UHVHDUFK ZLWKLQ PRUDO GHYHORSPHQW HPSKDVL]HV D SHUVRQfV ZLOOLQJQHVV WR JR EH\RQG GXW\ D ZLOOLQJQHVV WR JR EH\RQG WKH UHTXLUHPHQWV RI MXVWLFH WRZDUG EHQHILFLDOO\ DLGLQJ VRPHRQH ZKR PD\ QRW GHVHUYH WKH NLQGQHVV )RUJLYHQHVV FDOOV IRU VXFK DQ DWWLWXGH DQG DSSURDFK +HEO t (QULJKW f 8S XQWLO WKH V WKH ILHOG RI PRUDO GHYHORSPHQW ZDV SULPDULO\ EDVHG RQ WKH .RKOEHUJLDQ HPSKDVLV RQ MXVWLFH 7KH IRUPHU ILHOG KDV EURDGHQHG LWV SDUDPHWHUV WR LQFOXGH FRQVWUXFWV VXFK DV FDULQJ %UDEHFN *LOOLJDQ :DUG t 7D\ORU f DQG IRUJLYHQHVV (QULJKW t +'6* Ef %\ HPSOR\LQJ VXFK FRQVWUXFWV RI FDUH DQG PHUF\ LW KDV QRZ EHHQ UHFRJQL]HG E\ SK\VLFLDQV ZRUNLQJ ZLWK FDQFHU SDWLHQWV 3KLOOLSV t 2VERUQH f DQG E\ WKHUDSLVWV LQWHUHVWHG LQ DQJHU UHGXFWLRQ LQ FOLHQWV )LW]JLEERQV +RSH .DXIPDQ f 7KLV RYHUGXH UHFRJQLWLRQ RI WKH VDOXWDU\ HIIHFWV RI IRUJLYHQHVV KDV ORQJ EHHQ DZDLWHG -XVWLFH KDV GRPLQDWHG WKH VWXG\ RI PRUDO GHYHORSPHQW VLQFH .RKOEHUJfV f ODQGPDUN ZRUN
PAGE 23

ZLWKLQ WKH KHOSLQJ SURIHVVLRQV 3KLORVRSKHUV VXFK DV )UDQNHQD f KRZHYHU DUH TXLFN WR SRLQW RXW WKDW D PRUH FRPSOHWH YLHZ RI PRUDOLW\ PXVW HQFRPSDVV QRW RQO\ MXVWLFH EXW PHUF\ DV ZHOO 7KH EDVLF PRUDO SULQFLSOH XQGHUO\LQJ MXVWLFH LV HTXDOLW\ ZKHUHDV WKH PRUDO SULQFLSOH XQGHUO\LQJ IRUJLYHQHVV LV WKH PRUH FKDOOHQJLQJ DQG QREOH WDVN RI ORYH WHPSHUHG E\ LWV PRUDO VHQVH (QULJKW *DVVLQ t :X f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fV JUHDW PRQRWKHLVWLF IDLWKVf§-XGDLVP &KULVWLDQLW\ DQG ,VODP 0F&XOORXJK t :RUWKLQJWRQ f 7KHVH DQFLHQW V\VWHPV PRVW QRWDEO\ -XGDLVP DQG &KULVWLDQLW\ RIIHU SHUKDSV WKH PRVW VSHFLILF DQG FOHDU FXW LGHDV RQ LQWHUSHUVRQDO IRUJLYHQHVV /RRNLQJ DW WKHVH DQFLHQW UHOLJLRQV DORQJ ZLWK +LQGXLVP ZLOO KHOS FRQWULEXWH WR RXU XQGHUVWDQGLQJ DQG NQRZOHGJH RI WKH URRWV RI IRUJLYHQHVV 7KHLU SHUVSHFWLYHV RQ IRUJLYHQHVV RIIHU LQVLJKW RQ KRZ UHOLJLRQ ERWK LQIOXHQFHV DQG IRUPV WKH XQGHUVWDQGLQJ DQG DSSOLFDWLRQ RI WKH SV\FKRORJLFDO SURFHVVHV LQ IRUJLYHQHVV 3DUJDPHQW DQG 5\H f KDYH SURSRVHG VHYHUDO ZD\V LQ ZKLFK UHOLJLRQ FDQ FRQWULEXWH LQVLJKW WRZDUG IRUJLYHQHVV )RUJLYHQHVV SURSHUO\ RIIHUHG FDQ EH VDQFWLILHG RU LPEXHG ZLWK GLYLQHOLNH TXDOLWLHV ,Q WKHLVWLF UHOLJLRQV IRUJLYHQHVV EHFRPHV WKH SULPDU\ PHDQV IRU LPLWDWLRQ RI *RG IXOILOOLQJ *RGnV SODQ RU HQKDQFLQJ RQHfV SHUVRQDO

PAGE 24

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fWR IRUJLYHf 9LQH f ,Q WKLV UHOLJLRXV FRQWH[W LW UHIHUV WR *RG UHPRYLQJ VLQ IURP WKH SHRSOH $FFRUGLQJ WR /DQGPDQ f VDODK KDV ERWK D VSLULWXDO DQG D PRUDO FRQQRWDWLRQ ,W UHSUHVHQWV D WRWDOO\ IUHH DFW RI *RGfV UHPRYLQJ VLQ RU D SHUVRQfV UHPRYLQJ RI WUHVSDVVHV RI DQRWKHU E\ SODFLQJ WKHP RXW RI VLJKW 2QH RI *RGfV SULPDU\ DWWULEXWHV LV *RGfV ZLOOLQJQHVV WR IRUJLYH VLQIXO LQGLYLGXDOV ([RGXV f SURYLGHG WKHUH DUH DGHTXDWH UHSHQWDQFH DQG D GHVLUH WR LPSURYH RQHfV FRQGXFW /DQGPDQ f 7ZR RWKHU ZRUGV WKDW LQFRUSRUDWH IRUJLYHQHVV LQ WKHLU UDQJH RI PHDQLQJV DUH NDSDU WR FRYHU RU DWRQH IRU ZURQJGRLQJ DQG QDVD WR OLIW XS D VLQ DQG FDUU\ LW DZD\ 9LQH f ,Q $QFLHQW +HEUHZ FXOWXUH WKHUH ZDV WKH ZHOOGHILQHG SUDFWLFH RI DQLPDO VDFULILFHV ZKLFK ZDV DFFRPSDQLHG E\ UHSHQWDQFH LQ WKH UHPRYLQJ RI VLQ E\ WKH GLYLQH DXWKRULW\ )RUJLYHQHVV UHVWRUHV WKH RIIHQGHU WR WKH UHODWLRQ RQFH IRUPHUO\ HQMR\HG ZLWK WKH RWKHU SHUVRQ DQG FRPPXQLW\ 6XFK D UHODWLRQ LQ WKH +HEUHZ FRPPXQLW\ GHPDQGV UHFLSURFDO ORYH /HYLWLFXV f /RYH KHUH LQFOXGHV DOO SV\FKRORJLFDO V\VWHPV RI DIIHFW FRJQLWLRQ DQG EHKDYLRU 'HXWHURQRP\ f 3HDFH RI PLQG LV DOVR UHVWRUHG /DQGPDQ f )RUJLYHQHVV LQ -HZLVK WUDGLWLRQ LV QRW DQ RSWLRQ EXW D PRUDO GXW\ EDVHG RQ WKH

PAGE 25

GRFWULQH RI fLPLWDWLR GHLf WKH LPLWDWLRQ RI *RG DV VXSUHPH IRUJLYHU 1HZPDQ 6KDSLUR f 2QH RI WKH PRVW LPSRUWDQW DQG GLVWLQJXLVKLQJ HOHPHQWV RI HDUO\ -XGDLVP ZDV WKH FRUH EHOLHI WKDW *RG ZDV FDSDEOH RI IRUJLYLQJ KXPDQLW\ IRU LWV WUDQVJUHVVLRQV .ODVVHQ 0F&XOORXJK 6DQGDJH t :RUWKLQJWRQ 7HOIHU f :KDW QRZ SHUKDSV VHHPV H[SHFWHG RI *RGIRUJLYHQHVV ZDV VR LQQRYDWLYH WKDW LW EHFDPH WKH GLVWLQJXLVKLQJ PDUN EHWZHHQ -XGDLVP DQG WKH RWKHU UHOLJLRXV WUDGLWLRQV LQ WKH UHJLRQ RI 3DOHVWLQH 0F&XOORXJK t :RUWKLQJWRQ f 7KH SRVVLELOLW\ RI WHVKXYDK +HEUHZ IRU fUHWXUQf RU fUHSHQWDQFHff ZKLFK FRXOG OHDG WR WKH JLIW RI IRUJLYHQHVV IURP *RG EHFDPH WKH IRFDO SRLQW RI -HZLVK PRUDO OLIH 'RUI 1HXVQHU 7HOIHU f -XGDLVP KROGV WKDW *RG IRUJLYHV RQ WKH EDVLV RI UHSHQWDQFH DQG WKDW SHRSOH VKRXOG EH VR LQVSLUHG WR IRUJLYH UHSHQWDQW WUDQVJUHVVRUV DV ZHOO 'RUI 1HXVQHU f 7KHUHE\ IRUJLYLQJ RQHfV RIIHQGHUV IROORZLQJ VLQFHUH UHSHQWDQFH LV QRW D PRUDO SUHURJDWLYH RU H[SHFWDWLRQ ZLWKLQ -XGDLVP EXW D UHOLJLRXV GXW\ (QULJKW *DVVLQ t :X 1HXVQHU 1HZPDQ f ,Q -HZLVK WKRXJKW IRUJLYHQHVV VLJQLILHV WKDW WKH YHU\ YLRODWLRQ LWVHOI LV UHPRYHG 7KH LQMXUHG SDUWLHV ZKR IRUJLYH PD\ VWLOO UHPRYH WKH WUDQVJUHVVLRQ DQG UHWDLQ WKH ULJKW WR WDNH VRPH SUHFDXWLRQV WR PDNH VXUH WKDW WKH\ ZLOO QRW VXIIHU WKDW ZD\ DJDLQ %\ IRUJLYLQJ WKH SHUSHWUDWRU WKH\ QRZ DFFHSW WKH LQGLYLGXDO DQG DUH RSHQ WR D SRVVLEOH RQJRLQJ UHODWLRQVKLS 'RUI HW DO f )RUJLYHQHVV LV D FRUH HOHPHQW RI WKH -HZLVK WUDGLWLRQ 7KH GD\V EHWZHHQ 5RVK +RVKDQD DQG
PAGE 26

7DOPXG VWDWHV WKDW *RG FUHDWHG UHSHQWDQFH EHIRUH KH FUHDWHG WKH XQLYHUVH 5RGGHQ f )RUJLYHQHVV LQ 1HZ 7HVWDPHQW /LWHUDWXUH +DQQDK $UHQGW RQH RI WKH IRUHPRVW SKLORVRSKHUV RI WKH WK FHQWXU\ DWWULEXWHV WKH GLVFRYHU\ RI WKH UROH IRUJLYHQHVV LQ WKH UHDOP RI KXPDQ DIIDLUV WR -HVXV RI 1D]DUHWK $UHQGW f 7KH WKHRORJLFDO XQGHUVWDQGLQJV RI IRUJLYHQHVV GLVFXVVHG EHORZ DUH URRWHG LQ WKH +HEUHZ DQG &KULVWLDQ 6FULSWXUHV ERWK RI ZKLFK SURYLGH QXPHURXV H[DPSOHV RI LQWHUSHUVRQDO IRUJLYHQHVV *ODGVRQ 3LQJOHWRQ f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fV IRUJLYHQHVV 6RDUHV3UDEKX f VWDWHV WKDW WKH UHDVRQ WKH &KULVWLDQ 6FULSWXUHV FRQVLVWHQWO\ UHODWH IRUJLYHQHVV WR *RGfV IRUJLYHQHVV LV EHFDXVH RXU RSHQQHVV WR IRUJLYH RWKHUV LV QRW fMXVW D KDSS\ WUDLW RI FKDUDFWHU RU DQ DFTXLUHG SV\FKRORJLFDO GLVSRVLWLRQ ,W LV D UHOLJLRXV DWWLWXGH URRWHG LQ WKH FRUH &KULVWLDQ H[SHULHQFH RI DQ XWWHUO\ IRUJLYLQJ *RGf S f 5XELR f IXUWKHU HPSKDVL]HV WKDW HYHU\ H[SHULHQFH RI IRUJLYHQHVV KDV *RG DV LWV XOWLPDWH IRXQGDWLRQ DQG FDQ RQO\ EH H[SODLQHG LQ UHIHUHQFH WR *RG *RG DOZD\V SOD\V WKH OHDGLQJ UROH LQ IRUJLYHQHVV $ VHFRQG SUHGRPLQDQW IHDWXUH LQ RXU XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI IRUJLYHQHVV LV IURP WKH WKHRORJLFDO SHUVSHFWLYH RI VLQ DQG HYLO 6REULQR f LQ KLV VREHU DQDO\VLV RI /DWLQ

PAGE 27

$PHULFD DV D SODFH RI ERWK VLQ DQG IRUJLYHQHVV VWDWHV WKDW VLQ LV D SK\VLFDO HYLO IRU WKH YLFWLP DQG D PRUDO HYLO IRU WKH SHUSHWUDWRU 7KH UROH RI IRUJLYHQHVV LV WR IUHH WKH VLQQHU WKH SHUSHWUDWRUf IURP WKLV HYLO DQG FRQYHUW DQG UHFUHDWH KLPKHU )RU 6REULQR WKH IXQGDPHQWDO PHVVDJH UHJDUGLQJ IRUJLYHQHVV LV WKDW IRU WKH UDGLFDO KHDOLQJ RI WKH VLQQHU WR WDNH SODFH LW FDQ EH RQO\ DFFRPSOLVKHG WKURXJK WKH SRZHU RI ORYH H[SUHVVHG WKURXJK WKH FRQWH[W RI IRUJLYHQHVV 6REULQR 6f +H FRPSDUHV WKLV WR KRZ -HVXV DFWHG DQG KRZ PDQ\ &KULVWLDQV DUH FKDOOHQJHG WR DFW f)RUJLYH ZLWK ORYH LQ WKH KRSH WKDW WKLV ORYH ZLOO WUDQVIRUP WKH VLQQHUf S f 'XPRUWLHU f GHVFULEHV IRUJLYLQJ DV EHLQJ DEOH WR HQYLVLRQ D IXWXUH WKDW ZRXOG QRW EH D FRQWLQXDWLRQ RI WKH SDVW EXW DW WKH VDPH WLPH QRW LJQRULQJ WKH WUDQVJUHVVLRQV WKDW RFFXUUHG LQ WKH SDVW DQG DFNQRZOHGJLQJ WKDW LW LV SDUW RI RQHfV OLIH ,Q WKH VWUHQJWK RI WKH SUHVHQW DQG WKH VWUHQJWK RI IRUJLYHQHVV FRH[LVWV D WHQVLRQ EHWZHHQ WKH XQHUDVDEOH SDVW DQG WKH SURPLVH RI WKH IXWXUH ,Q KLV YLHZ IRUJLYHQHVV RSHQV RQH WR WKH KRSH RI D EHWWHU IXWXUH WKURXJK D *RG RI PHUF\ DQG D *RG RI IRUJLYHQHVV 7KH 1HZ 7HVWDPHQW ZULWLQJV SUHVHUYHG WKH WHUPLQRORJ\ DQG FDUULHG RYHU WKH FRQFHSWV DQG PHWDSKRULFDO LPDJHV RI IRUJLYHQHVV LQ WKH 2OG 7HVWDPHQW DQG UHDSSOLHG WKHP GLUHFWO\ WR WKH HIILFDFLRXV UHVXOWV RI &KULVWfV GHDWK ZKLFK SURYLGHG VLQQHUV WKH ULJKWHRXV EDVLV IRU GLYLQH IRUJLYHQHVV +XPDQ IRUJLYHQHVV UHVXOWHG IURP WKH UHDOL]DWLRQ WKDW RQH KDV UHFHLYHG WKH XQPHULWHG JLIW RI GLYLQH IRUJLYHQHVV &RORVVLDQV f $ FRPSRVLWH SLFWXUH RI *RGfV IRUJLYHQHVV LQ WKH 1HZ 7HVWDPHQW ZDV JDLQHG E\ FRPELQLQJ WKH GHILQLWLRQV RI WKH PDLQ *UHHN WHUPV XVHG E\ ZULWHUV RI WKH 1HZ 7HVWDPHQW $V WKH /DPE RI *RG &KULVW FDPH WR WDNH DZD\ RU EHDU DZD\ WKH VLQ RI WKH ZRUOG -RKQ -RKQ f 7KRVH ZKR UHSHQWHG DQG SXW WKHLU IDLWK LQ &KULVW KDG WKHLU VLQV IRUJLYHQ EORWWHG RXW RU REOLWHUDWHG &RO f IURP WKHLU SHUVRQDO UHFRUG 7KLV DFWLRQ RI EORWWLQJ RXW RU FRYHULQJ VLQ ,3HWHU f IORZHG IURP *RGfV ORYH DQG PHUF\ IRU WKH VLQQHU

PAGE 28

5DWKHU WKDQ WUHDW WKH VLQQHU LQ WKH ZD\ KH GHVHUYHG DV DQ DFW RI XQFRQGLWLRQDO IDYRU *RG JUDFLRXVO\ IRUJDYH KLP &ROO /XNH f FDQFHOHG KLV GHEW &ROO f SDUGRQHG KLP DQG UHPRYHG KLV JXLOW DQG KH ZDV GLVFKDUJHG 0DUN f VHW IUHH IURP IXUWKHU REOLJDWLRQ 0DWW f )RUJLYHQHVV UHVXOWHG LQ WKH VLQQHU EHLQJ ORRVHG IURP KLV VLQV DQG ZDVKHG FOHDQ IURP LWV VWDLQ ,&RU f 3UHHPLQHQWO\ LW LV &KULVWfV FRPPDQG WR KLV IROORZHUV WKDW WKH\ DUH WR IRUJLYH DV *RG KDV IRUJLYHQ WKHP /XNHO f 7KLV UHPDLQV WKH JXLGH DQG PRGHO RQ KRZ ZH DUH WR IRUJLYH &KULVWLDQV DUH WR RIIHU WKHLU HQHP\ IRUJLYHQHVV LQ UHWXUQ IRU D WUDQVJUHVVLRQ 7KURXJK IRUJLYHQHVV RQH EHFRPHV OLNH WKH fKHDYHQO\ )DWKHUf 0DWW f DQG LV WKH PHDQV WR REWDLQ SHDFH ,Q WKH 1HZ 7HVWDPHQW WKH PRVW FRPPRQ ZRUGV GHQRWLQJ IRUJLYHQHVV LQ WKH RULJLQDO *UHHN DUH DfHOHDR DQG FRJQDWH QRXQVf VKRZ PHUF\ WLPHVf DQG Ef DSKLHPL UHOHDVH GLVFKDUJH SXW DZD\ WLPHVf ,W VLJQLILHV WKDW VLQV DUH VHQW DZD\ GLYLQH SXQLVKPHQW LV UHPRYHG DQG D KDUPRQLRXV UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ *RG DQG WKH IRUPHUO\ VLQIXO SHUVRQ LV QRZ UHVWRUHG 9LQH f $QRWKHU ZRUG XVHG WKRXJK LQIUHTXHQWO\ EXW LQ D VWULNLQJ ZD\ LV VSODQFKQL]RPDL 7KLV WHUP LV FRPPRQO\ XQGHUVWRRG DV fIHHOLQJ VRUU\ IRUf RU fKDYLQJ D FRPSDVVLRQDWH SHUVSHFWLYH IRU VRPHRQHf ,WV RULJLQ LV IURP WKH ZRUG fLQWHVWLQHVf $ OLWHUDO WUDQVODWLRQ ZRXOG EH WR SRXU RXW RQHfV LQVLGHV :LOOLDPV f 7KUHH RWKHU *UHHN ZRUGV WKDW LQFOXGH IRUJLYHQHVV LQ WKHLU VFRSH RI PHDQLQJV DUH FKDUL]RPDL WR EHVWRZ D IDYRU XQFRQGLWLRQDOO\ DSRXR WR UHOHDVH DV TXDVL MXGLFLDO DFW RU WR JLYH XS QHJDWLYH MXGJPHQWV DQGRU EHKDYLRU WRZDUG DQ RIIHQGHU DQG DJDSH WR XQFRQGLWLRQDOO\ ORYH LQ D FKDULWDEOH RU EHQHYROHQW IDVKLRQ 6WURQJ 9LQH f )RUJLYHQHVV SRVVHVVHV WKH GXDO TXDOLWLHV RI *RGfV FDVWLQJ DZD\ RXU VLQ FRQGLWLRQDOO\ RQ UHSHQWDQFH DQG DFFHSWDQFH RI &KULVWfV VDFULILFHf DQG GUDZLQJ WKH SHUVRQ LQ ORYH ZLWKRXW FRQGLWLRQf

PAGE 29

,QWHUSHUVRQDO IRUJLYHQHVV LQ &KULVWLDQLW\ LV WR EH VWULFWO\ DQDORJRXV WR WKH GLYLQH IRUP VLPLODU WR WKH PHQWLRQHG fLPLWDWLR GHLf 0DWWKHZ 9LQH f $V RQH LV IRUJLYHQ WKH LQGLYLGXDO KDV WKH GXW\ WR SUDFWLFH IRUJLYHQHVV WRZDUG RWKHUV 7KH IRUJLYHU LV H[HPSOLI\LQJ DJDSH E\ XQFRQGLWLRQDOO\ GUDZLQJ WKH RWKHU LQ ORYH $V LQ WKH +HEUHZ FRPPXQLW\ ORYH LV DQ DGGLWLRQ RI HOHPHQWV WR DIIHFW SRVLWLYH IHHOLQJVf FRJQLWLRQ SRVLWLYH WKRXJKWVf DQG EHKDYLRU JLYLQJ EDFN WR RU VHUYLQJ WKH FRPPXQLW\f 6LPLODU WR WKH -HZLVK WHDFKLQJV ERWK WKH IRUJLYHQ DQG IRUJLYHU DUH UHVWRUHG WR D VHQVH RI SHDFH DQG ZHOO EHLQJ *DODWLDQV f 0RVW &KULVWLDQ WKHRORJLHV VWLOO HPSKDVL]H WKH FRQVWDQW QHHG WR VHHN IRUJLYHQHVV IURP SHRSOH DQG IURP *RG ,W LV H[SHFWHG RI &KULVWLDQV WR JUDQW IRUJLYHQHVV WR RQH DQRWKHU DV DQ H[HUFLVH LQ WKH OHDUQLQJ WR OLYH DV EURWKHUV DQG VLVWHUV LQ *RGfV NLQJGRP 0DF.LQWRVK f 7KH +HEUHZ DQG &KULVWLDQ FRQFHSWLRQV RI IRUJLYHQHVV DUH PRUH GHYHORSHG WKDQ WKH DQFLHQW V\VWHPV 6RPH QRWDEOH GLIIHUHQFHV DUH Df WKH\ GR QRW HPERG\ WKH FRQFHSW LQWR JHQHUDO GLVFXVVLRQV RI PHUF\ Ef WKH\ FOHDUO\ VHH IRUJLYHQHVV DV RFFXUULQJ LQ WKH IDFH RI FRQVLGHUDEOH LQMXVWLFH Ff WKH\ VSHFLI\ WKH LQWHUSHUVRQDO DQG WKH LQWHUSHUVRQDO TXDOLW\ RI IRUJLYHQHVV Gf WKH\ FRQVFLRXVO\ EULQJ IRUJLYHQHVV LQWR WKH DUHQD RI HWKLFV E\ SRVWXODWLQJ PRUDO ORYH DV WKH IRXQGDWLRQDO SULQFLSOH DQG Hf WKH\ H[SRXQG RQ WKH SUHFLVH RXWFRPHV LQQHU SHDFH FRPPXQDO KDUPRQ\f WKURXJK LWV SUDFWLFH (QULJKW (DVWLQ *ROGHQ 6DULQRSRXORV t )UHHGPDQ f ,VODP *RGfV GHVLUH DQG DELOLW\ WR IRUJLYH DOO VLQV LV DQ HVVHQWLDO TXDOLW\ RI *RGfV FKDUDFWHU LQ 0XVOLP WKHRORJ\ $\RXE f ,VODPLF VFULSWXUHV DQG SLHW\ VLPLODU WR &KULVWLDQLW\ HQFRXUDJH LWV LQKHUHQWV WR IRUJLYH RWKHUV WR WKH VDPH H[WHQW WKDW WKH\ WKHPVHOYHV GHVLUH WR EH IRUJLYHQ 0F&XOORXJK t :RUWKLQJWRQ f ,Q WKH H\HV RI

PAGE 30

VRPH VFKRODUV WKH GHVLUH WR EH PRUH IRUJLYLQJ LV PRUH YLUWXRXV DQG HQGHDULQJ WR *RG WKDQ LV WKH SXUVXLW RI MXVWLFH +DWKRXW f 7KRVH ZKR IRUJLYH LQVWHDG RI JDLQLQJ UHYHQJH FDQ H[SHFW D VSHFLDO EOHVVLQJ IURP *RG 5\H HW DO f 7KH FRQFHSW RI IRUJLYHQHVV LQ WKH 4XUfDQ LV H[SUHVVHG SULPDULO\ LQ WKUHH WHUPV Df fDIZ XVHG WLPHV Ef VDIKX XVHG WLPHV DQG Ff JKDIDUD XVHG WLPHV f$IZ PHDQV WR SDUGRQ WR H[FXVH D IDXOW DQ RIIHQVH RU D GLVFRXUWHV\ ZDLYHU RI SXQLVKPHQW DQG DPQHVW\ ([DPSOHV RI XVDJH LQ WKH 4XUfUDQ DUH YHUVHV DQG 6DIKX PHDQV WR WXUQ DZD\ IURP D VLQ RU D PLVGHHG ([DPSOHV RI VXFK XVDJH LQ WKH 4XUfDQ DUH YHUVHV DQG *KDIDUD RU PDJKILUD PHDQV WR FRQYHUW WR IRUJLYH DQG WR UHPLW ([DPSOHV RI XVDJH LQ WK 4XUfDQ DUH YHUVHV DQG $VDG f 7KH *RG $OODK LV WKH XOWLPDWH SRZHU ZKR FDQ IRUJLYH 2QH RI $OODKfV DWWULEXWHV LV $O*KDIRRU WKH )RUJLYLQJ 2QH )RUJLYHQHVV PHDQV fFORVLQJ DQ DFFRXQW RI RIIHQVH DJDLQVW *RG RU DQ\ RI KLV FUHDWLRQf$OL HW DO S f +RZHYHU IRUJLYHQHVV PXVW PHHW WKH FULWHULD RI VLQFHULW\ $Q RIIHQVH PD\ EH DJDLQVW Df D SHUVRQ Ef D JURXS RI SHUVRQV RU VRFLHW\ Ff RWKHU FUHDWLRQV RI *RG VXFK DV DQLPDO SODQWV ODQG DWPRVSKHUH DQG ERGLHV RI ZDWHU DQG WKH OLIH WKHUHLQ DQG Gf *RG $OODK 0XVOLPV XQGHUVWDQG WKDW DQ RIIHQVH DJDLQVW WKH FUHDWLRQ RI *RG LV DQ RIIHQVH DJDLQVW *RG $OL HW DO S f /LNH &KULVWLDQLW\ WKRVH ZKR GHVLUH WR EH IRUJLYHQ IRU WKHLU RZQ RIIHQVHV PXVW OHDUQ WR IRUJLYH RWKHUV /XNH f (VSHFLDOO\ LI WKH\ VHHN IRUJLYHQHVV IURP *RG WKH\ VKRXOG OHDUQ WR IRUJLYH RWKHUV IRU WKHLU RIIHQVHV ,I WKH\ GHVLUH WKDW *RG RYHUORRN WKHLU ZHDNQHVVHV WKH\ VKRXOG OHDUQ WR RYHUORRN WKH ZHDNQHVVHV RI RWKHUV )RUJLYHQHVV LV LPSRUWDQW IRU WZR UHDVRQV ,W LV YHU\ LPSRUWDQW IRU WKH DIWHUOLIH :H IRUJLYH WR JDLQ IRUJLYHQHVV 6HHNLQJ IRUJLYHQHVV H[HPSOLILHV KXPLOLW\ DQG IRUJLYLQJ RWKHUV LV D VLJQ RI PDJQDQLPLW\

PAGE 31

6HHNLQJ IRUJLYHQHVV DQG JUDQWLQJ IRUJLYHQHVV EULQJV KDSSLQHVV LQ WKH SUHVHQW OLIH )XUWKHU IRUJLYLQJ LPSURYHV UHODWLRQV ZLWK SHRSOH E\ EULQJLQJ JRRG UHSXWDWLRQ DQG JDLQLQJ UHVSHFW $OL HW DO f +LQGXLVP .VDPD RU NVDPDWD LV WKH ZRUG PRVW FRPPRQO\ XVHG WR VLJQLI\ IRUJLYHQHVV ,W LV XVXDOO\ MRLQHG ZLWK ZRUGV IRU PHUF\ VXFK DV NULSD SUDVDGD GD\D RU FRPSDVVLRQ NDUXQD 7KH IDUUHDFKLQJ FRQFHSWV RI IRUJLYHQHVV GXW\ ULJKWHRXVQHVV IRUEHDUDQFH FRPSDVVLRQ DQG SDWLHQFH DUH H[SORUHG LQ WKH HSLFV DQG WKH GKDUPD VDVWUDV WUHDWLVHV RQ ULJKWHRXVQHVVf ,W LV SDUDPRXQW WR SXW WKHVH YLUWXHV LQWR SUDFWLFH 7KURXJK NDUPD SULQFLSOH UROH RI FDXVH DQG HIIHFWf LQGLYLGXDOV GHDO ZLWK WKH FRQVHTXHQFHV RI WKHLU DFWLRQV LQ VXEVHTXHQW UHLQFDUQDWLRQV 7KHUHIRUH RQH FDQ SUHVXPH WKDW LI RQH IDLOV RU UHIXVHV WR IRUJLYH WKH QHJDWLYH IHHOLQJV DQG XQUHVROYHG LVVXHV DORQJ ZLWK WKH KRVWLOLW\ DQG VHHWKLQJ DQJHU QHJDWLYH NDUPD LV GHVWLQHG WR VSLOO RYHU LQWR IXWXUH ELUWKV 7KRVH ZKR GHVLUH WR IROORZ WKH SDWK RI GKDUPD PXVW IROORZ WKH SDWK RI IRUJLYHQHVV FRPSDVVLRQ DQG IRUEHDUDQFH )RUJLYHQHVV KROGV JUHDW LPSRUWDQFH LQ WKH +LQGX WUDGLWLRQ %HFN HW DO f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fV UDWLRQDOLVW FULWLFLVP RI UHSHQWDQFH RIWHQ XQGHUVWRRG WR

PAGE 32

EH D FRQGLWLRQ IRU IRUJLYHQHVVf§f+H ZKR UHSHQWV ZKDW KH GLG LV WZLFH PLVHUDEOHf (WKLFV 3DUW ,9 3URS f VXJJHVWV WKDW VRPHRQH ZKR IRUJLYHV D SHUVRQ ZKR UHSHQWV PD\ EH ZRUVH RII WKDQ EHIRUH 0RVW RI WKH JUHDW PRUDO SKLORVRSKHUV RI WKH SDVW KDYH UHFRJQL]HG WKH LQWULQVLF ZRUWK RI UHWULEXWLRQ DV D UHVSRQVH WR ZURQJGRLQJ .DQW f WLHG UHWULEXWLRQ LQ WKH IUDPHZRUN RI WKH PRUDO ODZ E\ DUJXLQJ WKDW WKH GHVLUH IRU UHWULEXWLRQ DULVHV IURP WKH SHUFHSWLRQ WKDW RQHf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f 2Q RQH KDQG .DQW LV FRUUHFW 7KH ZURQJ FDQ QHYHU EH HUDVHG EXW WKH HIIHFWV LW KDV RQ XV FDQ EH GHIXVHG WR WKH SRLQW WKDW LW KDV QR HIIHFW RQ XV ,W QR ORQJHU KDV WR HQVQDUH DQG FRQWURO WKH YLFWLP +HJHO 1RUWK f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f

PAGE 33

7KH 8QIRUJLYDEOH *ROGLQJ f SRVLWV WKH TXHVWLRQ RI ZKHWKHU WKHUH DUH ZURQJV WKDW DUH VR KHLQRXV VR DWURFLRXV WKDW WKH\ FDQQRW RU VKRXOG QRW RQ PRUDO JURXQGV EH IRUJLYHQ +H LPSOLHV E\ H[DPSOH WKH KRORFDXVW DQG SHUKDSV QRZ ZH FDQ LPDJLQH WKH ERPELQJ RI WKH 7ZLQ 7RZHUV WKDW FHUWDLQ DFWV DUH EH\RQG IRUJLYHQHVV +H VWDWHV fJUDQWLQJ IRUJLYHQHVV WR D PDOHIDFWRU ZKR LV QRW UHJUHWIXO RIWHQ VHHPV WDQWDPRXQW WR FRQGRQLQJ WKH ZURQJf S f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f ZUHVWOHV ZLWK WKLV YHU\ GLOHPPD 7KH ERRN UHODWHV KRZ D *HUPDQ VROGLHU RQ KLV GHDWKEHG DVNV 6LPRQ :LHVHQWKDO D SULVRQHU WR IRUJLYH KLP IRU WKH DWURFLWLHV KH KDV FRPPLWWHG DJDLQVW WKH -HZLVK SHRSOH $V WKH SULVRQHU FODVSV :LHVHQWKDOf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fPD\ EHf RI VXFK D PDJQLWXGH WKDW WKH\ OLH EH\RQG WKH VFRSH RI IRUJLYHQHVV 7KHVH ZURQJV DQG E\ LPSOLFDWLRQ WKRVH ZKR FRPPLWWHG WKHPf H[HPSOLI\ XQIRUJLYDEOH DFWV

PAGE 34

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fV OLIHWLPH OLIH 7KH GHHG LV VR DWURFLRXV WKDW UHVHQWPHQW RI LW ZLOO IRUHYHU EH MXVWLILHG *RYLHU f 7KH SKLORVRSKHU /DQJ f FRQFXUV ZLWK *ROGLQJf§WKHUH DUH VXFK GHHGV WKDW DUH XQIRUJLYDEOH +H RIIHUV KLV ILYH IHDWXUHV RI DFWV UHOHYDQW WR WKHLU VWDWXV DV XQIRUJLYDEOH 7KHVH DUH YROXQWDULVP HVSHFLDOO\ LI HYLGHQFHG RYHU D SURORQJHG WLPH WKH YLRODWLRQ RI DQ LPSRUWDQW YDOXHG PRUDO SULQFLSOH WKH PDJQLWXGH RI WKH FRQVHTXHQFHV WKH ODFN RI DFNQRZOHGJPHQW RU UHSHQWDQFH E\ WKH RIIHQGHU IRU WKH HYLO RI WKH DFW RU DFWV DQG WKH LQDELOLW\ RU UHIXVDO RI WKH RIIHQGHU WR SURYLGH FRPSHQVDWLRQ WR WKH YLFWLP /DQJ f KROGV WKDW WKHUH FDQ YHU\ ZHOO H[LVWV XQIRUJLYDEOH GHHGV DQG WKDW WKHVH FRQGLWLRQV ZRXOG MXVWLI\ IRU KROGLQJ D GHHG RU GHHGV DV XQIRUJLYDEOH $OO WKHVH FODLPV OLQN WKH XQIRUJLYDELOLW\ RI ZURQJGRHUV WR WKH XQIRUJLYDELOLW\ RI WKHLU GHHGV DW WLPHV KRUUHQGRXV EH\RQG GHVFULSWLRQ *RYLHU f $GPLWWHGO\ LI SHRSOH KDYH FRPPLWWHG EDUEDULF DFWV RI DWURFLW\ LW LV IDU PRUH GLIILFXOW WR IRUJLYH RU HYHQ WR KDYH WKH GHVLUH WR IRUJLYH WKHP WKDQ WKRVH DFWV ZKLFK WKRXJK ZURQJ DUH QRW DV VHYHUH 7KH SV\FKRORJLFDO REVWDFOH WKH HPRWLRQDO VWXPEOLQJ EORFN WKDW SUHYHQWV IRUJLYHQHVV RU WKH GHVLUH WR IRUJLYH LV WKDW WKH GHHGV DUH DSSDOOLQJ DQG WKDW WKH YLFWLPV KDYH VXIIHUHG VR

PAGE 35

PXFK 7KH LQVXOW WR ERWK KXPDQLW\ DQG WR PRUDO SULQFLSOHV LV MXVW WRR SURIRXQG ,Q WKLV FRQWH[W LW ZRXOG DSSHDU QHDUO\ LPSRVVLEOH LI QRW LPSRVVLEOH WR HQYLVLRQ WKH ZURQJGRHU DV D SHUVRQ DQG MXVW DV FKDOOHQJLQJ WR FRPSUHKHQG ZK\ DQ\RQH ZRXOG FRPPLW VXFK DFWV 7KHVH DQG VLPLODU DFWV PDNH LW QHDUO\ LPSRVVLEOH WR IHHO HPSDWK\ ZLWK RU FRPSDVVLRQ IRU WKH RIIHQGHU *RYLHU f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fXQIRUJLYDEOHf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

PAGE 36

JURXS UHFHLYHG RQO\ WKHLU QRUPDO GUXJ WUHDWPHQW 7KRVH ZKR UHFHLYHG IRUJLYHQHVV LQ FRQMXQFWLRQ ZLWK WKH GUDJ WUHDWPHQW VKRZHG D PDUNHG GHFUHDVH LQ DQ[LHW\ KRSHOHVVQHVV DQG GHSUHVVLRQ 'HVSLWH \HDUV RI DGGLFWLRQ DQG IDLOXUH FKDQJH ZDV SRVVLEOH (QULJKW f ZURWH DERXW D PDQ ZKR KDG PXUGHUHG D \HDUROG JLUO DVNHG FDQ VXFK D PDQ EH IRUJLYHQ" ,Q WKH PRQWKV VLQFH ILUVW PHW KLP WKLV PDQ KDV XQGHUJRQH D UHPDUNDEOH FKDQJH :KHUHDV DW ILUVW KH ZDV HPRWLRQDOO\ QXPE DQG VDZ KLV FULPH DV WKH LQHYLWDEOH LI DZIXO UHVXOW RI VRFLHW\fV LOOV KH KDV QRZ EHJXQ WR DFFHSW IXOO UHVSRQVLELOLW\ IRU KLV RZQ DFWLRQV $QG KH KDV EHJXQ WR DJRQL]H RYHU KLV QHHG IRU UHSHQWDQFHf§WR ZHHS IRU RWKHUV QRW IRU KLPVHOI &DQ VXFK D PDQ EH IRUJLYHQ" ,I ZH WUXO\ EHOLHYH LQ WKH SRZHU RI IRUJLYHQHVV ZH ZLOO EH FHUWDLQ WKDW KH FDQ :H ZLOO QHYHU FRQGRQH KLV FULPH EXW ZH ZLOO QRW GHQ\ KLP *RGfV JUDFH HLWKHU DQG ZH ZLOO QRW GRXEW WKDW HYHQ KH FDQ UHSHQW DQG EH FKDQJHG $UQROG S f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f§HYLOf§ DQG RXU SURIRXQG DOLHQDWLRQ IURP WKHP DQG DQ\ LQGLYLGXDO WKDW ZLOOLQJO\ DQG NQRZLQJO\ SDUWDNH LQ WKHP %XW WR UHJDUG D SHUSHWUDWRU HYHQ D SHUSHWUDWRU RI WKH ZRUVW DWURFLWLHV LPDJLQDEOH DV DEVROXWHO\ XQIRUJLYDEOH LV DQRWKHU PDWWHU %\ WKDW SRVLWLRQ RQH LV GHFODULQJ WKDW QR RQH VKRXOG HYHU IRUJLYH DQ LQGLYLGXDOf§QR PDWWHU KRZ WKH\ IHHO QR PDWWHU ZKDW RQH VD\V DQG GRHV 7KDW DWWLWXGH LV PRUDOO\ LQGHIHQVLEOH *RYLHU f 0DUJDUHW +ROPJUHQ f EDVHG RQ KHU XQZDYHULQJ EHOLHI IRU WKH UHVSHFW IRU WKH LQGLYLGXDO XSKROGV WKH SRVLWLRQ RI XQLODWHUDO IRUJLYHQHVV 6KH FODLPV WKDW YLFWLPV RI WUDQVJUHVVLRQV PXVW ZRUN WKURXJK WKH GHOLFDWH SURFHVV RI UHVSRQGLQJ WR XQMXVW DFWV LQ

PAGE 37

RUGHU WR DWWDLQ D VWDWH RI JHQXLQH IRUJLYHQHVV 7KLV SURFHVV UHPDLQV FHQWUDO WR WKH UHVWRUDWLRQ RI D YLFWLPfV VHOIUHVSHFW DQG IRUJLYHQHVV LV ERWK SV\FKRORJLFDOO\ DQG HWKLFDOO\ LQDSSURSULDWH ZKHQHYHU LW LV LQFRPSOHWH +ROPJUHQ WDNHV WKH FRXUDJHRXV VWDQG WKDW IRUJLYHQHVV LV DOZD\V DSSURSULDWH ZKHWKHU WKH RIIHQGHU UHSHQWV RU QRW +ROPJUHQfV YLHZV VWHP IURP D UHVSHFWIRUSHUVRQfV WKHRU\ $OO KXPDQ SHUVRQV DUH FDSDEOH RI FKRLFH DQG WKHUHE\ DUH DXWRQRPRXV $OO VKH KROGV KDYH LQWULQVLF YDOXH DQG HTXDO LQWULQVLF YDOXH *URXQGHG RQ WKLV IUDPHZRUN WKH PRUDOO\ DSSURSULDWH DWWLWXGH WR H[WHQG WRZDUG DOO KXPDQ EHLQJVf§ZURQJGRHUV LQFOXGHGf§LV DQ DWWLWXGH RI VLQFHUH JRRGZLOO )RU WKHVH XOWLPDWH PRUDO UHDVRQV DWWLWXGHV RI UHVHQWPHQW KDWUHG DQG LOOZLOO DUH PRUDOO\ REMHFWLRQDEOH DQG XOWLPDWHO\ LQDSSURSULDWH UHVSRQVHV WR D ZURQJGRHU 6XVWDLQHG DQG IHVWHUHG DQJHU DQG LOO ZLOO SUHVXPH WKDW WKH ZURQJGRHUfV FKDUDFWHU DQG SRWHQWLDO DUH LPPXWDEOH DQG OLPLWHG WR KLV ZURQJGRLQJ &RQVHTXHQWO\ WKH ZURQJGRHU DV D SHUVRQ LV QRWKLQJ PRUH WKDQ KLV ZURQJIXO GHHGV DQG LV LQFDSDEOH RI UHIRUP RU IRU DQ\ PRUDOO\ DXWRQRPRXV WUDQVIRUPDWLRQ ,Q LWV DWWULEXWLRQ RI PRUDO IL[DWLYLW\ DQG LQDELOLW\ RU XQZLOOLQJQHVV WR UHFRJQL]H WKH RIIHQGHUfV FDSDFLW\ IRU PRUDO FKDQJH WKH XQIRUJLYLQJ DWWLWXGH DPRXQWV WR D VWDXQFK DWWLWXGH RI GLVUHVSHFW IRU WKH ZURQJGRHU DV D SHUVRQ 5RELQ &DVDUMLDQ f EHOLHYHV WKDW ZLWKLQ HYHU\RQH LV DQ HVVHQFH :KHQ SHRSOH DFW LQ DEXVLYH ZD\V ZH GR QRW VHH WKH WRWDOLW\ RI WKDW LQGLYLGXDO EXW RQO\ WKH IHDUEDVHG IUDJPHQWV RI WKHP )RUJLYHQHVV KHOSV XV VHH EH\RQG WKH OLPLWV RI WKHLU SHUVRQD WR WKH SRWHQWLDO RI WKHLU HVVHQFH WKDW LV ZRUWK\ RI UHVSHFW DQG ORYH *HUDOG -DPSROVN\ f VDLG IRUJLYHQHVV LV D FKRLFH WR VHH WKH fOLJKW LQVWHDG RI WKH ODPSVKDGHf S f $FFRUGLQJ WR &DOLDQ f fIRUJLYHQHVV LV DQ DWWLWXGH RI ODYLVKQHVV DQG XWWHU RSHQQHVV ZKHUH ZH UHIXVH WR EH ERXQG E\ WKH EURNHQQHVV RI RXU OLIH WRJHWKHUf S f )RUJLYHQHVV GRHV QRW SHUPLVVLYHO\ FRQGRQH YLROHQFH EXW LW LV RXU RSWLRQ RI IUHHLQJ RXUVHOYHV IURP RXU QHHG WR

PAGE 38

MXGJH RWKHUV DQG RXUVHOYHV %RU\VHQNR f )RUJLYHQHVV DOORZV XV WR DEVRUE WKH IXOO LPSDFW RI WKH HYLO FRPPLWWHG ZKLOH QRW ORVLQJ VLJKW RI WKH SHUSHWUDWRUfV FRPPRQ KXPDQLW\ *DUWQHU f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

PAGE 39

DOZD\V SHUVRQV WKH PRUDO DJHQWV QRW WKHLU GHHGV ZKR DUH IRUJLYHQ RU KHOG ERXQG *RYLHU f -HDQ +DPSWRQ GHILQHV IRUJLYHQHVV DV fD FKDQJH RI KHDUW WRZDUG WKH ZURQJGRHU LQ ZKLFK RQH GURSV DQ\ HPRWLRQ RI KDWUHG RU UHVHQWPHQW WRZDUG WKHP DQG WKHLU GHHG WDNHV D SURDWWLWXGH WRZDUG WKHP DQG LV GLVSRVHG WR PDNH WKH RIIHU RI UHFRQFLOLDWLRQf 0XUSK\ t +DPSWRQ S f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t+DPSWRQ f 6XSSRUWLQJ WKLV SRVLWLRQ LV $UFKELVKRS 'HVPRQG 7XWX &KDLUPDQ RI 6RXWK $IULFDfV 7UXWK DQG 5HFRQFLOLDWLRQ &RPPLVVLRQ 2EMHFWLQJ WR D QHZVSDSHU FROXPQ LQ ZKLFK SHUSHWUDWRUV RI DWURFLWLHV XQGHU DSDUWKHLG ZHUH UHIHUUHG WR DV PRUDO PRQVWHUV 7XWX f VDLG +RZHYHU PRQVWURXV GHHGV GR QRW WXUQ WKH SHUSHWUDWRUV LQWR PRQVWHUV $ KXPDQ SHUVRQ GRHV QRW XOWLPDWHO\ ORVH KLV RU KHU KXPDQLW\ ZKLFK LV FKDUDFWHUL]HG E\ WKH GLYLQH LPDJH LQ ZKLFK HYHU\ LQGLYLGXDO LV FUHDWHG 7KH SUHPLVH XQGHUO\LQJ WKH FRPPLVVLRQ LV WKDW LW LV SRVVLEOH IRU SHRSOH WR FKDQJH LQVRIDU DV SHUSHWUDWRUV FDQ FRPH WR UHDOL]H WKH HYLO RI WKHLU DFWLRQV DQG HYHQ EH DEOH WR SOHDG IRU WKH IRUJLYHQHVV RI WKRVH WKH\ ZURQJHG WKH VFDOHV FDQ IDOO IURP WKH H\HV RI WKRVH ZKR EHOLHYHG ILUPO\ LQ DSDUWKHLG DQG WKH\ FDQ LQ IDFW VHH WKDW ZKDW WKH\ EHOLHYHG ZDV ZURQJ S f

PAGE 40

:KR LQ UHDOLW\ FDQ IRUJLYH WKH PRVW KHLQRXV DWURFLWLHV FRPPLWWHG DJDLQVW DQRWKHU LQGLYLGXDO DQG UDFH RI SHRSOH" 6LPRQ :LVHQWKDO WKH SULVRQHU LQ D -HZLVK FRQFHQWUDWLRQ FDPS VWUXJJOHG ZLWK WKH VDPH GLOHPPD ZKHQ DVNHG E\ D G\LQJ 1D]L VROGLHU IRU IRUJLYHQHVV 6LPRQ FRXOG QRW DQG ZRXOG QRW RIIHU IRUJLYHQHVV EXW VWLOO UHPDLQHG WURXEOHG E\ KLV GHFLVLRQ 7KH ERRN 7KH 6XQIORZHU f DVNV SURPLQHQW FLWL]HQV ZKDW WKH\ ZRXOG KDYH GRQH LQ WKH VDPH VLWXDWLRQ 7KHUH LV QR FRQVHQVXV 6RPH ZRXOG IRUJLYH RWKHUV QRW ,Q D VWXG\ FRQGXFWHG LQ ,VUDHO 0D]RU *DPSHO (QULJKW t 2UHQVWHLQ f ZKHUH WKH VXEMHFWV ZHUH +RORFDXVW VXUYLYRUV PDQ\ IHOW DQ REOLJDWLRQ QRW WR IRUJLYH WKHLU 1D]L SHUSHWUDWRUV 7KH\ UHDVRQHG WKDW WKLV ZRXOG EH WKH VDPH DV IRUJHWWLQJ DQG WKHUHIRUH WDFLWO\ FRQGRQLQJ WKH DWURFLWLHV ZKLFK ZRXOG EH FRQGHPQDWRU\ $ FUXFLDO SRLQW LV WKH GLVWLQFWLRQ WKDW PXVW EH PDGH EHWZHHQ WKH GHHGV DQG WKH DJHQWV )RUJLYHQHVV DQG KHQFH XQIRUJLYDELOLW\ DSSOLHV WR WKH DJHQWV DQG QRW GHHGV %DVHG RQ WKLV SUHPLVH QR PRUDO DJHQWV DUH HYHU DEVROXWHO\ XQIRUJLYDEOH *RYLHU f )RUJLYHQHVV LV YLUWXRXV EHFDXVH RQHfV DQJHU LV UHOLQTXLVKHG EXW ZLWKRXW DEDQGRQLQJ FRUUHFW MXGJPHQW DERXW WKH VHYHULW\ DQG SHUKDSV FUXHOW\ RI WKH RIIHQVH DQG WKH FXOSDELOLW\ RI WKH RIIHQGHU 5REHUWV f &RQIOLFWLQJ 9LHZ RI )RUJLYHQHVV 7KH EDVLV IRU WKH UHOXFWDQFH DQG IHDU RI IRUJLYLQJ DQ RIIHQGHU ZKR LV JXLOW\ RI D VHULRXV FULPH HVSHFLDOO\ DQ XQUHSHQWDQW RIIHQGHUf LV WKH VXSSRVLWLRQ WKDW E\ IRUJLYLQJ ZH DUH HVVHQWLDOO\ DJUHHLQJ ZLWK WKH FODLP WKDW ZH GR QRW GHVHUYH D IXOO PHDVXUH RI UHVSHFW ,Q HIIHFW ZH DUH VD\LQJ f7KDWfV RND\ LW GRHVQfW PDWWHU WKDW \RX PLVWUHDWHG PH ,fP QRW WKDW LPSRUWDQWf 7KH UHIXVDO WR IRUJLYH PD\ EH EDVHG QRW VR PXFK RQ D PRWLYH IRU UHYHQJH EXW RQ D KHDOWK\ GHVLUH WR PDLQWDLQ RQHfV RZQ VHOIUHVSHFW +ROPJUHQ f 3DUDGR[LFDOO\ LW LV LQ IRUJLYLQJ WKDW RQH QRW RQO\ PDLQWDLQV EXW LQFUHDVHV LQ VHOIUHVSHFW

PAGE 41

RU ULVHV DERYH WKH EDVH GULYH IRU UHWULEXWLRQ 7R DFFRPSOLVK WKLV RQH EHJLQV E\ ORRNLQJ DW WKH LQFLGHQW IURP RQHfV RZQ SHUVSHFWLYH 2QH PXVW UHFRJQL]H WKDW WKH ZURQJGRHU LVZDV PLVWDNHQ DERXW WKH LQGLYLGXDOf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fV PLVJXLGHG DQG SDLQIXO DWWHPSW WR PHHW KLVKHU RZQ QHHGV 5HJDUGLQJ WKH RIIHQGHU IURP WKLV SRLQW RI YLHZ UHJDUGOHVV RI ZKHWKHU WKH SHUSHWUDWRU UHSHQWV DQG UHJDUGOHVV RI ZKDW ZDV GRQH RU VXIIHUHGf RQH SODFHV RQHVHOI LQ D SRVLWLRQ WR IRUJLYH WKH ZURQJGRHU 7KLV WUXH VHOIUHVSHFW OHDGV WR JHQXLQH IRUJLYHQHVV RI WKH RIIHQGHU :KHQ RQH DFWV RXW RI VHOI UHVSHFW RQHfV VHOIUHVSHFW LQFUHDVHV (YHU\ DFWLRQ WDNHQ WRZDUG IRUJLYHQHVV LQFUHDVHV WKH LQGLYLGXDOfV VHOIUHVSHFW +ROPJUHQ f 7KH 3DUDPHWHUV RI )RUJLYHQHVV :KDW 1HHGV WR %H )RUJLYHQ" 9HHQVWUD f KROGV WKDW QRW HYHU\ SUREOHP WKDW RFFXUV EHWZHHQ WZR SHRSOH UHTXLUHV IRUJLYHQHVV 6RPHWLPHV WKHUH DUH MXVW GLIILFXOWLHV WKDW PHUHO\ UHTXLUH PXWXDO SUREOHP VROYLQJ +RZHYHU DFWV WKDW DUH LQMXULRXV DQG XQMXVW XVXDOO\ FUHDWH D VHQVH RI

PAGE 42

EHLQJ ZURQJHG RIIHQGHG RU LQVXOWHG DQG VHHN D PRUH VDOXWDU\ PHWKRG WR KHDO DQG PHQG WKH ZRXQG DQG LQLWLDWH WKH QHFHVVDU\ FRUUHFWLYH SURFHVV :KR &DQ :H )RUJLYH" 2f6KDXJKQHVV\ f FODLPV WKDW IRUJLYHQHVV FDQ H[LVW RQO\ LQ UHODWLRQVKLSV WKDW DUH SUHH[LVWLQJ FORVH DQG ORYLQJ RQHV DV LW ZRXOG EH LQDSSURSULDWH DQG LPSUREDEOH IRU VWUDQJHUV .ROQDL f UHVWULFWV IRUJLYHQHVV RQO\ WR LQWHUSHUVRQDO HTXDOV ,W LV WKH RSLQLRQ RI WKLV DXWKRU DQG RWKHUV &XQQLQJKDP 1RUWK f WKDW IRUJLYHQHVV LV IDU EURDGHU IRU LW LV D JLIW IUHHO\ EHVWRZHG XSRQ DQ\RQH ZKR KDV RIIHQGHG DQRWKHU $ 6NHSWLFDO 9LHZ RI )RUJLYLQJ 1LHW]VFKH f FODLPHG WKDW IRUJLYHQHVV LV D VLJQ RI PRUDO ZHDNQHVV DQG WKDW WKRVH ZKR IRUJLYH DUH ZHDN DQG XQDEOH WR DVVHUW WKHLU ULJKW IRU D MXVW VROXWLRQ 2Q WKH FRQWUDU\ IRUJLYHQHVV LV SHUIRUPHG E\ WKH VWURQJ QRW WKH ZHDN $FFHSWDQFH RU DEVRUSWLRQ RI SDLQ ZLWKRXW FRXQWHUDFWLQJ ZLWK VLPLODU HPRWLRQV WKRXJKWV RU EHKDYLRU LV DW WKH YHU\ KHDUW RI IRUJLYHQHVV 7KH RIIHQGHG SHUVRQ VRDNV XS WKH SDLQ DV D VSRQJH GRHV ZDWHU VR WKDW WKH\ GR QRW WUDQVIHU WKDW SDLQ EDFN WR WKH RIIHQGHU RU RWKHUV 7KLV KLJKOLJKWV WKH JLIW OLNH TXDOLW\ RI IRUJLYHQHVV DV WKH IRUJLYHU SXWV DQ HQG WR WKH F\FOH RI UHYHQJH WKDW RWKHUZLVH PD\ KDUP RU GHVWUR\ WKH RIIHQGHU DQG RWKHUV f7R EH DEOH WR IRUJLYH \RX PXVW KDYH WKH JXWV WR ORRN DW WKH ZURQJQHVV WKH KDUGQHVV WKH ZLFNHGQHVV RI ZKDW VRPHERG\ GLG WR \RX :H FDQQRW FDPRXIODJH ZH FDQQRW H[FXVH ZH FDQQRW LJQRUH ZH H\H WKH HYLO IDFH WR IDFH DQG ZH FDOO LW ZKDW LW LVf 6PHGHV S f 7KLV WDVN LV QRW IRU WKH ZHDN EXW UDWKHU IRU WKH VWURQJ $ PRGHP SV\FKRORJLFDO VWXG\ 7UDLQHU f HOXFLGDWHV ZK\ SHUKDSV WKLV YLHZ LV QRW XQFRPPRQ 7UDLQHU IRXQG YDULRXV DSSURDFKHV WR IRUJLYHQHVV RQH RI ZKLFK KH ODEHOHG UROHH[SHFWHG ZKLFK FRLQFLGHV WR 1LHW]VFKHfV YLHZSRLQW WKDW IRUJLYHQHVV LV QRW

PAGE 43

FKRVHQ EXW IRUFHG XSRQ DQRWKHU ,Q WKLV DSSURDFK WKH fIRUJLYHUf VHQVHV D PRUDO RU UHOLJLRXV LPSHUDWLYH IURP DQ RXWVLGH DXWKRULW\ WR IRUJLYH HYHQ WKRXJK KH RU VKH QHLWKHU GHVLUHV QRU LV FRQYLQFHG RI LW PHULWV 8QDEOH WR UHWDOLDWH DJDLQVW WKH VXSHULRU ZKR RIIHQGHG WKH fIRUJLYHUf JUXGJLQJO\ IRUVZHDUV MXVWLFH DOO WKH ZKLOH KDUERULQJ UHVHQWPHQW DQG ORZ VHOIHVWHHP 7KLV WKRXJK IDOOLQJ XQGHU WKH KHDGLQJ RI IRUJLYHQHVV LV D GHVFULSWLRQ RI SVHXGR RU IDOVH IRUJLYHQHVV *HQXLQH IRUJLYHQHVV LQ FRQWUDVW LV FHQWHUHG LQ D FRXUDJHRXV IUHH DFW RI JLYLQJ DV 1RUWK f GHIHQGV 1RUWK PDLQWDLQV WKDW IRUJLYHQHVV LV WUXO\ DQ DFW RI FRXUDJH QRW FRZDUGLFH LQYROYLQJ WLPH DQG GHPDQGLQJ HPRWLRQDO VWUXJJOH ZKLFK LV KDUGO\ FKDUDFWHULVWLF RI WKH ZHDN +ROPJUHQ f IXUWKHU DGYDQFHG 1RUWKfV SRVLWLRQ E\ DUJXLQJ WKDW IRUJLYHQHVV LV DQ DFW RI VHOIUHVSHFW ,Q FRQWUDVW WR WKH 1LHW]FKLDQ SRVLWLRQ RWKHUV FODLP WKDW fIRUJLYHQHVVf UDWKHU WKDQ VXEMXJDWLQJ WKH IRUJLYHU SXWV WKH LQGLYLGXDO LQ D RQHXS SRVLWLRQ WKXV GRPLQDWLQJ WKH fIRUJLYHQf $XJVEXUJHU &XQQLQJKDP 6PHGHV f 'UROO f LPSUHVVLYHO\ EHOLHYHV WKDW IRUJLYHQHVV PLJKW VHSDUDWH XV IURP RXU ORZHU QDWXUH DV DJJUHVVLYH EHLQJV ,QLWLDOO\ UHWDOLDWLRQ LV PRUH QDWXUDO 0DQ\ LQ WKH KHOSLQJ SURIHVVLRQ FODLP WKDW LW LV WKH GHHS DQG ORQJ ODVWLQJ DQJHU QRW WKH JLIW RI IRUJLYHQHVV WKDW FDQ EH DOLHQDWLQJ WR VHOI DQG RWKHUV %UDQGVPD )LW]JLEERQV +XQWHU f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f 5DWKHU

PAGE 44

IRUJLYHQHVV HQWDLOV WKH FHVVDWLRQ RI QHJDWLYH DIIHFW DQG UHSODFLQJ LW ZLWK SRVLWLYH DIIHFW VXFK DV FRPSDVVLRQ DQG ORYH )RUJLYHQHVV SXWV DQ HQG WR FRQGHPQLQJ MXGJPHQWV DQG DOORZV IRU WKH SUHVHQFH RI PRUH SRVLWLYH MXGJPHQWV ,I SUHVHQW WKHUH DOVR FDQ EH WKH FHVVDWLRQ RI QHJDWLYH EHKDYLRUV HJ UHYHQJHf DQG WKH SUHVHQFH RI SRVLWLYH EHKDYLRUV KHOSIXOQHVV RYHUWXUHV WRZDUG UHFRQFLOLDWLRQf (QULJKW t +'5* Df 7KHUH UHPDLQV WKH IHDU WKDW WKH DEXVHU LI IRUJLYHQ ZLOO FRQWLQXH WR DEXVH DV ORQJ DV WKH UHFLSLHQW RI RQHfV PHUF\ 7KLV IHDU LV EDVHG RQ D IDOVH QRWLRQ RI IRUJLYHQHVV 7R IRUJLYH GRHV QRW PHDQ WR HDVLO\ DFTXLHVFH EOLQGO\ WR KDUVK GHPDQGV 7R IRUJLYH ILUVW GHPDQGV DQ LQQHU FRQYHUVLRQ DQG WR EHJLQ VHHLQJ WKH RWKHU LQ D QHZ ZD\ DV D PHPEHU RI WKH KXPDQ FRPPXQLW\ UDWKHU WKDQ DV HYLO LQFDUQDWH 7KLV HQOLJKWHQPHQW DQG WKH RIIHU RI D JLIW RI IRUJLYHQHVV OHDYHV RSHQ WKH SRVVLELOLW\ RI WKH RWKHUfV WUDQVIRUPDWLRQ ZKLFK PD\ OHDG WR QRW RQO\ QHJRWLDWLRQ EXW DOVR IRU KHDUWIHOW PXWXDO UHVSHFW XQGHUVWDQGLQJ DQG JRRGZLOO f:KDW LV DQQXOOHG LQ WKH DFW RI IRUJLYHQHVV LV QRW WKH FULPH LWVHOI EXW WKH GLVWRUWLRQ HIIHFW WKDW WKH ZURQJ KDV XSRQ RQHfV UHODWLRQV ZLWK WKH ZURQJGRHU DQG SHUKDSV ZLWK RWKHUVf 1RUWK S f :KDW )RUJLYHQHVV ,V 1RW %HIRUH GHILQLQJ IRUJLYHQHVV LW LV SHUKDSV ZLVH DQG EHWWHU VXLWHG LI ILUVW ZH GLVWLQJXLVK ZKDW IRUJLYHQHVV LV QRW 7RR HDVLO\ IRUJLYHQHVV LV PLVLQWHUSUHWHG DVVRFLDWHG RU FRQIXVHG ZLWK VLPLODU EXW GLVWLQFW WHUPV ZKLFK LPSHGHV DQ DGHTXDWH XQGHUVWDQGLQJ DQG DSSUHFLDWLRQ IRU LW )RUJLYHQHVV ,V 1RW &RQGRQDWLRQ 7R FRQGRQH DQ HYLO LV VLPSO\ WR LJQRUH LW QRW DFNQRZOHGJH LW RU WR SUHWHQG DV LI LW ZHUH JRRG 6PHGHV f &RQGRQLQJ LQYROYHV UHIXVLQJ WR ODEHO D JLYHQ DFW DV REMHFWLRQDEOH FRQGRQLQJ PD\ EH YLHZHG DV UHIXVDO WR DFNQRZOHGJH WKDW D GHEW H[LVWV

PAGE 45

)RUJLYHQHVV LQ FRQWUDVW ILUVW DQG IRUHPRVW UHTXLUHV UHFRJQLWLRQ WKDW KDUP GLG RFFXU DORQJ ZLWK D FRQVFLRXV GHFLVLRQ WR UHOHDVH WKH SHUSHWUDWRU IURP WKH GHEW ([OLQH t %DXPHLVWHU f 7KRVH ZKR FRQGRQH LQMXVWLFH RYHUORRN WKH XQIDLUQHVV 3KLORVRSKHU 5REHUW 5REHUWV f SRLQWHG RXW WKDW FRQGRQLQJ LV GRXEOHPLQGHG :KHQ ZH FRQGRQH ZH DGPLW WKDW DQ DFWLRQ LV PRUDOO\ ZURQJ EXW WKHQ DW WKH VDPH WLPH GHQ\ WKH VHULRXVQHVV RI WKH DFWLRQ &RQGRQLQJ PRUDO RIIHQVHV GRHV QRW OHDG WR FKDUDFWHU GHYHORSPHQW DGHTXDWH VROXWLRQ RU PHQWDO KHDOWK 0F&XOORXJK 6DQGDJH t :RUWKLQJWRQ f 7KH IRUJLYLQJ SHUVRQ LQ FRQWUDVW RSHQ WR SHUKDSV D KDUVK UHDOLW\ DFNQRZOHGJHV WKH LQMXVWLFH EXW GHWHUPLQHV WR QR ORQJHU MXGJH WKH SHUVRQ H[FOXVLYHO\ LQ WHUPV RI ZKDW WKH\ GLG 7KH IRUJLYHU VHHV EH\RQG WKH LPPRUDO DFWLRQ DQG GLVFRYHUV D SHUVRQ ZKR SRVVHVVHV LQKHUHQW ZRUWK $O0DEXN (QULJKW t &DUGLV f )RUJLYHQHVV ,V 1RW WKH 6DPH DV ([FXVLQJ 7R H[FXVH LV WR MXGJH WKH VHHPLQJO\ KDUPIXO HYHQW DV QRW ZRUWK D TXDUUHO .ROQDL f ,Q IRUJLYHQHVV RQH GRHV DFNQRZOHGJH WKH ULJKW WR D TXDUUHO EXW ZLOOLQJO\ DEDQGRQV LW (QULJKW *DVVLQ t :X f )RUJLYHQHVV ,V 1RW ,QGLIIHUHQFH 7KH IRUJLYHU GRHV QRW PLQLPL]H RU QHJDWH WKH KDUP GRQH E\ WKH DFW E\ GLVPLVVLQJ WKH LQMXU\ DV XQLPSRUWDQW EXW UHFRJQL]HV WKH KDUP GRQH DQG FKRRVHV WR RYHUFRPH LW ZKLFK DW WLPHV FDQ GHPDQG JUHDW HIIRUW DQG HQHUJ\ (DVWLQ f 7KHVH ILUVW WKUHH PLVFRQFHSWLRQV RI IRUJLYLQJQHVVf§FRQGRQLQJ H[FXVLQJ DQG LQGLIIHUHQFHf§DUH WKHRUHWLFDOO\ QRW UHDOO\ IRUPV RI IRUJLYHQHVV ,Q DOO RI WKHVH WKH LQMXULQJ SHUVRQ KDV GRQH QRWKLQJ ZURQJ 7KHUH KDV EHHQ RQO\ D PLVXQGHUVWDQGLQJ D GLIIHUHQFH RI RSLQLRQ RU D GLVDJUHHPHQW WKDW KDV FUHDWHG WKH FRQIOLFW EHWZHHQ WKH WZR SHRSOH :KHUH WKHUH LV QR ZURQJGRLQJ WKHUH LV QR QHHG IRU WKH IRUJLYHQHVV 1R GRXEW

PAGE 46

WKHVH WKUHH FRQFHSWV DUH RIWHQ FDOOHG IRUJLYHQHVV EXW LQ WUXWK DUH IDOVH UHSUHVHQWDWLRQV RI LW 9HHQVWUD f 7KH PRUDO GHYHORSPHQW RI IRUJLYHQHVV WDNHV SODFH LQ WKH FRQWH[W RI D VHULRXV LQMXVWLFH WKDW LV UHFRJQL]HG DV VHULRXV 7KRVH ZKR FRQGRQH LQMXVWLFH FKRRVH WR RYHUORRN WKH XQIDLUQHVV )RUJLYHQHVV LQ FRQWUDVW LV QRW EOLQG WR EXW DFNQRZOHGJHV WKH LQMXVWLFH IRU WKH IRUJLYHU QR ORQJHU MXGJHV WKH SHUVRQ H[FOXVLYHO\ LQ WHUPV RI ZKDW WKH\ GLG 7KH IRUJLYHU ORRNV EH\RQG WKH DFWLRQ WR GLVFRYHU D SHUVRQ ZKR SRVVHVVHV LQKHUHQW ZRUWK (QULJKW t +XPDQ 'HYHORSPHQW 6WXG\ *URXS >+'6*@ f %HFDXVH D IRUJLYHU DFNQRZOHGJHV WKH RWKHUfV LQMXVWLFH IRUJLYHQHVV FDQQRW EH HTXDWHG ZLWK FRQGRQLQJ RU H[FXVLQJ WKH RWKHUfV DFWLRQV 7R FRQGRQH LV WR SXW XS ZLWK WKH LQMXVWLFH EHFDXVH RI PLWLJDWLQJ FLUFXPVWDQFHV IHDU RI FRQIURQWDWLRQ SHUKDSV ZKLOH VWLOO VPROGHULQJ ZLWK UHVHQWPHQW (QULJKW HW DO f :KHUHDV FRQGRQDWLRQ GHQLHV UHVHQWPHQW IRUJLYHQHVV VWULYHV WR RYHUFRPH LW ZLWK FRPSDVVLRQ DQG ORYH 1RUWK f )RUJLYHQHVV ,V 1RW )RUJHWWLQJ &DODQ f FRQVLGHUV WKH FOLFK fIRUJLYH DQG IRUJHWf DQG VWDWHV WKDW LW LV QRW KXPDQO\ SRVVLEOH KXPDQO\ RU HYHQ ELEOLFDOO\ VRXQG +H EHOLHYHV WKDW SUHFLVHO\ EHFDXVH ZH DUH DVNHG WR IRUJLYH ZLWKRXW IRUJHWWLQJ IRUJLYHQHVV EHFRPHV PRUH WKH FKDOOHQJH LQYROYLQJ SRVVLEO\ D SDLQIXO OHQJWK\ SURFHVV (OL]RQGR f FRQWHQGV WKDW WKH UHDO YLUWXH RI IRUJLYHQHVV UHYHDOV LWVHOI QRW ZKHQ WKH VWLQJ RI WKH LQMXU\ PD\ HWKHUL]HG LQ WKH UHFHVVHV RI RQHfV PHPRU\ EXW LQ IRUJLYLQJ SUHFLVHO\ ZKLOH UHPHPEHULQJ DQG VWLOO IHHOLQJ WKH KXUW )RU (OL]RQGR WR IRUJLYH LV QRW WR IRUJHW EXW ZKLOH VWLOO FRQVFLRXV RI WKH ZURQJ RQH FKRRVHV WR EH OLEHUDWHG IURP WKH LQQHU DQJHU UHVHQWPHQW DQG GHVLUH IRU YHQJHDQFH WKDW FRQVXPHV DQ LQMXUHG SHUVRQ 'HHGV IRUJLYHQ QHHG QRW UHTXLUH WR EH IRUJRWWHQ :KHQ ZH IRUJLYH ZH PD\ FHUWDLQO\ VWLOO

PAGE 47

UHPHPEHU ZURQJV WKDW ZHUH GRQH DQG ZH DUH PRUH WKDQ OLNHO\ WR UHPHPEHU WKHP LI WKHVH ZURQJV ZHUH VHULRXV ,W LV KDUGO\ SODXVLEOH LI QRW LPSRVVLEOH WR WKLQN WKDW VRPHRQH OLNH 1HOVRQ 0DQGHOD f FDQ IRUJHW KLV \HDUV LQ SULVRQ DQG DIWHUZDUG IRUJLYH KLV RSSUHVVRUV ZKRVH DSDUWKHLG UHJLPH KDG SXW KLP WKHUH 3RLJQDQW DUH KLV ZRUGV UHJDUGLQJ KHDOLQJ IURP WKH ZRXQGV RI LQMXVWLFH :H UHFDOO RXU WHUULEOH SDVW VR WKDW ZH FDQ GHDO ZLWK LW IRUJLYLQJ ZKHUH IRUJLYHQHVV LV QHFHVVDU\f§EXW QRW IRUJHWWLQJ %\ UHPHPEHULQJ ZH FDQ HQVXUH WKDW QHYHU DJDLQ ZLOO VXFK LQKXPDQLW\ WHDU XV DSDUW DQG ZH FDQ HUDGLFDWH D GDQJHURXV OHJDF\ WKDW VWLOO OXUNV DV D WKUHDW WR RXU GHPRFUDF\ S f 7R IRUJLYH LV QRW WR EH RYHUFRPH E\ VRPH SHFXOLDU IRUP RI DPQHVLD UHJDUGLQJ WKH ZURQJV VXIIHUHG EXW UDWKHU WR UHJDUG RQHVf SHUSHWUDWRUV DQG WKH ZURQJV WKHPVHOYHV LQ WKH PRUDO OLJKW RI DFFHSWDQFH DQG FRPSDVVLRQ UDWKHU WKDQ LQ VWLQJ RI UHVHQWPHQW DQG KDWUHG *RYLHU f )DWKHU /DZUHQFH -HQFR D KRVWDJH LQ %HLUXW LQ IRU PRQWKV DGPLWWHG WKDW WKRXJK KH KDG IRUJLYHQ KLV FDSWRUV KH KDV QRW IRUJRWWHQ $GPLWWHGO\ KH ZRXOG KDYH WR VXIIHU VRPH JUDQG EODFNRXW WR IRUJHW VXFK D ZUHQFKLQJ SDLQIXO RUGHDO &OHDUO\ D GHHS SV\FKRORJLFDO WUDXPD LV UDUHO\ ZLSHG IURP PHPRU\ .ROQDL 6PHGHV f XQOHVV RWKHU SV\FKRORJLFDO GHIHQVHV FRPH LQWR SOD\ ZKLFK LV QHYHU D FXUH RU KHDOLQJ EXW D TXLFN HQWUDQFH WR RWKHU HPRWLRQDO DQG SV\FKRORJLFDO VFDUV )RUJHWWLQJ LJQRUHV WKH MXVWLILHG QHHGV RI WKH RIIHQGHU E\ GULYLQJ WKH VHQVH RI EHLQJ ZURQJHG GHHS LQWR RQHfV RZQ EHLQJ ZKHUH UHVHQWPHQW DZDLWV WR GR LWV VORZ GHVWUXFWLYH ZRUN :KHUHDV IRUJHWWLQJ LV QHJDWLYH SDVVLYH IRUJLYLQJ LV SRVLWLYH DQG FUHDWLYH $XJVEXUJHU f f)RUJHWWLQJ LV GDQJHURXV 7R IRUJHW LV WR UHSUHVV DQG GHQ\ ZKDW KDSSHQHG ZKLFK LV VHOIGHVWUXFWLYH ,W DOORZV \RX WR VXIIHU WKH VDPH KXUW UHSHDWHGO\f 6PHGHV S f

PAGE 48

)RUJLYHQHVV LV QRW VLPSO\ D VORZ GLPLQLVKLQJ RI DQJU\ IHHOLQJ DFURVV WLPH +RUVEUXJK f )RUJLYHQHVV GHPDQGV DFWLRQ DQG RZQHUVKLS DQG UHTXLUHV HQHUJ\ )LW]JLEERQV +RUVEUXJK f ,W LV D FRQVWDQW VWUXJJOH WR UHOHDVH WKH RWKHU ZKLOH \RX DUH VWLOO LQ WKH JULSV RI KXUW DQG DQJHU (QULJKW *DVVLQ t :X f )RUJLYHQHVV ,V 1RW 7ROHUDQFH 7ROHUDQFH FDQ RQO\ HYHQWXDOO\ OHDG WR SDLQ DQG WXUPRLO 7ROHUDWH HYHU\WKLQJ VRPHRQH GRHV DQG \RX ZLOO EH LQ IRU D ORW RI EDG WURXEOH 6PHGHV f )RUJLYHQHVV FRQIURQWV WKH HYLO UDWKHU WKDQ EH GRPLQDWHG E\ LW LW RYHUFRPHV LWV WR[LQ WKURXJK ORYH )RUJLYHQHVV ,V 1RW 6HOIFHQWHULQJ )RUJLYLQJ DQRWKHU LV QRW VROHO\ PRWLYDWHG E\ WKH GHVLUH WR EH ULG RI VWURQJ QHJDWLYH HPRWLRQV 5LFKDUGV f 7KH IRUJLYHU DOVR ORRNV WRZDUG WKH RWKHU ZLWK DQ RSHQQHVV DQG ZLOOLQJQHVV WR MRLQ LQ FRPPXQLW\ ZLWK KLP RU KHU (QULJKW t +'6* Ef )RUJLYHQHVV LV ERWK D JLIW WR RQHVHOI DQG WR WKH RWKHU )RUJLYHQHVV ,V 'LVWLQFW IURP -XVWLFH -XVWLFH LQYROYHV UHFLSURFLW\ RI VRPH NLQG ZKHUHDV IRUJLYHQHVV LV DQ XQFRQGLWLRQDO JLIW JLYHQ WR RQH ZKR GRHV QRW GHVHUYH LW (QULJKW *DVVLQ t :X f 7KH REMHFWLYH RI MXVWLFH LV WR UHVWRUH HTXDOLW\ ZKHUH LQHTXDOLW\ H[LVWV ,Q IRUJLYHQHVV WKH RIIHQGHG SHUVRQ GRHV QRW UHVWRUH HTXDOLW\ QRU GR WKH\ VHHN LWV UHVWRUDWLRQ IURP WKH RWKHUf§WKLV LV WKH UHDOP RI MXVWLFHf ,QVWHDG LQ IRUJLYHQHVV WKH RIIHQGHG UHODWLYH WR WKH RIIHQGHU UHFRJQL]HV WKH HTXDOLW\ RI WKHLU FRPPRQO\ VKDUHG KXPDQLW\ 7KLV HTXDOLW\ H[LVWHG EHIRUH GXULQJ DQG DIWHU WKH KXUWIXO HYHQW 7KXV ZH GR QRW UHVWRUH ZKDW ZDV QHYHU WDNHQ DZD\f§RXU KXPDQLW\ RXU EDVLF ZRUWK )RUJLYHQHVV KHOSV XV UHFRJQL]H WKDW VXFK HTXDOLW\ KDV H[LVWHG XQFRQGLWLRQDOO\ WRZDUG DQRWKHU ,Q VXP WKH HTXDOLW\ ZH VWULYH IRU LQ MXVWLFH FRQFHUQV

PAGE 49

KRZ ZH WUHDW RQH DQRWKHU 7KH HTXDOLW\ LPSOLHG LQ IRUJLYLQJ RWKHUV FRQFHUQV ZKR ZH DUH UHJDUGOHVV RI KRZ WKH\ WUHDW XV (QULJKW *DVVLQ t :X f )RUJLYHQHVV ,V 1RW 3DUGRQLQJ )RUJLYHQHVV LV DQ LQQHU SHUVRQDO FKRLFH 3DUGRQ LV XVXDOO\ WKRXJKW RI DV D SXEOLF EHKDYLRUDO UHOHDVH VXFK DV ZKHUH D SULVRQHU LV VHW IUHH IURP MDLO +XQWHU f
PAGE 50

7R H[RQHUDWH E\ DSSO\LQJ D VWDWXWH RI OLPLWDWLRQV SULPDULO\ D OHJDO FRQFHSWf KDV SUDFWLFDO FRQVHTXHQFHV VLPLODU WR WKRVH RI IRUJLYHQHVV EXW DOVR H[FOXGHV D QXPEHU RI WKH ODWWHUf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f )RUJLYHQHVV ,V 1RW 5HFRQFLOLDWLRQ 3HUKDSV WKH PRVW FRPPRQ PLVFRQFHSWLRQ RI IRUJLYHQHVV LV WR HTXDWH LW ZLWK UHFRQFLOLDWLRQ $ FRPPRQ DUJXPHQW DJDLQVW IRUJLYHQHVV LV WKDW LW SRWHQWLDOO\ OHDYHV WKH IRUJLYHU RSHQ WR IXUWKHU DEXVH 7KLV LV LQYDOLG EHFDXVH LW FRQIXVHV UHFRQFLOLDWLRQ ZLWK IRUJLYHQHVV )RUJLYHQHVV LV D VLQJOH LQGLYLGXDOfV RU JURXSf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fV IDXOWV EXW WDNH VWHSV WR SURWHFW WKHPVHOYHV IURP DQ\ IXWXUH KDUP (QULJKW t +'6* f )RUJLYHQHVV DQG UHFRQFLOLDWLRQ DUH RFFDVLRQDOO\ FRQIXVHG HYHQ LQ WKH SXEOLVKHG OLWHUDWXUH HJ /DXULW]HQ f )RUJLYHQHVV LV DQ LQWHUQDO UHOHDVH UHFRQFLOLDWLRQ LV D

PAGE 51

EHKDYLRUDO FRPLQJ WRJHWKHU DJDLQ )RUJLYHQHVV PD\ EH D QHFHVVDU\ SUHUHTXLVLWH IRU UHFRQFLOLDWLRQ EXW UHFRQFLOLDWLRQ GHPDQGV PRUH )RUJLYHQHVV LV QRW UHFRQFLOLDWLRQ RU D FRPLQJ WRJHWKHU DJDLQ 7UDLQHU f 2QH PD\ EH DEOH WR IRUJLYH EXW QRW DEOH WR UHFRQFLOH ZLWK KLVKHU WUDQVJUHVVRU ,Q IDFW LQ FHUWDLQ FRQWH[WV WKLV GLVWLQFWLRQ ZRUNV LQ IDYRU RI WKH YLFWLP :KHQ D IHHOLQJ RI KDYLQJ EHHQ YLRODWHG RU YLFWLPL]HG E\ DQRWKHU RU ZKHQ RQH VHQVHV WKDW VRPHWKLQJ XQIDLU RU XQMXVW KDV WUDQVSLUHG RQH PD\ EH LQFDSDEOH WR FRQVLGHU UHFRQFLOLDWLRQ ,Q WKHVH FRQWH[WV WKHUDSHXWLF HIIRUWV WKDW GHOLEHUDWHO\ PDNH WKH GLVWLQFWLRQ EHWZHHQ IRUJLYHQHVV DQG UHFRQFLOLDWLRQ PLJKW IDFLOLWDWH WKH FOLHQWfV ZLOOLQJQHVV WR DGGUHVV RQHfV DQJHU RU KXUW ZKLFK WKH\ PD\ KDYH SUHYLRXVO\ UHVLVWHG GRLQJ EHFDXVH WR GR VR ZRXOG KDYH VHHPHG WR LPSO\ WKDW WKH\ ZHUH ZLOOLQJ WR FRQWHPSODWH UHFRQFLOLDWLRQ )RZ f 7KRXJK UHFRQFLOLDWLRQ PD\ EH WKH UHVXOW RI IRUJLYHQHVV IRUJLYHQHVV FDQ EH REWDLQHG ZLWKRXW WKH DLG RI UHFRQFLOLDWLRQ 7KRXJK WKHUH PD\ QRW EH UHFRQFLOLDWLRQ WKHUH LV DOZD\V WKH RSHQQHVV DQG ZLOOLQJQHVV IRU WKDW WR WDNH SODFH 6PHGHV f :KLOH IRUJLYHQHVV LV DQ LQWHUQDO SV\FKRORJLFDO UHVSRQVH WR LQMXU\ UHFRQFLOLDWLRQ LV D EHKDYLRUDO FRPLQJ WRJHWKHU DJDLQ RIWHQ IROORZLQJ QHJRWLDWLRQ ,W LV SRVVLEOH IRU VRPHRQH WR IRUJLYH ZLWKRXW UHFRQFLOLDWLRQ EXW RQH ZKR IRUJLYHV KDV WKH KRSH WKDW WKH RWKHU PD\ FKDQJH 3LDJHW f )RUJLYHUV OHDYH RSHQ WKH GRRU WR UHFRQFLOLDWLRQ EXW QR RQH FDQ FRPSHO WKH RIIHQGHU WR ZDON WKURXJK LW ,Q RUGHU IRU UHFRQFLOLDWLRQ WR WDNH SODFH WKH RIIHQGHU PXVW EH ZLOOLQJ WR FKDQJH RQHfV KDUPIXO EHKDYLRU (DVWLQ f 5HFRQFLOLDWLRQ FDQ RQO\ RFFXU LI WKH RIIHQGHU LV IXOO\ DZDUH RI WKH UHDOLW\ RI WKH ZURQJ FRPPLWWHG DQG LV DEOH WR OLVWHQ ZLWKRXW GHIHQVHV 7KH RIIHQGHU SURPLVHV QHYHU LQWHQWLRQDOO\ WR KXUW WKH IRUJLYHU DJDLQ 6PHGHV f )RUJLYHQHVV GRHV QRW PHDQ WKDW \RX NQRZLQJO\ RU QDLYHO\ OD\ \RXUVHOI RSHQ WR FHUWDLQ DEXVH
PAGE 52

OLPLW RU HYHQ HQG WKH UHODWLRQVKLS 7KH RQH ZKR LV IRUJLYHQ LV SODFHG XQGHU QR REOLJDWLRQ WR WKH IRUJLYHU DV D FRQGLWLRQ IRU IRUJLYHQHVV )RUJLYHQHVV LV QRW D TXLG SUR TXR EXW UDWKHU LW LV D JLIW IUHHO\ EHVWRZHG ,I WKHUH LV WR EH DQ RQJRLQJ UHODWLRQVKLS WKHQ WKH RQH IRUJLYHQ PXVW WU\ WR OHDP IURP WKH PLVWDNHV DQG QRW UHLQMXUH DQ\RQH ZKR KDV RIIHUHG WKH JLIW RI IRUJLYHQHVV &ROHPDQ f $ IRUJLYHU H[WHQGV ORYLQJ DFFHSWDQFH EXW WKH UHFLSLHQW PD\ HLWKHU UHMHFW WKH RIIHU RU FKDQJH DQG EH ZLOOLQJ WR HQWHU DJDLQ LQWR D UHODWLRQVKLS IRU UHFRQFLOLDWLRQ WR WDNH SODFH )RUJLYHQHVV RFFXUV LQWHUQDOO\ ZLWKLQ D SHUVRQ ZKHUHDV UHFRQFLOLDWLRQ RFFXUV EHKDYLRUDOO\ EHWZHHQ WZR SHRSOH +RUVEUXJK .ROQDL (QULJKW HW DO f 7KHVH LQDGHTXDWH GHILQLWLRQV RI IRUJLYHQHVV ZDUUDQW D VXVSLFLRXV DWWLWXGH WRZDUG IRUJLYHQHVV 7KLV PD\ EH WKH UHDVRQ ZK\ IRUJLYHQHVV LV QRW YLHZHG DV D KHDOWK\ RSWLRQ :KHQ RQH EHKDYHV IURP WKHVH IDOVH FRQFHSWLRQV RI IRUJLYHQHVV RU HYHQ GHQLHV WKDW RQH KDG EHHQ RIIHQGHG RU ZRXQGHG WKH LQGLYLGXDO KDV FKRVHQ D SDWK WKDW OHDGV WR XQKHDOWK\ UHVSRQVHV $Q LQGLYLGXDO FHUWDLQO\ PD\ FKRRVH WR fEH QLFHf DQG DYRLG FRQIURQWDWLRQ LQ WKH QDPH RI IRUJLYHQHVV EXW WKLV LV GHILQLWHO\ QRW IRUJLYHQHVV 6XFK WDFWLFV UDWKHU WKDQ KHDO FDQ XOWLPDWHO\ UHVXOW LQ VHHWKLQJ DQJHU UHVHQWPHQW KDWUHG DQG JUXGJH EHDULQJ WKDW XOWLPDWHO\ OHDGV WR YLVLRQV RI UHYHQJH 5DWKHU WKDQ FKDQJH DQG LPSURYH WKH VLWXDWLRQ LW FDQ OHDG WR D JUHDWHU KDUP XQGHU WKH LGHDO RI PHUF\ DQG NLQGQHVV 7KLV VXUUHQGHULQJ RU fJLYLQJ LQf LV D IDOVH W\SH RI IRUJLYHQHVV DQG OLNHO\ ZLOO SURGXFH MXVW WKH RSSRVLWH HIIHFW 7DNHQ WR LWV H[WUHPH fJLYLQJ LQf PD\ OHDG WR D PDVRFKLVWLF PDUW\UGRP WKDW XQGHUPLQHV DQG VHYHUHO\ GDPDJHV RQHfV VHOIHVWHHP DQG SHUVRQDO LQWHJULW\ &XQQLQJKDP f 'HILQLWLRQ RI )RUJLYHQHVV ,W LV E\ FODULI\LQJ WKLV FRQFHSW RI IRUJLYHQHVV WKDW LW FDQ EH EHWWHU XQGHUVWRRG WKDW OHDUQLQJ WR IRUJLYH FDQ EH DQ LPSRUWDQW DQG SHUKDSV FRUH HOHPHQW LQ WKH WKHUDSHXWLF

PAGE 53

SURFHVV +RSH f ,QGLYLGXDO UHVHDUFKHUfV FRQFHSWXDOL]DWLRQV RI IRUJLYHQHVV DUH TXLWH GLYHUVH ,Q SDUWLFXODU QR FRQVHQVXDO GHILQLWLRQ RI IRUJLYHQHVV H[LVWV :RUWKLQJWRQ f ,Q IDFW VRPH LQWHUSUHW WKH ODFN RI FRQVHQVXV LQ GHILQLWLRQ WR EH RQH RI WKH PRVW JODULQJ GUDZEDFNV IRU SURPRWLQJ WKLV FRXQVHOLQJ WRRO (OGHU (QULJKW t &R\OH (QULJKW )UHHGPDQ t 5LTXH (QULJKW *DVVLQ t :X f 7KDW VWDWHG WKH IROORZLQJ DUH RIIHUHG DV FRPPRQO\ XQGHUVWRRG GHILQLWLRQV RI IRUJLYHQHVV FRQFOXGLQJ ZLWK WKH RSHUDWLRQDO GHILQLWLRQ IRU WKLV VWXG\ $OO RI WKH H[LVWLQJ GHILQLWLRQV VHHP WR EH EXLOW RQ RQH FRUH IHDWXUH :KHQ SHRSOH IRUJLYH WKHLU UHVSRQVHV WRZDUG RU LQ RWKHU ZRUGV ZKDW WKH\ WKLQN RI IHHO DERXW ZDQW WR GR WR RU DFWXDOO\ GR WRf SHRSOH ZKR KDYH RIIHQGHG RU LQMXUHG WKHP EHFRPH PRUH SRVLWLYH DQG OHVV QHJDWLYH 2QH PRYHV IURP WKH QHJDWLYH WRZDUG WKH SRVLWLYH $OWKRXJK D VSHFLILF LQWHUSHUVRQDO RIIHQVH RU D VHULHV RI RIIHQVHVf FDXVHG E\ D VSHFLILF SHUVRQ RU D JURXS RI SHUVRQVf RQFH HOLFLWHG QHJDWLYH WKRXJKWV IHHOLQJV PRWLYDWLRQV RU EHKDYLRUV GLUHFWHG WRZDUG WKH RIIHQGHU WKHVH UHVSRQVHV KDYH EHFRPH PRUH SURVRFLDO RYHU WLPH 0F&XOORXJK 3DUJDPHQW t 7KRUHVRQ S f :KDW ,V )RUJLYHQHVV" )RUJLYHQHVV LV VLPSO\ D VSHFLDO FDVH RI PHUF\ GLUHFWHG DW DQ LQMXULQJ SHUVRQ &OLQLFLDQV ZKR KHOS FOLHQWV IRUJLYH DJUHH WKDW WKH IRUJLYLQJ MRXUQH\ PD\ WDNH WLPH DQG FDQ EH TXLWH DQ XOWUD SV\FKLF VWUXJJOH &ROHPDQ (QULJKW t +'6* D )LW]JLEERQV +RSH f 'HVSLWH WKH QHFHVVDU\ HIIRUW IRUJLYLQJ DQG UHFHLYLQJ IRUJLYHQHVV PD\ EH SRVLWLYHO\ WUDQVIRUPLQJ DQG EHQHILWLQJ IRU VHOI WKH LQMXUHU DQG WKH FRPPXQLWLHV *HQWLORQH t 5HJLGRU f 7KH SKLORVRSKLFDO OLWHUDWXUH LV LQ JHQHUDO DJUHHPHQW WKDW IRUJLYLQJ DQRWKHU SHUVRQ RFFXUV LQ WKH IDFH RI GHHS XQMXVW KXUW .ROQDL 0XUSK\ t +DPSWRQ f ,Q IRUJLYLQJ VXFK DQ RIIHQVH WKH LQGLYLGXDO ZKR IRUJLYHV IUHHO\ UHOLQTXLVKHV WKH UHVHQWPHQW

PAGE 54

KDWUHG DQGRU DQJHU WRZDUG WKH RWKHU DQG UHSODFHV LW ZLWK D VWDQFH RI ORYH DQG FRPSDVVLRQ 1RUWK f 7KH IRUJLYHU ZHOO DZDUH WKDW WKH RIIHQGHU KDV QR ULJKW WR VXFK EHQHYROHQFH RIIHUV LW QRQHWKHOHVV 3LDJHW f 7R FOHDUO\ XQGHUVWDQG DQG DSSUHFLDWH WKH JLIW WKDW LV IRUJLYHQHVV FODULILFDWLRQ LV JLYHQ E\ WKH IROORZLQJ IRXU FRQFHSWV ZKLFK DUH RIWHQ DUH PLVWDNHQ IRU WKH WUXH JLIW RI IRUJLYHQHVV (QULJKW HW DO f )LUVW IRUJLYHQHVV LV IDU PRUH WKDQ D PHUH DFFHSWLQJ RU WROHUDWLQJ WKH LQMXVWLFH ,Q FRQWHPSRUDU\ FXOWXUH SHRSOH WDON DERXW fPRYLQJ RQf RU fSXWWLQJ WKH SDVW EHKLQG XVf EXW WKLV LV QRW IRUJLYHQHVV ,W IDOOV VKRUW EHFDXVH WKH DWWLWXGHV LQYROYHG EHQHYROHQFH JRRGZLOO HPSDWK\f QHHG URRP LQ RXU OLYHV RU KHDUWV IRU WKH RIIHQGHU :KHQ ZH IRUJLYH ZH PDNH URRP LQ RXU OLYHV RU KHDUWV IRU WKH SHUSHWUDWRU 1RUWK FODULILHG IRUJLYHQHVV DV fRXWZDUGORRNLQJ DQG RWKHUGLUHFWHGf 1RUWK S f 6HFRQG IRUJLYHQHVV LV QRW WKH VDPH DV IRUJHWWLQJ $ GHHS LQMXVWLFH VXIIHUHG LV UDUHO\ LI HYHU ZLSHG IURP RQHf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f UHSUHVHQWDWLYH RI WKLV SRVLWLRQ EHOLHYHV WKDW D IRUJLYHU QHHG GR QRWKLQJ PRUH WKDQ FHDVH UHVHQWPHQW IRU WKH JRRG RI VHOI DQG WR RWKHUV ZLWK ZKRP RQH LQWHUDFWV

PAGE 55

)RXUWK IRUJLYHQHVV LV PRUH WKDQ D VHOIUHPHG\ D SUHVFULSWLRQ WR PDNH RQHVHOI DV IRUJLYHU IHHO EHWWHU )RUJLYHQHVV LV RXWVLGH IRFXVHG DQG LV D JLIW WR RWKHUV 7KH SDUDGR[ LV WKDW ZKHQ D IRUJLYHU DEDQGRQV WKH IRFXV RQ VHOI DQG JLYHV WKLV JLIW WR WKH LQMXUHU WKH IRUJLYHU FRPPRQO\ H[SHULHQFHV SV\FKRORJLFDO KHDOLQJ (QULJKW HW DO f ,Q H[DPLQLQJ WKH SV\FKRORJLFDO OLWHUDWXUH RQH GLVFRYHUV WKDW IRUJLYHQHVV LV GHVFULEHG DV D SRZHUIXO WKHUDSHXWLF LQWHUYHQWLRQ DQG DV DQ LQWHOOHFWXDO H[HUFLVH LQ ZKLFK WKH LQMXUHG PDNHV WKH GHFLVLRQ WR IRUJLYH )LW]JLEERQV f )RUJLYHQHVV LV D YROXQWDU\ DFW DQG GHFLVLRQ DERXW KRZ RQH ZLOO SRVLWLYHO\ GHDO ZLWK WKH SDVW +RSH f ,W LV DQ HUDVLQJ RI WKH UHFRUG RI ZURQJV DQG D QHHG IRU YHQJHDQFH DQG UHVHQWPHQWV DV RQH UHOLQTXLVKHV WKH VHDW RI FRQGHPQDWLRQ DQGRU MXGJPHQW RI WKH RIIHQGHU 'L%ODVLR f $V +ROPJUHQ f FODULILHG RXU LQWULQVLF ZRUWK LV QRW FRPPHQVXUDWH ZLWK VRPH LPDJLQDWLYH VFRUH RQ D PRUDO VFDOH $OO SHRSOH DUH FDSDEOH RI HUURU DQG JRRG DQG EHFDXVH DOO SHRSOH KDYH WKLV FDSDFLW\ IRU JRRG HYHQ WKH PDOHIDFWRU ZH FDQ WKHQ UHVSHFW DOO SHRSOH LQFOXGLQJ WKH RIIHQGHU )RUJLYHQHVV GLVSOD\V UHVSHFW WRZDUG WKH RIIHQGHU DV D PRUDO DJHQW 7KH IDLOXUH WR XQGHUVWDQG WKLV SRLQW RI VHSDUDWLQJ WKH SHUVRQ IURP WKH GHHG RIWHQ SUHYHQWV IRUJLYHQHVV IURP WDNLQJ SODFH +ROPJUHQ f FRQILUPV WKDW WKLV WKRXJKW LV EDVHG RQ $XJXVWLQHfV f GLFWXP RI VHSDUDWLQJ WKH RIIHQGHUV DQG RIIHQVHV :H FRQWLQXH WR YLHZ UHDOLVWLFDOO\ DQ XQMXVW RIIHQVH IRU ZKDW LW LV ZURQJ
PAGE 56

3KLORVRSKHU .HOOHQEHUJHU f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f ERWK LQWUDSV\KLFDOO\ DQG LQWHUSHUVRQDOO\ %HQVRQ f DQG JLYLQJ XS RQHfV ULJKW WR KXUW EDFN SURFHHGV WKURXJK IRUJLYHQHVV 3LQJOHWRQ f )RUJLYHQHVV LV D EURDG WRSLF ZKRVH GHILQLWLRQ HQFRPSDVVHV PDQ\ IDFHWV 7KHUH DUH PDQ\ DQJOHV WKDW RQH PD\ IRFXV RQ LQ GHILQLQJ WKH WHUP $ WUXO\ FRPSUHKHQVLYH GHILQLWLRQ RI IRUJLYHQHVV QHHGV WR LQWHJUDWH QRW RQO\ WKH FRJQLWLYH DIIHFWLYH DQG EHKDYLRUDO FRPSRQHQWV EXW DOVR WKH YROLWLRQDO PRWLYDWLRQDO VSLULWXDO UHOLJLRXV DQG LQWHUSHUVRQDO DVSHFWV RI IRUJLYHQHVV *RUVXFK t +DR f 3LQJOHWRQ f KROGV WKDW WKH VSLULWXDO GLPHQVLRQ RI IRUJLYHQHVV LV DQ LPSRUWDQW DQG HVVHQWLDO FRPSRQHQW RI IRUJLYHQHVV DV ZHOO DV WKH YROLWLRQDO HOHPHQW 0RQERXUTXHWWH f VWUHVVHV KRZ IRUJLYHQHVV HQFRPSDVVHV WKH ZKROH SHUVRQ IRU LQ IRUJLYLQJ DOO RXU IDFXOWLHV DUH PRELOL]HG LQWHOOHFW MXGJPHQW LPDJLQDWLRQ DQG IDLWK 6WXG]LQVNL f GHILQHV IRUJLYHQHVV DV D ZLOOIXO SURFHVV LQ ZKLFK WKH IRUJLYHU FKRRVHV QRW WR UHWDOLDWH EXW UDWKHU UHVSRQG WR WKH RIIHQGHU LQ D FRPSDVVLRQDWH ZD\ :DOWHUV f VHHV IRUJLYHQHVV DV D YROXQWDU\ SURFHVV WKDW XVXDOO\ GHPDQGV FRXUDJH DQG PXOWLSOH DFWV RI WKH ZLOO WR FRPSOHWH +H YLHZV IRUJLYHQHVV DV D QHHGHG DQG HVVHQWLDO SURFHVV GXH WR WKH GHVWUXFWLYHQHVV RI QRW IRUJLYLQJ DQG KH DVVHUWV WKDW WR IRUJLYH LV WR

PAGE 57

JLYH XS DOO FODLPV RQ WKH RIIHQGHU LQFOXGLQJ OHWWLQJ JR RI WKH HPRWLRQDO FRQVHTXHQFHV RI WKH KXUW ,Q :DOWHUVf VWULQJHQW YLHZ WKH RIIHQGHG KDV WZR DOWHUQDWLYHV LQ GHDOLQJ ZLWK WKH KXUW WR EH GHVWUR\HG E\ UHVHQWPHQW OHDGLQJ WR GHDWK SV\FKRORJLFDOO\ HPRWLRQDOO\ RU HYHQ SK\VLFDOO\ RU WR IRUJLYH ZKLFK OHDGV WR KHDOLQJ DQG OLIH 7KLV VHQVH RI IRUJLYHQHVV DV HUDGLFDWLQJ WKH QHJDWLYH FRQVHTXHQFHV RI WKH RIIHQGHUfV LQMXVWLFH DQG D PHUFLIXO UHDFKLQJ RXW WR WKH RIIHQGHU LV FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK DQFLHQW +HEUHZ &KULVWLDQ ,VODPLF DQG &RQIXFLDQ WH[WV &XQQLQJKDP f YLHZV IRUJLYHQHVV DV PRUH WKDQ DQ DFW RI WKH ZLOO LQ FKDQJLQJ RQHfV KHDUW WR RQHfV RIIHQGHU )RUJLYLQJ LV DQ DFW RI WKH ZLOO WKDW VHHNV ZKROHQHVV DQG RSHQV RQHfV VHOI WR WKH H[SHQVLYH SURFHVV RI FKDQJH DQG WUDQVIRUPDWLRQ ,W LV D SURFHVV RI ZLOOLQJ WKDW DOORZV RQH WR EH OHVV ZLOOIXO OHVV GHPDQGLQJ DQG OHVV GRJPDWLF )RUJLYLQJ LV D SURFHVV ZKHUHE\ RQH LV UHVWRULQJ D UHODWLRQVKLS ZLWK *RG WKDW JUDFHIXOO\ FRPHV DV D KDUPRQ\ ZLWK OLIH DQG D UHQHZHG FRXUDJH WR EH YLWDO DQG OLYH LQ ULVN ,W LV DQ H[SHULHQFH WKDW FRQILUPV XV LQ WKH NQRZOHGJH WKDW DV ZH IRUJLYH ZH DUH IRUJLYHQ S f 7KH SURFHVV RI IRUJLYHQHVV HQDEOHV RQH WR FKDQJH JURZ DQG HYROYH LQWR D PRUH PDWXUH LQGLYLGXDO FKDUDFWHUL]HG E\ DQ HQOLJKWHQHG VHOIDZDUHQHVV )RUJLYLQJ DQRWKHU UHTXLUHV WKDW D SHUVRQ FRQIURQW RQHfV IHHOLQJV YDOXHV PRWLYHV DQG QHHGV DV ZHOO DV RQHfV RZQ LQFOLQDWLRQV WRZDUG SULGH DQG VHOIULJKWHRXVQHVV 7KH IRUJLYHU FKDOOHQJHV KLVKHU RZQ GHPDQGV IRU SHUIHFWLRQ ERWK IRU RQHVHOI DQG RWKHUV DV ZHOO DV WKH XQUHDOLVWLF GHPDQGV IRU RWKHUV WR UHODWH SHUIHFWO\ WR RQHVHOI DQG WR PHHW DQG IXOILOO RQHf QHHGV )RUJLYHQHVV LQYROYHV WKH KXPEOH WDVN RI FRQIURQWLQJ RQHfV RZQ OHYHO RI LPPDWXULW\ VWDWH RI VLQIXOQHVV LPSHUIHFWLRQ DQG LUUHVSRQVLELOLW\ &XQQLQJKDP f $XJVEXUJHU f GHILQHV IRUJLYHQHVV DV fD UHOHDVH IURP D ZKROH VSHFWUXP RI QHJDWLYH HPRWLRQV OLNH IHDU DQJHU VXVSLFLRQ ORQHOLQHVV DOLHQDWLRQ DQG PLVWUXVWf S f

PAGE 58

3DUJDPHQW f RIIHUV D UDWKHU ORIW\ PHWDSK\VLFDO GHILQLWLRQ RI IRUJLYHQHVV )RUJLYHQHVV LV D SURFHVV RI UHFUHDWLRQ D WUDQVIRUPDWLRQDO PHWKRG RI FRSLQJ RIWHQ UHOLJLRXV LQ QDWXUH WKDW LQYROYHV D EDVLF VKLIW LQ GHVWLQDWLRQV DQG SDWKZD\V LQ OLYLQJ 7KURXJK WKLV SURFHVV WKH LQGLYLGXDO GHSDUWV IURP D OLIH FHQWHUHG RQ SDLQ DQG LQMXVWLFH DQG EHJLQV WR SXUVXH D GUHDP RI SHDFH 7RZDUG WKLV HQG WKH SHUVRQ VWDUWV WR WKLQN IHHO DQG DFW LQ YHU\ GLIIHUHQW ZD\V DERXW KLP RU KHUVHOI WKH RIIHQGHU DQG WKH ZRUOG PRUH JHQHUDOO\ S f )URP WKHVH GHILQLWLRQV ZH SURFHVV ILYH HVVHQWLDO SRLQWV LQ XQGHUVWDQGLQJ IRUJLYHQHVV (QULJKW t +'6* f 7KH RQH ZKR IRUJLYHV KDV VXIIHUHG D GHHS KXUW ZKLFK HOLFLWV UHVHQWPHQW 7KH RIIHQGHG SHUVRQ KDV D PRUDO ULJKW WR UHVHQWPHQW EXW RYHUFRPHV LW QRQHWKHOHVV $ QHZ UHVSRQVH WR WKH RWKHU HPHUJHV LQFOXGLQJ FRPSDVVLRQ DQG ORYH 7KLV ORYLQJ UHVSRQVH RFFXUV GHVSLWH WKH UHDOL]DWLRQ WKDW WKHUH LV QR REOLJDWLRQ WR ORYH WKH RIIHQGHU +HEO t (QULJKW f :H UHDOL]H WKH RWKHU SHUVRQ KDV QR PRUDO ULJKW WR WKDW ORYH EXW ZH QHYHUWKHOHVV IUHHO\ JLYH LW 1RUWK f )RXQGDWLRQDO 'HILQLWLRQ 7KH IRXQGDWLRQDO GHILQLWLRQ RI IRUJLYHQHVV LV VKDSHG SULPDULO\ IURP 1RUWKfV f SHUVSHFWLYH 6KH GHILQHV IRUJLYHQHVV LQ WKH IROORZLQJ SDVVDJH f)RUJLYHQHVV LV D PDWWHU RI D ZLOOHG FKDQJH RI KHDUW WKH VXFFHVVIXO UHVXOW RI DQ DFWLYH HQGHDYRU WR UHSODFH EDG WKRXJKWV ZLWK JRRG ELWWHUQHVV DQG DQJHU ZLWK FRPSDVVLRQ DQG DIIHFWLRQf S f ,W VKRXOG EH QRWHG WKDW 1RUWK DFNQRZOHGJHV WZR SV\FKRORJLFDO FKDUDFWHULVWLFV RI D IRUJLYHUfV DIIHFW D FHVVDWLRQ RI QHJDWLYH DIIHFW HJ UHVHQWPHQW DQJHUf DQG WKH SUHVHQFH RI SRVLWLYH DIIHFW HJ FRPSDVVLRQ ORYHf 7KH VDPH KROGV WUXH IRU MXGJPHQWV RU FRJQLWLYH FRPSRQHQWV 7KHUH LV WKH OHWWLQJ JR RI FRQGHPQLQJ MXGJPHQWV DQG WKH SUHVHQFH RI PRUH IDYRUDEOH MXGJPHQWV (QULJKW t )'6* Df 7KHUH DOVR FDQ EH WKH FHVVDWLRQ RI QHJDWLYH EHKDYLRUV HJ UHYHQJH IRU H[DPSOHf DQG WKH SUHVHQFH RI SRVLWLYH EHKDYLRUV HJ KHOSIXOQHVV RYHUWXUHV WRZDUG UHFRQFLOLDWLRQf 7KLV SURFHVV RI IRUJLYHQHVV LQFOXGHV VL[ NH\ FRPSRQHQWV DEVHQFH RI QHJDWLYH DIIHFW MXGJPHQW DQG EHKDYLRU WRZDUG DQ

PAGE 59

RIIHQGHU DQG WKH SUHVHQFH RI SRVLWLYH DIIHFW MXGJPHQW DQG EHKDYLRU WRZDUG WKH VDPH RIIHQGHU 7KHVH RFFXU LQ WKH IDFH RI GHHS XQZDUUDQWHG KXUW (QULJKW t +'6* Ef ,W LV IURP WKLV IRXQGDWLRQ WKDW (QULJKW DQG WKH +XPDQ 'HYHORSPHQW 6WXG\ *URXS GHYHORSHG WKHLU ZRUNLQJ GHILQLWLRQ DGKHULQJ WR WKRVH VDPH FRUH HOHPHQWV D FKDQJH LQ FRJQLWLRQ DQG DIIHFW EXW QRZ LQFOXGLQJ EHKDYLRU KRZ RQH DFWV WRZDUG RQHfV RIIHQGHU DV ZHOO ,W LV WKLV GHILQLWLRQ RI IRUJLYHQHVV WKDW LQYROYHV WKH WKUHH NH\ FRPSRQHQWV FRJQLWLRQ DIIHFWLRQ DQG EHKDYLRU WKDW LV WKH EDVLV IRU WKLV UHVHDUFK DQG LV DUJXDEO\ WKH PRVW FRPSUHKHQVLYHO\ IRUPXODWHG DQG FOHDUO\ DUWLFXODWHG GHILQLWLRQ LQ WKH SV\FKRORJLFDO OLWHUDWXUH ,Q DGGLWLRQ WKLV GHILQLWLRQ KDV EHHQ RSHUDWLRQDOL]HG LQ WKH (QULJKW )RUJLYHQHVV ,QYHQWRU\ 6XENRYLDN HW DO f WKXV SURYLGLQJ D PHDQV IRU TXDQWLWDWLYHO\ PHDVXULQJ OHYHOV RI LQWHUSHUVRQDO IRUJLYHQHVV LQ WKH DIIHFWLYH EHKDYLRUDO DQG FRJQLWLYH GRPDLQV 7KH GHILQLWLRQ LV WKH IROORZLQJ )RUJLYHQHVV LV WKH RYHUFRPLQJ RI QHJDWLYH DIIHFW DQG MXGJPHQW WRZDUG WKH RIIHQGHU QRW E\ GHQ\LQJ RXUVHOYHV WKH ULJKW WR VXFK DIIHFW DQG MXGJPHQW EXW E\ HQGHDYRULQJ WR YLHZ WKH RIIHQGHU ZLWK EHQHYROHQFH FRPSDVVLRQ DQG HYHQ ORYH ZKLOH UHFRJQL]LQJ WKDW KH RU VKH KDV DEDQGRQHG WKH ULJKW WR WKHP 6XENRYLDN HW DO S f 7KLV SURFHVV LV TXLWH LQYROYHG DQG FRPSOH[ ZKHQ ZH UHDOL]H WKDW IRUJLYHQHVV LQYROYHV WKH WRWDO SHUVRQfV DIIHFWLYH FRJQLWLYH DQG EHKDYLRUDO V\VWHPV DQG VSLULWXDOO\ :KHQ RQH IRUJLYHV FHUWDLQ HOHPHQWV DUH VXEWUDFWHG IURP HDFK V\VWHP 1HJDWLYH HPRWLRQV VXFK DV DQJHU KDWUHG UHVHQWPHQW VDGQHVV RU FRQWHPSW DUH JLYHQ XS 5LFKDUGV f 2IWHQ WKLV PD\ RFFXU VORZO\ EXW LW LV HYHQWXDOO\ DFFRPSOLVKHG LI SXUVXHG GLOLJHQWO\ ,Q WKH FRJQLWLYH V\VWHP RQH FHDVHV FRQGHPQLQJ MXGJPHQWV DQG WKH SODQQLQJ RI UHYHQJH ZKHUH WKLV ZDV RFFXUULQJ ,Q WKH EHKDYLRUDO V\VWHP RQH QR ORQJHU DFWV RXW WKH SULPRUGLDO PRWLYH RI UHYHQJH LI VXFK ZHUH RFFXUULQJ KRZHYHU VXEWOHf (QULJKW t +'6* Ef

PAGE 60

:KHQ RQH IRUJLYHV FHUWDLQ HOHPHQWV DUH DGGHG WR HDFK V\VWHP ,Q WKH DIIHFWLYH V\VWHP WKH QHJDWLYH HPRWLRQV DUH UHSODFHG E\ PRUH QHXWUDO HPRWLRQV DQG HYHQWXDOO\ E\ SRVLWLYH DIIHFW VXFK DV DJDSH VHH &XQQLQJKDP 'RZQLH 1RUWK f 7KH ODWWHU LQFOXGHV WKH ZLOOLQJQHVV WKURXJK FRPSDVVLRQ DQG ORYH WR KHOS WKH RWKHU ,Q WKH FRJQLWLYH V\VWHP WKH RIIHQGHU PD\ IHHO MXVWLILHG LQ KROGLQJ RQWR WKH QHJDWLYH HPRWLRQV \HW LV ZLOOLQJ WR IRUHJR WKHP 1RUWK f :KHUH WKHUH RQFH ZHUH QHJDWLYH WKRXJKWV QRZ SRVLWLYH WKRXJKWV HPHUJH WRZDUG WKH RWKHU VXFK DV ZLVKLQJ WKHP ZHOO 6PHGHV f DQG YLHZLQJ WKHP UHVSHFWIXOO\ DV D PRUDO HTXDO &XQQLQJKDP f ,Q WKH EHKDYLRUDO UHDOP WKHUH LV D ZLOOLQJQHVV WR MRLQ LQ fORYLQJ FRPPXQLW\f ZLWK WKH RWKHU ZLWK WKH KRSHV RI SRVVLEOH IULHQGVKLS 7KHUH PD\ HYHQ EH VWHSV WDNHQ WR LQLWLDWH DQG IRVWHU D IULHQGVKLS 6XFK RYHUWXUHV ZLOO GHSHQG RQ WUXH FKDQJH LQ WKH RWKHU 7KHUH LV WKH SRWHQWLDO IRU WKH IRUJLYHU WR H[SHULHQFH QRW RQO\ DQ LQQHU UHOHDVH EXW D KHDOHG UHODWLRQVKLS $XJVEXUJHU f 7KLV GHVFULSWLRQ RI IRUJLYHQHVV FDQ EH IXUWKHU GHHSHQHG DQG FODULILHG E\ WKH IROORZLQJ SRLQWV (QULJKW t +'6* Df ,QWHUSHUVRQDO IRUJLYHQHVV LV EHWZHHQ SHRSOH QRW EHWZHHQ D SHUVRQ DQG DQ LQDQLPDWH REMHFW .ROQDL /DPEHUW 0XUSK\ 6PHGHV f 2QH GRHV QRW IRUJLYH KXUULFDQHV RU IORRGV 7KH ZLOOLQJQHVV WR MRLQ DJDLQ LQ ORYLQJ FRPPXQLW\ ZLWK D KXUULFDQH PRVW FHUWDLQO\ ZRXOG EH DEVHQW )RUJLYHQHVV IROORZV D GHHS SHUVRQDO ORQJ ODVWLQJ LQMXU\ RU KXUW IURP WKH RWKHU SHUVRQ 7KH LQMXU\ ZLOO YDU\ LW PLJKW EH SV\FKRORJLFDO HPRWLRQDO SK\VLFDO RU PRUDO .ROQDL 0XUSK\ 0XUSK\ t +DPSWRQ 6PHGHV f ,Q UHDO OLIH D GHHS LQMXU\ PD\ YHU\ ZHOO LQYROYH DOO RI WKHVH DUHDV DW RQFH (DVWLQ f

PAGE 61

2f6KDXQJKQHVV\ f FODLPV WKDW WKH UHODWLRQVKLS PXVW EH SHUVRQDO ZKLFK ZRXOG WKHQ H[FOXGH WKRVH ZKR KXUW XV EXW DUH VWUDQJHUV WR XV 7KH IRUJLYHU WKHUHIRUH GRHV QRW IRUJLYH WKH 1D]LV IRU WKH +RORFDXVW XQOHVV KH RU VKH ZDV SHUVRQDOO\ LQYROYHG *LQJHOO f 1HYHUWKHOHVV ZH DFNQRZOHGJH SHUVRQDO LQGLUHFW LQYROYHPHQW IRU H[DPSOH FKLOGUHQ ZKRVH SDUHQWV DUH +RORFDXVW VXUYLYRUV 2Q WKHLU SDUW WKH\ DUH DEOH WR IRUJLYH WKH SHUSHWUDWRUV 7KH RIIHQVH LV DQ REMHFWLYH UHDOLW\ QRW PHUHO\ D SHUFHSWLRQ E\ WKH RQH RIIHQGHG .DKUKRII f LQ FRQWUDVW FODLPV f(YHU\WKLQJ WKDW KDSSHQV RXWVLGH RXU PLQGV LV QHXWUDOf S f ,Q WKLV YLHZ DQ RIIHQVH FDQ EH VR RQO\ LI ZH SHUFHLYH LW DV VXFK :H DFNQRZOHGJH IRU H[DPSOH LQGLYLGXDO GLIIHUHQFHV LQ SK\VLFDO DEXVH YLFWLPVf SHUFHSWLRQ RI WKH YLROHQFH 1R RQH GXH WR YDULRXV IDFWRUV ZLOO H[SHULHQFH WKH VDPH GHSWK RU GXUDWLRQ RI HPRWLRQDO GLVWUHVV DV DQRWKHU \HW DOO ZLOO H[SHULHQFH D FHUWDLQ HPRWLRQDO SDLQ EHFDXVH RI WKH REMHFWLYH RFFXUUHQFH )RUJLYHQHVV LV SRVVLEOH RQO\ ZKHQ D SHUVRQ KDV D VHQVH RI MXVWLFH 2QH FDQQRW IHHO D GHHS VHQVH RI PRUDO LQMXU\ ZLWKRXW D VHQVH RI IDLUQHVV %UDQGVPD +XQWHU .RKOEHUJ t 3RZHU f 7KLV LPSOLHV WKDW FKLOGUHQ DV \RXQJ DV IRXU RU ILYH PLJKW QRW RQO\ QHHG EXW EH DEOH WR IRUJLYH (QULJKW )UDQNOLQ t 0DQKHLP f 7KHUH LV XVXDOO\ DQ LQLWLDO UHDFWLRQ E\ WKH LQMXUHG SDUW\ WRZDUG WKH LQMXUHU 7KH LQMXUHG PD\ SDVV WKURXJKRXW WKH VWDJHV VLPLODU WR JULHI WKDW LV RQH RI H[SHULHQFLQJ WKH KXUW DV SURIRXQG IROORZHG E\ VKRFN RU GLVEHOLHI DQG FXOPLQDWLQJ LQ DQJHU RU HYHQ KDWUHG (DVWLQ )LW]JLEERQV /LQQ t /LQQ 6PHGHV f

PAGE 62

:LWK WKH SDVVLQJ RI WLPH WKH LQMXUHG SDUW\ QR ORQJHU VHHNV UHWDOLDWLRQ +XJKHV f 7KLV LV DQ LQWHUQDO UHVSRQVH E\ WKH RQH LQMXUHG 'UROO f DQG PD\ LQYROYH JLYLQJ XS RI QDUFLVVLVWLF WHQGHQFLHV RI GLVDYRZLQJ WKH KXUW &XQQLQJKDP f ,W LV QRW QHFHVVDU\ IRU WKH RIIHQGHU WR DSRORJL]H IRU WKH LQMXUHG SHUVRQ WR IRUJLYH 1RUWK 7ZDPEOH\ f )RUJLYHQHVV LV QRW EDVHG RQ WKH RWKHUfV UHSHQWDQFH 0F&XOORXJK 6DQGDJH t :RUWKLQJWRQ f ,Q KLV ERRN %RXQG WR )RUJLYH )DWKHU -HQFR f GHVFULEHV DQ HQFRXQWHU ZLWK \HW DQRWKHU FDSWRU VKRUWO\ EHIRUH KLV UHOHDVH 6D\HHG D JXDUG ZKR KDG EHDWHQ )DWKHU -HQFR VHYHUDO WLPHV DVNHG WKH SULHVW LI KH UHPHPEHUHG WKH ILUVW VL[ PRQWKV RI KLV FDSWLYLW\ ZKHQ PRVW RI WKH DEXVH WRRN SODFHf )DWKHU -HQFR UHVSRQGHG WKDW KH GLG UHPHPEHU DOO WKH SDLQ DQG VXIIHULQJ 6D\HHG KDG FDXVHG KLP DQG WKH RWKHU KRVWDJHV f$ERXQD GR \RX IRUJLYH PH"f )DWKHU -HQFR UHFRXQWV KLV UHDFWLRQV 7KHVH TXLHWO\ VSRNHQ ZRUGV RYHUZKHOPHG PH $V VDW EOLQGIROGHG XQDEOH WR VHH WKH PDQ ZKR KDG EHHQ P\ HQHP\ XQGHUVWRRG ZDV FDOOHG WR IRUJLYH WR OHW JR RI UHYHQJH UHWDOLDWLRQ DQG YLQGLFWLYHQHVV $QG ZDV FKDOOHQJHG WR IRUJLYH KLP XQFRQGLWLRQDOO\ FRXOG QRW IRUJLYH KLP RQ WKH FRQGLWLRQ WKDW KH FKDQJHV KLV EHKDYLRU WR FRQIRUP WR P\ ZLVKHV RU YDOXHV KDG QR FRQWURO RYHU KLV UHVSRQVH XQGHUVWRRG ZDV WR VD\ \HV S f ,I WKLV ZHUH QRW WUXH WKH RIIHQGHG PD\ EH FDXJKW LQ D ZHE RI XQIRUJLYHQHVV ,I WKH RIIHQGHU ZHUH WR GLH EHIRUH D FKDQJH RI KHDUW WKH RIIHQGHG LV WUDSSHG LQ XQIRUJLYHQHVV 2f6KDXJKQHVV\ f )XUWKHU D JLIW JLYHQ QHHG QRW DZDLW D SULRU LQYLWLQJ UHVSRQVH IURP WKH RWKHU SHUVRQ ,Q IDFW PDQ\ VHH LW DV ZHGGHG WR WKH XQFRQGLWLRQDO VHOIJLYLQJ FKDUDFWHU RI IRUJLYHQHVV &XQQLQJKDP 'RZQLH 6PHGHV 7RUUDQFH f 7KH RIIHQGHU QHHG QRW KDYH LQWHQGHG WKH ZURQJ 'RZQLH f 1DWXUDOO\ WKH GLIILFXOW\ LQ DUULYLQJ DW D IRUJLYHQHVV VROXWLRQ ZLOO YDU\ ZLWK VXFK H[WHUQDO YDULDEOHV DV WKH VHYHULW\ RI WKH RIIHQVH RXU GLVSRVLWLRQ DW WKH

PAGE 63

WLPH DQG WKH TXDOLW\ RI WKH UHODWLRQVKLS SULRU WR WKH LQMXU\ 1HZPDQ f ,W ZLOO DOVR YDU\ ZLWK VXFK LQWHUQDO SV\FKRORJLFDO TXDOLWLHV LQ WKH RIIHQGHG SHUVRQ DV WKHLU DELOLW\ WR XQGHUVWDQG IRUJLYHQHVV DQG WR FKRVH D IRUJLYHQHVV LQ FRQWUDVW WR D MXVWLFH SUREOHPVROYLQJ VWUDWHJ\ ,W LV QRW DOZD\V WKH FDVH WKDW RQO\ RQH SDUW\ RIIHQGV DQG WKH RWKHU LV RIIHQGHG $V %HDWW\ f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t :X f )RUJLYLQJ KDV WKH SRZHU ERWK WR WUDQVIRUP VHOI DQG WKH RWKHU EHFDXVH RI WKH VLQFHUH ORYH H[WHQGHG WR WKH RWKHU )RUJLYHQHVV LQ VRPH FDVHV PD\ QRW RQO\ UHVWRUH WKH UHODWLRQVKLS WR LWV RULJLQDO TXDOLW\ EXW DOVR PD\ HQKDQFH DQG LPSURYH ZKDW ZDV RQFH GDPDJHG (QULJKW *DVVLQ t :X f )RUJLYHQHVV PXVW DOZD\V EH D IUHH FKRLFH DQG VKRXOG QHYHU EH IRUFHG HLWKHU RYHUWO\ RU VXEWO\ RQWR D SHUVRQ $ JLIW PXVW EH IUHHO\ RIIHUHG DQG IUHHO\ UHFHLYHG (QULJKW HW DO f ,Q VXPPDU\ (QULJKW t +'6* Df GHVFULEHV D SV\FKRORJLFDO UHVSRQVH ZKLFK LV IRUJLYHQHVV WKDW LQFOXGHV VL[ FRPSRQHQWV DEVHQFH RI QHJDWLYH DIIHFW MXGJPHQW DQG

PAGE 64

EHKDYLRU WRZDUG DQ RIIHQGHU DQG WKH SUHVHQFH RI SRVLWLYH DIIHFW MXGJPHQW DQG EHKDYLRU WRZDUG WKH VDPH RIIHQGHU 7KHVH RFFXU LQ WKH IDFH RI D GHHS RIIHQVH DJDLQVW WKHP &KDOOHQJH RI )RUJLYHQHVV )RUJLYHQHVV KDV EHHQ DQ H[WUHPHO\ FRPSOH[ SKHQRPHQRQ WR RSHUDWLRQDOL]H IRU HPSLULFDO LQYHVWLJDWLRQ 7KH DFW RI IRUJLYHQHVV PXVW QRW EH IRUFHG RQ D SHUVRQ ZKR LV QRW RSHQ RU UHDG\ WR IRUJLYH 7KH XWLOLW\ RI HQFRXUDJLQJ IRUJLYHQHVV LV DOVR LQ TXHVWLRQ LI FOLHQWV ODFN GHVLUH WR IRUJLYH &XQQLQJKDP f )RUJLYLQJ RXW RI D VHQVH RI GXW\ RU IHDU RI UHWDOLDWLRQ PD\ SURGXFH WKH RSSRVLWH HIIHFW RI LQFUHDVHG QHJDWLYH HPRWLRQV DQG WKRXJKWV UHJDUGLQJ WKH RIIHQVH DQG WKH RIIHQGHU RYHU WLPH 7UDLQHU f &RXQVHORUV ZKR VXJJHVW IRUJLYHQHVV DV D PHDQV RI KHDOLQJ VKRXOG DOVR EH VXUH WKDW WKH FOLHQWfV PRWLYH IRU IRUJLYLQJ LV WR DFKLHYH WKH SRVLWLYH EHQHILWV RI IRUJLYLQJ DQG QRW HPSOR\ LW DV D PHDQV IRU UHYHQJH RU VHOIULJKWHRXVQHVV ,I VR LW PD\ H[DFHUEDWH WKH QHJDWLYH HPRWLRQV FRQFHUQLQJ WKH RIIHQVH DQG WKH RIIHQGHU 0F&XOORXJK t :RUWKLQJWRQ Df $V IRUJLYHQHVV LV VXFK D GHPDQGLQJ DQG FRPSOH[ WDVN PDQ\ RIWHQ IDLO WR PHHW WKH DERYH PHQWLRQ FULWHULD ,Q WKH HIIRUW WR IRUJLYH VXFK FKDOOHQJLQJ TXHVWLRQV PD\ DULVH LQ WKH SURFHVV RI IRUJLYLQJ +DYH WUXO\ IRUJLYHQ LI VWLOO UHWDLQ VRPH UHVHQWPHQW" +DYH IRUJLYHQ LI DP XQDEOH WR UHVXPH D IRUPHU UHODWLRQVKLS LI DP ZDU\ RI P\ RIIHQGHU" 8QGHUVWDQGLQJ WKDW WKH SURFHVV RI IRUJLYHQHVV LV VR LQYROYHG DQG RQJRLQJ 1HOVRQ f GHYHORSHG &DWHJRULHV RI )RUJLYHQHVV 7KH\ ZHUH GHVLJQHG WR KHOS FODULI\ WKH YDULRXV GHJUHHV DQG OHYHOV RI IRUJLYHQHVV 1HOVRQ KDV LQWURGXFHG LQWR WKH OLWHUDWXUH WKUHH W\SHV RI IRUJLYHQHVV GHWDFKHG IRUJLYHQHVV OLPLWHG IRUJLYHQHVV DQG FRPSOHWH IRUJLYHQHVV 'HWDFKHG IRUJLYHQHVV LV D fUHGXFWLRQ LQ QHJDWLYH DIIHFW WRZDUG WKH RIIHQGHU EXW QR UHVWRUDWLRQ RI WKH UHODWLRQVKLSf 1HOVRQ S f /LPLWHG IRUJLYHQHVV LV D fUHGXFWLRQ LQ QHJDWLYH DIIHFW WRZDUG WKH RIIHQGHU DQG SDUWLDO UHVWRUDWLRQ RI DQ LQFUHDVHG

PAGE 65

HPRWLRQDO LQYHVWPHQW LQ WKH UHODWLRQVKLSf S f )XOO IRUJLYHQHVV LQFOXGHV fWRWDO FHVVDWLRQ RI QHJDWLYH DIIHFW WRZDUGV WKH RIIHQGHU DQG IXOO UHVWRUDWLRQ DQG JURZWK RI WKH UHODWLRQVKLSf S f 1HOVRQfV ILQGLQJV VXJJHVW WKDW WKH W\SH RI RIIHQVH DQG WKH GHJUHH RI UHODWLRQVKLS SULRU WR WKH RIIHQVH DUH SUHGLFWRUV RI WKH W\SH RI IRUJLYHQHVV D SHUVRQ DWWHPSWV )ODQDJDQ f 7KHVH FDWHJRULHV WKRXJK KHOSIXO GR QRW HTXDWH WR 1RUWKfV f RU (QULJKW DQG WKH +XPDQ 'HYHORSPHQW 6WXG\ *URXSfV Df GHILQLWLRQ 7KHLU JRDO RI IRUJLYHQHVV LV WR DFKLHYH D FRPSOHWH ZLSLQJ DZD\ RI UHVHQWPHQW DQG LV D GHVLUH IRU FRPPXQLRQ LI SRVVLEOH ZKLFK ZRXOG RQO\ FRUUHVSRQG WR WKH WKLUG FDWHJRU\ RI FRPSOHWH IRUJLYHQHVV $V ZHOO LW PDNHV WKH FRPPRQ PLVWDNH RI PLVWDNLQJ IRUJLYHQHVV ZLWK UHFRQFLOLDWLRQ )RUJLYHQHVV LV QRW UHFRQFLOLDWLRQ 7UDLQHU f ,Q DQDO\]LQJ WKLV SURFHVV RI IRUJLYHQHVV 7UDLQHU f ZDV WKH ILUVW WR XQGHUWDNH DQ HPSLULFDO UHVHDUFK RQ WKH SV\FKRORJ\ RI LQWHUSHUVRQDO IRUJLYHQHVV ([DPLQLQJ GLYRUFHG DQG VHSDUDWHG SDUWLFLSDQWV VKH IRXQG WKUHH FKDUDFWHULVWLF SDWWHUQV 5ROHH[SHFWHG IRUJLYHQHVV WKDW LV EHKDYLRUDOO\ GHPRQVWUDWHG EXW LQWHUQDOO\ YRLG RI WKH SURSHU DWWLWXGH 7KH SHUVRQ PD\ VD\ KH RU VKH IRUJLYHV EXW VWLOO KDUERUV IHDU DQ[LHW\ DQG UHVHQWPHQW )RUJLYHQHVV LV H[WHUQDOO\ PRWLYDWHG E\ D JULP REOLJDWLRQ WR GR VR ([SHGLHQW IRUJLYHQHVV DOVR HQWDLOV DQ RYHUW JHVWXUH RI IRUJLYLQJ EHKDYLRU EXW LV DFFRPSDQLHG E\ FRQGHVFHQVLRQ DQG KRVWLOLW\ )RUJLYHQHVV LV VHHQ DV WKH PHDQV WR WKH HQG RI VKRZLQJ D FHUWDLQ VXSHULRULW\ RYHU WKH RWKHU EHFDXVH WKH RIIHQGHG KDG fIRUJLYHQf ,QWULQVLF IRUJLYHQHVV ZKLFK LV D JHQXLQH IRUP RI IRUJLYHQHVV DQG DFWXDOO\ WKH RQO\ H[DPSOH RI WUXH IRUJLYLQJQHVV LV GHPRQVWUDWHG E\ DQ RYHUW JHVWXUH RI NLQGQHVV WRZDUG WKH RIIHQGHU DQG LQWHUQDO WUDQVIRUPDWLRQV IURP UHVHQWPHQW WR EHQHILFHQFH DQG JRRGZLOO 7KH IRUJLYLQJ LV DFWLYH JHQXLQH DQG KHDOLQJ 7UDLQHU E\ KHU ZRUN KDV FRQWULEXWHG WR WKH XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI IRUJLYHQHVV E\ GHYHORSLQJ D FRQFHSWXDO IUDPHZRUN ZLWK W\SHV RI IRUJLYHQHVV DQG WKH FRPPRQ DQG XQLTXH SURFHVVHV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK WKHVH W\SHV FDQ EH RSHUDWLRQDOL]HG 7KRXJK VKH XVHV WKH

PAGE 66

ZRUG IRUJLYHQHVV IRU HDFK W\SH ZKLFK ZRXOG QRW DGKHUH WR WKLV SDSHUfV SRVLWLRQ EDVHG RQ (QULJKWfV GHILQLWLRQ (QULJKW t +'6* Df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f RYHUW JHVWXUHV RI IRUJLYHQHVV Ef FHVVDWLRQ RI RYHUW KRVWLOH UHVSRQVHVFf PDQDJHPHQW RI KRVWLOH LPSXOVHV JUDGXDO OHWWLQJ JR RI UHVHQWPHQW Gf UH HPHUJHQFH RI SRVLWLYH DWWLWXGHV DQG IHHOLQJV WRZDUG WKH RQH ZKR KDV GRQH WKH LQMXU\ DQG Hf JHVWXUHV RI JRRG ZLOO 7KLV FRPSDUHV TXLWH IDYRUDEO\ WR WKH GHILQLWLRQ RI ERWK 1RUWK f DQG (QULJKW t +'6* Ef 7KH ILUVW W\SRORJ\ RI IRUJLYHQHVV LV 5ROHH[SHFWHG IRUJLYHQHVV ZKLFK H[KLELWV WKH RXWZDUG PDQLIHVWDWLRQ RI IRUJLYHQHVV EXW ODFNV WKH LQWHUQDO PRWLYDWLRQ WR IRUJLYH ,W GLVSOD\V DQ RYHUW PDQLIHVWDWLRQ RI IRUJLYLQJ EHKDYLRU EXW LV DFFRPSDQLHG E\ VXFK QHJDWLYH HPRWLRQV DV IHDU DQ[LHW\ DQG UHVHQWPHQW $FFRUGLQJ WR 7UDLQHU 5ROHH[SHFWHG IRUJLYHQHVV LQFOXGHV Df RYHUW JHVWXUHV DQG ZRUGV RI IRUJLYHQHVV Ef FHVVDWLRQ RI KRVWLOH UHVSRQVHV WRJHWKHU ZLWK Ff D WUHPHQGRXV DPRXQW RI UHVHQWPHQW 7KH XQGHUO\LQJ PRWLYDWLRQ LQ 5ROHH[SHFWHG )RUJLYHQHVV LV QRW IURP WKH LQGLYLGXDOfV EHOLHI V\VWHP EXW IURP D IRUFHG FRPSOLDQFH WR H[WHUQDOO\ H[SRVHG QRUPV 7KH 5ROHH[SHFWHG IRUJLYHU PD\ RXWZDUGO\ FRPSO\ ZLWK WKH H[SHFWDWLRQV RI VHOI RU WKH H[SHFWDWLRQV RI VRPH H[WHUQDO DXWKRULW\ EHFDXVH RI WKH ODFN RI ZLOO WR ILJKW EDFN RU IHHOLQJ WRR ZHDN RU KHOSOHVV WR

PAGE 67

FRQIURQW WKH WUDQVJUHVVRU 7KH 5ROHH[SHFWHG IRUJLYHU FRQIRUPV WR SHUFHLYHG UROH H[SHFWDWLRQV ZLWKRXW DQ\ LQQHU WUDQVIRUPDWLRQ DQG UHOHDVH 7UDLQHU S f 7KH H[SHGLHQW IRUJLYHQHVV W\SRORJ\ FRQVLVWV LQ DQ RYHUW PDQLIHVWDWLRQ RI IRUJLYLQJ EHKDYLRU SHUIRUPHG DV D PHDQV WR DQ HQG DQG DFFRPSDQLHG E\ FRQGHVFHQVLRQ UHVHQWPHQW DQG KRVWLOLW\ ([SHGLHQW IRUJLYHQHVV OLNH 5ROHH[SHFWHG IRUJLYHQHVV FRQWDLQV WKH ILUVW WZR HOHPHQWV RI *HQHUDO IRUJLYHQHVV Df RYHUW JHVWXUHV DQG ZRUGV RI IRUJLYHQHVV DQG Ef FHVVDWLRQ RI RYHUW KRVWLOH UHVSRQVHV 7UDLQHU f FODLPHG H[SHGLHQW IRUJLYHQHVV IXQFWLRQV DV D SRZHU VWUDWHJ\ ZKHUHE\ RQH DVVHUWHG VXSHULRULW\ GHYDOXLQJ ERWK WKH LQMXU\ DQG WKH RQH ZKR LQMXUHG ,W DFFRPSOLVKHG UHYHQJH LQ VXEWOH ZD\V WKURXJK D FRQGHVFHQGLQJ IRUJLYHQHVV RU WKURXJK WKH WUDQVIHUHQFH RI WKH WDVN RI UHWDOLDWLRQ WR *RG RU WR OLIH SS f ,QWULQVLF IRUJLYHQHVV VWHPV IURP DQ LQQHU FRQYLFWLRQ WKDW LV FKDUDFWHUL]HG E\ DQ LQQHU FKDQJH LQ DWWLWXGHV DQG IHHOLQJV WRZDUG WKH RQH ZKR KDG GRQH WKH LQMXU\ DV ZHOO DV E\ EHQHYROHQW EHKDYLRU ,QWULQVLF IRUJLYHQHVV GHULYHV IURP D SHUVRQDO GHFLVLRQ WR IUHHO\ GLVHQJDJH IURP KRVWLOH EHKDYLRUV DQG WR GLVPLVV KDUERULQJ KRVWLOH DWWLWXGHV WKRXJKWV IDQWDVLHV DQG IHHOLQJV ,QWULQVLF IRUJLYHQHVV LQYROYHV DOO ILYH HOHPHQWV LQ WKH JHQHUDO GHILQLWLRQ Df RYHUW JHVWXUHV RI IRUJLYHQHVV Ef FHVVDWLRQ RI RYHUW KRVWLOH UHVSRQVHV Ff PDQDJHPHQW RI KRVWLOH LPSXOVHV JUDGXDO OHWWLQJ JR RI UHVHQWPHQW Gf UHHPHUJHQFH RI SRVLWLYH DWWLWXGHV DQG IHHOLQJV WRZDUG WKH RQH ZKR KDV GRQH WKH LQMXU\ DQG Hf JHVWXUHV RI JRRG ZLOO 7UDLQHU f VWDWHG WKDW LQWULQVLF IRUJLYHQHVV HQWDLOV ILYH VWHSV Df GLVHQJDJLQJ IURP KRVWLOH LPSXOVHV Ef UHVWRULQJ D SHUVRQfV VHQVH RI VHOIZRUWK RU SHUVRQKRRG Ff PRYLQJ RXW LQWR DFWLYLWLHV ZKHUH RQH HQFRXQWHUV WKH SRVVLELOLW\ RI EHLQJ KXUW DJDLQ Gf GLVSOD\LQJ D ZLOOLQJQHVV WR UHH[DPLQH WKH KXUWIXO HYHQW DQG EURDGHU ZD\V RI FRQVWUXFWLQJ RWKHUV WKDW PD\ JLYH ULVH WR UHHPHUJHQFH RI EHQHYROHQFH WRZDUGV WKH RWKHU

PAGE 68

DQG WKH ILQDO VWHS Hf fWKH SHUVRQ UHH[SHULHQFHV FORVHQHVV WR WKH RWKHU DQG WKH YLWDOLW\ DQG MR\ RI UHFRQFLOLDWLRQ ZLWK VHOI DQG XQGHU FHUWDLQ FRQGLWLRQV EHWZHHQ VHOI DQG WKH RWKHUf S f 7KH 3URFHVV RI )RUJLYLQJ f)RUJLYLQJ LV QRW SUHWHQGLQJ WKDW WKLQJV DUH RWKHU WKDQ WKH\ DUH )RUJLYHQHVV LV QRW FKHDS ,W LV IDFLQJ WKH JKDVWOLQHVV RI ZKDW KDV KDSSHQHG DQG JLYLQJ WKH RWKHU SHUVRQ WKH RSSRUWXQLW\ RI FRPLQJ RXW RI WKDW JKDVWO\ VLWXDWLRQf7XWX f )RUJLYHQHVV LV QRW FKHDS QRU LV LW DQ HDV\ SURFHVV ,W FDQ EH DW WLPHV PHVV\ FKDOOHQJLQJ DQG GHPDQGLQJ )RUJLYHQHVV LV VHOGRP VLPSOH OLQHDU IDVW RU HYHQ QHFHVVDULO\ FRPSOHWH f)RUJLYHQHVV LV QRW D FOHDUFXW RQHWLPH GHFLVLRQ 6LPRQ t 6LPRQ S f 1R PDWWHU KRZ VLQFHUH DQG HDUQHVW RQH PD\ EH WR IRUJLYH IRUJLYHQHVV WDNHV WLPH ,Q IDFW DQJHU PD\ UHPDLQ DIWHU IRUJLYHQHVV 9DQ %LHPD t &ROH f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nV ZD\ &ROHPDQ f )RUJLYHQHVV LV GLIILFXOW SUHFLVHO\ EHFDXVH LW UHTXLUHV WKDW ZH PDNH FRPSUHKHQVLYH FKDQJHV LQ ZKR ZH DUH DQG KRZ ZH UHODWH WR RWKHUV ,W LQYROYHV WKH ZKROH SHUVRQ

PAGE 69

)RUJLYHQHVV LV VXFK D GHPDQGLQJ WDVN WKDW LW UHTXLUHV D FHUWDLQ PDWXUDWLRQ RQ WKH SDUW RI WKH LQGLYLGXDO ,Q WKLV SURFHVV RQH FRQIURQWV RQHfV RZQ VKRUWFRPLQJV DQG ZHDNQHVVHV 7KHUH LV QR ZD\ WKDW ZH FDQ OLYH D ULFK OLIH XQOHVV ZH DUH ZLOOLQJ WR VXIIHU UHSHDWHGO\ H[SHULHQFLQJ GHSUHVVLRQ DQG GHVSDLU IHDU DQG DQ[LHW\ JULHI DQG VDGQHVV DQJHU DQG WKH DJRQ\ RI IRUJLYLQJ FRQIXVLRQ DQG GRXEW FULWLFLVP DQG UHMHFWLRQ $ OLIH ODFNLQJ WKHVH HPRWLRQDO XSKHDYDOV ZLOO QRW RQO\ EH XVHOHVV WR RXUVHOYHV LW ZLOO EH XVHOHVV WR RWKHUV :H FDQQRW KHDO ZLWKRXW EHLQJ ZLOOLQJ WR EH KXUW 3HFN SS f (QULJKW HW DO Df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f H[SHULHQFLQJ DQ DZDUHQHVV RI QHJDWLYH SV\FKRORJLFDO FRQVHTXHQFHV Ef GHYHORSLQJ D VHQVH RI QHHG IRU UHVROXWLRQ Ff GHFLGLQJ DPRQJ UHVWLWXWLRQ VWUDWHJLHV Gf H[DPLQLQJ PRWLYHV IRU IRUJLYHQHVV Hf GHFLGLQJ WR IRUJLYH (QULJKW t +'6* D 5RPLJ t 9HHQVWUD f

PAGE 70

)RUJLYHQHVV UHTXLUHV WKDW ZH GHYHORS D IRUJLYLQJ FKDUDFWHU 0F&XOORXJK 6DQGDJH t :RUWKLQJWRQ f )RUJLYHQHVV IROORZV D GHHS ORQJODVWLQJ LQMXU\ IURP WKH RWKHU SHUVRQ 7KH LQMXU\ PD\ EH SV\FKRORJLFDO HPRWLRQDO SK\VLFDO RU PRUDO 6PHGHV f 7KH QHHG IRU IRUJLYHQHVV EHJLQV ZLWK D ZRXQG $ ZRXQG YLRODWHV SK\VLFDO PRUDO RU SV\FKRORJLFDO ERXQGDULHV +DYLQJ VXIIHUHG WKH SHUVRQ WKHQ RUJDQL]HV KLV RU KHU WKRXJKWV DQG SV\FKRORJLFDO GHIHQVHV WR SURWHFW LQMXUHG ERXQGDULHV 0HDQV :LOVRQ 6WXUP t %LURQ f 7KH LQMXU\ RIWHQ GDPDJHV WKH LQMXUHG SHUVRQfV ZRUOGYLHZ RU SKLORVRSK\ RI WKH ZRUOG DV WKH\ FRPSUHKHQG WKDW ZH GR QRW QHFHVVDULO\ OLYH LQ D fMXVWf ZRUOG )ODQLJDQ f (VVHQWLDOO\ ZKHQ ZH DUH GHHSO\ KXUW LW LV DERXW RQH RU D FRPELQDWLRQ RI WKUHH WKLQJV /RVV RI ORYH RU OR YDELOLW\ /RVV RI VHOIHVWHHP /RVV RI FRQWURO RU LQIOXHQFH 7KH SHUVRQ ZLVKLQJ WR IRUJLYH PXVW EHJLQ E\ DVNLQJ f:KDW ORVV KDYH LQFXUUHG"f 'HWHUPLQLQJ WKH DUHDVf RI ORVV WKHQ SRLQWV WKH SHUVRQ LQ D GLUHFWLRQ RI KHDOLQJ ,W LQIRUPV WKH SHUVRQ ZKDW QHHGV WR EH UHSDLUHG 1RZ WKH LQGLYLGXDO LI ZLOOLQJ FDQ FRPPHQFH WKH DUGXRXV WDVN RI IRUJLYHQHVV &ROHPDQ f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

PAGE 71

ULJKW PRWLYDWHG WKH UHVSRQVLEOH FHQWHU RI WKH SHUVRQ 2QH FRQVFLRXVO\ FKRRVHV WR DIILUP DQG WR EHOLHYH WKDW WKLV LV WKH UHDO WKH SRVVLEOH WKH DFFHSWDEOH DQG WKH DFFRXQWDEOH FRUH RI WKH SHUVRQ 2QH UHWXUQV WR WKDW UHDO FHQWHU QR PDWWHU ZKDW KDV VXUIDFHG LQWR WKH UHODWLRQVKLS $XJVEXUJHU f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
PAGE 72

DQRWKHU 6XEVHTXHQWO\ WKLV LV IROORZHG E\ D GLDORJXH EHWZHHQ WKH WZR SHRSOH WR EHWWHU XQGHUVWDQG KRZ DQG ZK\ WKH KXUW RFFXUUHG (YHQWXDOO\ IRUJLYHQHVV RFFXUV LQ ZKLFK WKH RQH KXUW DEDQGRQV UHVHQWPHQW LQ IDYRU RI XQGHUVWDQGLQJ DQG XQLW\ 7KLV SURFHVV RI IRUJLYHQHVV LV QHFHVVDU\ WR UHVWRUH RQHfV VHOIUHVSHFW DQG SHDFH RI PLQG 0DUJDUHW +ROPJUHQ f FODLPV WKDW YLFWLPV RI ZURQJGRLQJ PXVW ZRUN WKURXJK D SURFHVV RI UHVSRQGLQJ WR WKDW ZURQJGRLQJ LQ RUGHU WR UHDFK D VWDWH RI JHQXLQH IRUJLYHQHVV 7KLV SURFHVV LV FHQWUDO WR WKH UHVWRUDWLRQ RI D YLFWLPfV VHOIUHVSHFW DQG WKDW IRUJLYHQHVV ZRXOG EH SV\FKRORJLFDOO\ DQG HWKLFDOO\ LQDSSURSULDWH ZKHQHYHU WKLV LV LQFRPSOHWH +ROPJUHQ DUJXHV WKDW WKLV SURFHVV LV DOZD\V DSSURSULDWH UHJDUGOHVV ZKHWKHU WKH RIIHQGHU UHSHQWV RU QRW 7KH IROORZLQJ LV DQ RXWOLQH WR LGHQWLI\ WKH WDVN DQ LQGLYLGXDO PD\ QHHG WR FRPSOHWH LI WKH\ DUH WR UHVSHFW RQHVHOI DQG WUXO\ IRUJLYH WKHLU RIIHQGHU )LUVW WKH YLFWLP RI ZURQJGRLQJ PXVW UHFRYHU WKHLU VHOIHVWHHP ,PSOLFLW LQ WKH ZURQJGRHUfV DFW RI DEXVH LV WKH FODLP WKDW WKH YLFWLP LV QRW YDOXDEOH ,I -RKQ ZHUH WR VH[XDOO\ DEXVH -DQH KH LV LPSOLFLWO\ FODLPLQJ WKDW KHU QHHGV DQG IHHOLQJV DUH QRW LPSRUWDQW RU DW WKH YHU\ OHDVW WKDW WKH\ GRQf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fV RZQ ZRUWK KH RU VKH ZRXOG IDLO WR VXIILFLHQWO\ UHVSHFW KLVKHUVHOI )XUWKHU WKLV W\SH RI IRUJLYHQHVV LV QRW FRPSOHWH QRU LV LW IXOO\ JHQXLQH ,W DPRXQWV WR FRQGRQLQJ WKH ZURQJ UDWKHU WKDQ IRUJLYLQJ WKH ZURQJGRHU ,Q RUGHU WUXO\ WR IRUJLYH WKH RIIHQGHU WKH YLFWLP PXVW ILUVW XQGHUVWDQG WKH QDWXUH RI WKH ZURQJGRLQJ DQG WR GR VR RQH PXVW UHFRJQL]H RQHfV RZQ VWDWXV DV D SHUVRQ

PAGE 73

$ VHFRQG WDVN IRU WKH YLFWLP RI ZURQJGRLQJ LV WKDW WKH\ PXVW UHFRJQL]H WKDW WKH SHUSHWUDWLRQ DJDLQVW WKHP ZDV ZURQJ DQG WKH\ PXVW DOVR XQGHUVWDQG ZK\ LW ZDV ZURQJ 7KDW LV WKH\ PXVW XQGHUVWDQG WKDW WKH\ KDYH FHUWDLQ ULJKWV DQG WKDW DQ\RQH ZKR YLRODWHV WKRVH ULJKWV ZURQJIXOO\ KDUPV WKHP 7KLUG WKH YLFWLP RI ZURQJGRLQJ IDFHV WKH WDVN RI DFNQRZOHGJLQJ RQHfV IHHOLQJV $ GHFHQW SHUVRQ ZLOO W\SLFDOO\ IHHO DQJHU WRZDUG VRPHRQH ZKR KDUPV KHUKLP 7KH LQGLYLGXDO ZLOO DOVR JULHYH RYHU WKH ORVV DQG GHSHQGLQJ RQ WKH FLUFXPVWDQFHV PD\ H[SHULHQFH DQ DUUD\ RI FRQIOLFWLQJ HPRWLRQV ,Q RUGHU WR UHVSHFW RQHVHOI WKH LQMXUHG SHUVRQ PXVW KRQRU VXFK IHHOLQJV DQG JLYH RQHVHOI SHUPLVVLRQ WR H[SHULHQFH WKHP LQ IXOO 2QH PXVW UHFRJQL]H WKDW WKHVH IHHOLQJV DUH EDVLF DQG OHJLWLPDWH KXPDQ UHDFWLRQV WR ZKDW KDV KDSSHQHGf§UHDFWLRQV WKDW ZLOO KHOS WR XQGHUVWDQG ZKDW LV VR VWUHVVIXO DERXW WKH LQFLGHQW 7KH YLFWLP PXVW DOVR UHFRJQL]H WKDW LW LV SV\FKRORJLFDOO\ GHVWUXFWLYH WR GHQ\ WKHVH IHHOLQJV DQG WKDW E\ GRLQJ VR RQH LV SURORQJLQJ WKH KDUP 7KHUHE\ YLFWLPV ZKR DWWHPSW WR FXW RII WKHLU HPRWLRQV LQ RUGHU WR IRUJLYH WKH RIIHQGHU IDLO WR UHVSHFW WKHPVHOYHV %\ GHQ\LQJ WKLV LQWHJUDO SDUW RI RQHfV KXPDQLW\ RQH GHSULYHV RQHVHOI RI DQ RSSRUWXQLW\ WR XQGHUVWDQG WKH LQFLGHQW ZLWK DOO LWV UDPLILFDWLRQV DQG WUHDWV RQHVHOI LQ D SV\FKRORJLFDOO\ GHVWUXFWLYH PDQQHU 7KLV W\SH RI IRUJLYHQHVV LI RQH PD\ XVH WKLV ODEHO LV LQDSSURSULDWH WR WKH H[WHQW WKDW LW LV LQFRPSDWLEOH ZLWK WKH YLFWLPf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

PAGE 74

ZURQJGRHU WKDW WKH DFWLRQ ZDV ZURQJ DQG WKDW LW LV QRW DFFHSWDEOH WR EH WUHDWHG LQ WKLV PDQQHU 7KH LQGLYLGXDO GRHV VR XQOHVV WKLV FRXUVH RI DFWLRQ ZRXOG EH GDQJHURXV RU GHWULPHQWDO WR RQHVHOI RU WR RWKHUV $W WKH YHU\ OHDVW WKH LQGLYLGXDO VKRXOG QRW ZLWKKROG IHHOLQJV XQGHU WKH IDOVH DVVXPSWLRQ WKDW WKHVH IHHOLQJV DUH QRW YDOLG RU LPSRUWDQW RU QRW DV LPSRUWDQW DV WKH ZURQJGRHUfV )LIWK WKH YLFWLP RI WKH SHUSHWUDWLRQ IDFHV WKH WDVN RI DVVHVVLQJ WKH VLWXDWLRQ ZLWK UHVSHFW WR WKH RIIHQGHU ,I WKH YLFWLPV DUH WR UHVSHFW WKHPVHOYHV DQG DYRLG EHLQJ KXUW DJDLQ WKH\ PXVW FRQVLGHU WKH ZURQJGRHUfV DWWLWXGH DQG EHKDYLRU SDWWHUQV 7KH LQMXUHG SHUVRQ PXVW GHWHUPLQH WKH VWHSV QHFHVVDU\ WR DYRLG IXUWKHU YLFWLPL]DWLRQ 7KH VHOIUHVSHFWLQJ YLFWLPfV JRDO WKHQ LV WR QRW IRUJHW WKH LQFLGHQW DOWRJHWKHU EXW WR UHDFK D SRLQW ZKHUH WKH LQFLGHQW LV QR ORQJHU UHPHPEHUHG YLQGLFWLYHO\ RU LV QRW DOORZHG WR LQWHUIHUH ZLWK DQ DWWLWXGH RI UHDO JRRGZLOO WRZDUG WKH RIIHQGHU 7KH ILQDO WDVN IRU WKH YLFWLP RI ZURQJGRLQJ LV WR GHWHUPLQH ZKHWKHU WR VHHN UHVWLWXWLRQ IURP WKH RIIHQGHU ,Q RUGHU WR DFKLHYH VHOIUHVSHFW WKH YLFWLP PXVW UHFRJQL]H WKDW KHVKH KDV EHHQ ZURQJIXOO\ KDUPHG DQG GHVHUYHV UHVWLWXWLRQ ZKHUH SRVVLEOH 5HVSHFW IRU RQHfV RZQ LQWHJULW\ DOVR UHTXLUHV WKDW WKH LQGLYLGXDO ORRN REMHFWLYHO\ DQG ZLWK VRPH FRPSDVVLRQ DW WKH ZURQJGRHUfV VLWXDWLRQ 2QH PXVW WKHQ PDNH D PDWXUH UHDVRQHG MXGJPHQW DERXW KRZ RQH ZLVKHV WR SURFHHG ,I WKH YLFWLP RYHUORRNV WKLV WDVN LQ DQ DWWHPSW WR KDVWHQ WKH SURFHVV RI IRUJLYHQHVV WKH YLFWLP H[KLELWV D ODFN RI VHOIUHVSHFW DQG WKH VWDWH RI JHQXLQH IRUJLYHQHVV LV DOVR IRUHVWDOOHG RU IRUIHLWHG ,Q WKLV FDVH WKH YLFWLP KDV QRW DFKLHYHG D IXOO LQWHUQDO UHVROXWLRQ RI WKH LVVXH 7KH LQFLGHQW ZLOO QRW EH EURXJKW WR FORVXUH XQWLO WKH YLFWLP GHWHUPLQHV WKH FRXUVH RI DFWLRQ ZLWK UHVSHFW WR VHHNLQJ UHVWLWXWLRQ 7KHVH VWHSV SHUPLW WKH YLFWLP WR KHDO DQG UHVWRUH VHOIUHVSHFW 2QFH LQLWLDWLQJ WKHVH VWHSV WKH YLFWLP FDQ QRZ OHW JR RI WKH KXUW DQG SDLQ DQG IRFXV LQZDUG 7KH YLFWLP

PAGE 75

QRZ KDV WKH IUHHGRP DQG RSSRUWXQLW\ WR WDNH D PRUH REMHFWLYH DQG FRPSDVVLRQDWH SHUVSHFWLYH +ROPJUHQ f 7KHUH DUH RWKHU SURFHVVHV WKDW DUH ZRUWK H[DPLQLQJ 0F&XOORXJK DQG :RUWKLQJWRQ Df FRQVWUXFWHG D GHYHORSPHQWDO SURJUHVVLRQ RI XQGHUVWDQGLQJ IRUJLYHQHVV WKDW LV IDU PRUH LQYROYHG WKDQ PRVW 7KHLU SURJUHVVLRQ LV FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK WKH LQYHVWLJDWLRQV RI ERWK 7UDLQHUfV f DQG (QULJKW HW DO f LQ WKDW WKH SDWWHUQV FRQFHUQ SHRSOHfV UHDVRQLQJ LQ WKH DUHDV RI VWUDWHJ\ XVHG WR IRUJLYH WKH H[WHUQDO DQG LQWHUQDO PDQLIHVWDWLRQ RI IRUJLYLQJ DQG WKH FRQGLWLRQV XQGHU ZKLFK IRUJLYLQJ LV RIIHUHG 7KH SURJUHVVLRQ IROORZV WKH ORJLF RI 6HOPDQfV f VRFLDO SHUVSHFWLYHWDNLQJ DQG .RKOEHUJfV f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t:RUWKLQJWRQ Df 6HH 7DEOH f 5RPLJ DQG 9HHQVWUD f SRVWXODWH D VLPSOHU PRUH FRQFLVH IRXU VWHS SURFHVV 9LHZ WKH RIIHQGHUfV EHKDYLRU LQ FRQWH[W +DUJUDYH f 'HYHORS HPSDWK\ WRZDUG WKH RIIHQGHU &XQQLQJKDP f ,GHQWLI\ ZLWK WKH DFW E\ WKH RIIHQGHU WR JDLQ FRPSDVVLRQ %HQVRQ f 5HDOL]H WKH LQGLYLGXDO KDV QHHGHG IRUJLYHQHVV IURP RWKHUV LQ WKH SDVW &XQQLQJKDP f )LW]JLEERQV f IXUWKHU FRQGHQVHG WKH SURFHVV WR WZR PRQXPHQWDO VWHSV +H VWDWHV WKDW IRUJLYHQHVV HPHUJHV DIWHU WKH WKHUDSLVW KDV DQDO\]HG WKH RULJLQV RI WKH FOLHQWfV SDLQ DQG DIWHU WKH FOLHQW KDV VSHQW FRQVLGHUDEOH WLPH RQ WKH FRJQLWLYH OHYHO RI

PAGE 76

XQGHUVWDQGLQJ ZKDW IRUJLYHQHVV LV 7KH LQWHOOHFWXDO GHFLVLRQ WR IRUJLYH LV WKHQ IROORZHG E\ HPRWLRQDO IRUJLYHQHVV ZKLFK UHGXFHV DQJHU PDNLQJ KHDOLQJ SRVVLEOH +RSHfV f YLHZ RI IRUJLYHQHVV LV VRPHZKDW SDUDGR[LFDO $V WKH FOLHQW JLYHV XS WKH ULJKW WR UHYHQJH RU SRZHU DQG DVVXPHV D PRUH KXPEOH SRVLWLRQ LW LV WKHQ WKDW WKH FOLHQW IHHOV HPSRZHUHG :DSQLFN f HQFRXUDJHV WKH FOLHQW WR UHLQWHUSUHW SDVW HYHQWV 7KH REMHFWLYH LV WR FKDOOHQJH WKH FOLHQWfV GLVWRUWHG ZD\V RI WKLQNLQJ DQG RI SHUFHLYLQJ RWKHU SHRSOH WKXV OLEHUDWLQJ WKH FOLHQW IURP XQZDQWHG DQG H[FHVVLYH JXLOW DQJHU DQG RWKHU G\VIXQFWLRQDO SDWWHUQV WKDW UHVXOW IURP WKH GLVWRUWLRQV 7DEOH 7KH 'HYHORSPHQW RI )RUJLYHQHVV 3DWWHUQ 5HYHQJHIXO )RUJLYHQHVV 6WUDWHJLHV 2QH FRQVLGHUV ZD\V WR JHW EDFN DW WKH RIIHQGHU 2YHUW DJJUHVVLRQ LV FRQVLGHUHG 0DQLIHVWDWLRQV ([WHUQDO PDQLIHVWDWLRQV VXFK DV ZRUGV RU JHVWXUHV DUH LQGLFDWLYH RI WKH SHUVRQf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fV PRWLYHV DQG WKRXJKWV DQG WR UHLQWHUSUHW WKH HYHQW LQ OLJKW RI WKH SHUVSHFWLYHV RI VHOI DQG RWKHU 3DWWHUQ 0DQLIHVWDWLRQV )RUJLYHQHVV LV SULPDULO\ DQ LQWHUQDO DFWLYDWLRQ RI WKH EHQHILFHQFH SULQFLSOH ZKLFK SURPRWHV LQQHU UHOHDVH DQG SRVVLEO\ UHFRQFLOLDWLRQ &RQGLWLRQV )RUJLYHQHVV RFFXUV XQFRQGLWLRQDOO\ RXW RI WKH SULQFLSOH RI EHQHILFHQFH RU ORYH 6RXUFH 0F&XOORXJK t :RUWKLQJWRQ D

PAGE 77

&XQQLQJKDP f RIIHUV KLV RZQ IRXU VWDJHV LQ WKH SURFHVV VWUHVVLQJ WKH FKDOOHQJH DQG VWUHQXRXV WDVN LQ WKH DFW RI IRUJLYLQJ -XGJPHQW YHUVXV GHQLDO )RUJLYLQJ LV QRW D QLFH DQG QHDW HQGHDYRU WR XQGHUWDNH 2Q WKH FRQWUDU\ LW PHDQV ZLOOLQJQHVV WR GLH WR RQHVHOI ZLWKLQ UHDOLWLHV WKDW DUH SDLQIXO LQ RWKHUV DV ZHOO DV LQ RQHfV VHOI +XPLOLW\ YHUVXV KXPLOLDWLRQ :KHQ RIIHQGHG DQG ZRXQGHG PDQ\ RI XV KDYH D QDWXUDO WHQGHQF\ WR LQWHUQDOL]H WKH LQMXU\ DQG WXUQ LW DJDLQVW RXUVHOYHV 7KLV UHVXOWV LQ WKH SDLQIXO VWDWH RI KXPLOLDWLRQ WKDW OHDGV WR WKH YLHZ RI RQHfV VHOI DQG RQHfV RIIHQGHU DV DGYHUVDULDO DQG DOLHQ WR RQH DQRWKHU 7KH RSSRUWXQLW\ RI PXWXDOLW\ DQG QHJRWLDWLRQ ,Q WKLV VWDJH WKH IRUJL YHU EHFRPHV GLIIHUHQW KH RU VKH EHFRPHV RSHQ WR FKDQJH DQG JURZWK +H RU VKH EHFRPHV IUHH IURP WKH QHHG DQG GHVLUH WR DFFXVH DQG WKH FRPSHOOLQJ QHHG WR SXQLVK DQG WR VHHN UHYHQJH )RUJLYHQHVV 7KLV LV FKDUDFWHUL]HG E\ WKH DFWXDO OLYLQJ RXW RI WKH IRUJLYLQJ SURFHVV ZKHUH SHUVSHFWLYHV RQ RQHfV VHOI RWKHUV DQG *RG WDNH SODFH 7KLV WUDQVIRUPLQJ VWDJH RI IRUJLYLQJ LV WKH RQJRLQJ SURFHVV RI UHGHILQLQJ RQHfV UHODWLRQVKLS ZLWK WKH RIIHQGHU EDVHG XSRQ DQ HQOLJKWHQHG DZDUHQHVV RI RQHf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t /LQQ f 7KHVH IDFWRUV DUH RUGLQDULO\ IRXQG LQ PRVW SURFHVVHV RI IRUJLYHQHVV 7R HQIOHVK WKLV SURFHVV LW LV KHOSIXO WR ORRN DW RWKHU IDFWRUV WKDW DUH LQYROYHG LQ WKH FKDOOHQJH RI IRUJLYHQHVV 7KHUH DUH DW OHDVW HLJKW IDFWRUV WKDW UHODWH WR WKH DELOLW\ WR IRUJLYHf§IRXU WR FRQVLGHU LQ UHODWLRQVKLS WR WKH RIIHQGHG SDUW\ DQG IRXU WKDW UHODWH WR WKH RIIHQGHU 7KH IDFWRUV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK WKH RIIHQGHU DUH WKH IROORZLQJ 6HYHULW\ RI ZURQJf§WKH PRUH VHYHUH WKH PRUH GLIILFXOW LW LV WR IRUJLYH 7KH RIIHQGHU DFNQRZOHGJHV WKH RIIHQVH DQG LV JHQXLQHO\ VRUURZIXO IRU WKH RXWFRPH ,W LV PRUH OLNHO\ WKDW IRUJLYHQHVV ZLOO EH H[SHULHQFHG

PAGE 78

,QWHQWLRQDOO\ )UHTXHQF\f§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fV SHUVRQDO KLVWRU\ ZLWK IRUJLYHQHVV PD\ PDNH D GLIIHUHQFH ,I D SHUVRQ KDV EHHQ IRUJLYHQ WKH\ PD\ ILQG LW HDVLHU WR IRUJLYH 5RVHQDN t +DPGHQ f $QJHU DQG )RUJLYHQHVV )LW]JLEERQV f FODULILHV WKH SURFHVV RI IRUJLYHQHVV WKURXJK WKH XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI DQJHU DQG LWV UROH LQ KHDOLQJ f$QJHU LV D VWURQJ IHHOLQJ RI GLVSOHDVXUH DQG DQWDJRQLVP DURXVHG E\ D VHQVH RI LQMXU\ RU ZURQJf S f 6RRQ DIWHU D KXUW RU GLVDSSRLQWPHQW WKLV HPRWLRQ RFFXUV DQG LV FORVHO\ DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK D GHJUHH RI VDGQHVV IURP WKH KXUW $QJHU DQG KRZ WR GHDO ZLWK LW LV RIWHQ D VWXPEOLQJ EORFN LQ WKH IRUJLYLQJ SURFHVV $QJHU GHYHORSV DV D QDWXUDO LQERUQ UHVSRQVH RI WKH IDLOXUH RI RWKHUV WR PHHW RQHf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

PAGE 79

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f ,Q )LW]JLEERQVf f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f ,W DGYHUVHO\ DIIHFWV FKLOGUHQ *DUGQHU f LQFUHDVHV JXLOW DQG VKDPH /HPHU f UHLQIRUFHV LQDSSURSULDWH ZD\V RI UHODWLQJ UXLQV IULHQGVKLSV DQG DJJUDYDWHV SV\FKRVRPDWLF LOOQHVV 7DYULV f 5HFRJQL]LQJ DQG XQGHUVWDQGLQJ WKH KDUP DQJHU FDQ FDXVH LW LV H[SHGLHQW WKDW D VRXQG DQG KHDOWK\ VWUDWHJ\ EH IRXQG WR FRSH ZLWK LW )RUJLYHQHVV PD\ EH WKDW UHPHG\

PAGE 80

)RUJLYHQHVV ZRUNV GLUHFWO\ RQ WKH HPRWLRQV RI DQJHU DQG UHODWHG FRQVWUXFWVf VXFK DV UHVHQWPHQW KRVWLOLW\ DQG KDWUHG E\ GLPLQLVKLQJ LWV LQWHQVLW\ RU OHYHO ZLWKLQ WKH PLQG DQG KHDUW (DFK WLPH LW LV VXFFHVVIXOO\ DSSOLHG WR D GLVDSSRLQWLQJ RU WUDXPDWLF OLIH H[SHULHQFH ZLWKLQ VRPHRQH LW UHPRYHV VRPH RI WKH DQJHU IURP WKDW KXUW 8QGHUVWDQGDEO\ WKH PRUH VHYHUH WKH HPRWLRQDO ZRXQG WKH JUHDWHU ZLOO EH WKH WLPH DQG HIIRUW QHHGHG WR DUULYH DW D FRQWURO RU UHVROXWLRQ RI WKH DVVRFLDWHG DQJHU )LW]JLEERQV f H[SODLQV KRZ DQ LQGLYLGXDO FDQ EH DVVLVWHG LQ WKLV SURFHVV RI IRUJLYLQJ $Q LQGLYLGXDO FDQ EH KHOSHG WR PRYH WRZDUG IRUJLYHQHVV E\ FRQFHQWUDWLQJ RQ D VSHFLILF PHPRU\ RU D ORQJ VHULHV RI SDLQIXO PHPRULHV 7KLV SURFHVV PD\ WKHQ SURFHHG LQ RQH RI WKUHH OHYHOV FRJQLWLYH HPRWLRQDO RU VSLULWXDO 2Q WKH FRJQLWLYH OHYHO DQ LQGLYLGXDO DIWHU DQDO\]LQJ WKH RULJLQV RI WKHLU SDLQ PDNHV D GHFLVLRQ WR IRUJLYH WKDW LV WR OHW JR RI DQJHU RU WKH GHVLUH IRU UHYHQJH ,QLWLDOO\ WKH SHUVRQ PD\ QRW EH LQFOLQHG RU KDYH WKH SURSHU GLVSRVLWLRQ WR IRUJLYH )RU PRVW SHRSOH WKH IRUJLYHQHVV SURFHVV EHJLQV ZLWK WKLV FRJQLWLYH OHYHO DQG XVXDOO\ UHPDLQV RQ WKDW OHYHO IRU D SHULRG RI WLPH )LW]JLEERQV f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fZRXQGHG ER\ RU JLUOf ZLWKLQ WKH DGXOW DQG DV D UHVXOW IHHOV WUXO\ LQFOLQHG WR IRUJLYH 7KLV OHYHO RU VWDJH RI WKH SURFHVV RI IRUJLYHQHVV LV XVXDOO\ SUHFHGHG E\ D VLJQLILFDQW DPRXQW RI WLPH LQ WKH XWLOL]DWLRQ RI FRJQLWLYH IRUJLYHQHVV H[HUFLVHV

PAGE 81

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f DP SRZHUOHVV RYHU P\ DQJHU DQG ZDQW WR WXUQ LW RYHU WR *RGf RU f5HYHQJH RU MXVWLFH EHORQJV WR *RGf RU f*RG IRUJLYH KLP FDQfWf RU f*RG IUHH PH IURP P\ DQJHUf $OFRKROLFV $QRQ\PRXV f +RSHIXOO\ WKLV ZLOO OHDG WR WKH IRUPHU VWHS RI WKH FRJQLWLYH H[HUFLVHV ZKLFK LQ WXUQ HPRWLRQDO IRUJLYHQHVV PD\ IROORZ )LW]JLEERQV f 7KH 0RGHO RI )RUJLYHQHVV %DVHG RQ .RKOEHUJfV 7KHRU\ RI 0RUDO 'HYHORSPHQW 3HUKDSV WKH JURXQGEUHDNLQJ ZRUN RQ PRUDO GHYHORSPHQW LV .RKOEHUJfV f H[SODQDWLRQ RI WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI VHQVH RI MXVWLFH ,W LV WKLV VWDQGDUG WKDW (QULJKW DQG FROOHDJXHV DQG RWKHUV (QULJKW *DVVLQ t :X (QULJKW t +'6* E (QULJKW 6DQWRV t $O0DEXN 1HOVRQ 6SLGHOO t /LEHPDQ f KDYH XVHG WR GHVFULEH WKH DFTXLVLWLRQ RI UHDVRQLQJ DERXW IRUJLYHQHVV 7KHVH PRGHOV VXJJHVW WKDW DV LQGLYLGXDOV GHYHORS FRJQLWLYH VNLOOV WKH\ EHFRPH PRUH DEOH WR WDNH WKH SHUVSHFWLYH RI RWKHUV WR HPSDWKL]H ZLWK WKHLU SUHGLFDPHQWV DQG IUDLOWLHV DQG WU\ WR YDOXH DQG DFFHSW WKHP DV SHRSOH GHVSLWH WKH KXUWV WKH\ KDYH LQIOLFWHG LQ WKH SDVW ,Q 7DEOH WKH PRGHOV RI (QULJKWfV JURXS (QULJKW *DVVLQ t :X (QULJKW t +'6* Df DUH SODFHG DORQJVLGH .RKOEHUJfV WR VKRZ KRZ WKH\ FRUUHVSRQG WR HDFK RWKHU (DFK VWDJH

PAGE 82

7DEOH 'HYHORSPHQWDO 0RGHOV RI )RUJLYHQHVV DQG 7KHLU 5HODWLRQVKLS WR .RKOEHUJfV 7KHRU\ .RKO EHUJfV 7KHRU\ (QULJKW 0RGHO 6WDJH 3XQLVKPHQW DQG REHGLHQFH RULHQWDWLRQ -XVWLFH VKRXOG EH GHFLGHG E\ DQ DXWKRULW\ RU RQH ZKR SXQLVKHV 6WDJH 5HODWLYLVW MXVWLFH $ VHQVH RI UHFLSURFLW\ GHILQHV MXVWLFH f,I \RX KHOS PH ZLOO KHOS \RXff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t $O0DEXN

PAGE 83

LQ .ROEHUJfV PRGHO FRUUHVSRQGV ZLWK RQH DQG RQO\ RQH VWDJH LQ (QULJKWfV PRGHO ,Q WKH ORZHVW VWDJHVf§5HYHQJHIXO )RUJLYHQHVV DQG 5HVWLWXWLRQDO )RUJLYHQHVVf§IRUJLYHQHVV FDQ RQO\ RFFXU DIWHU WKH ZURQJGRHU KDV EHHQ VXEMHFWHG WR UHYHQJH RU DSSURSULDWH SXQLVKPHQW ,Q WKH PLGGOH VWDJHVf§([SHFWDWLRQDO )RUJLYHQHVV RI )RUJLYHQHVV DV 6RFLDO )ODUPRQ\f§ IRUJLYHQHVV FDQ EH JDLQHG RQO\ LI SUHVVXUHV IURP VLJQLILFDQW RWKHUV DUH SUHVHQW ,W LV RQO\ LQ WKH KLJKHVW VWDJH RI WKH PRGHOf§)RUJLYHQHVV DV /RYHf§WKDW IRUJLYHQHVV LV FRQFHLYHG DV DQ XQFRQGLWLRQDO DWWLWXGH DQG LV VHHQ DV SURPRWLQJ SRVLWLYH UHJDUG DQG JRRG ZLOO 7KLV XOWLPDWH VWDJH LQ WKHRU\ EHVW LOOXVWUDWHV WKH GLIIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ WKH 3LDJHW DQG (QULJKW FRQFHSWLRQV RI IRUJLYHQHVV $FFRUGLQJ WR (QULJKW DQG WKH +XPDQ 'HYHORSPHQW 6WXG\ *URXS f IRUJLYHQHVV GXH WR LWV JLIWOLNH FKDUDFWHU GRHV QRW HQWDLO DQ\ NLQG RI UHFLSURFLW\ DV FRQFHLYHG E\ 3LDJHW f 1HOVRQ f DQG (QULJKWfV *URXS (QULJKW *DVVLQ t:X (QULJKW t +'6* D (QULJKW HW DO f FRQVLGHUHG WKH HDUOLHVW VLJQV RI UHDVRQLQJ FRQFHUQLQJ IRUJLYHQHVV WR RFFXU ZKHQ FRJQLWLRQ LV SUHGRPLQDWHO\ HJRFHQWULF DQG SUHRFFXSLHG ZLWK DYRLGLQJ SDLQ DQG VHHNLQJ SOHDVXUH 1HOVRQ f FDOOHG WKLV VWDJH RI UHDVRQLQJ DERXW IRUJLYHQHVV WKH SUHFRJQLWLYH ,QGLYLGXDOV UHVHQW DXWKRULW\ DQG KDYH D OLPLWHG FDSDFLW\ IRU LQWLPDF\ ZLWK DQG HPSDWK\ IRU RWKHUV )RUJLYHQHVVf SULPH PRWLYDWLRQ LV D VHOILQWHUHVW DQG GHVLUH IRU UHYHQJH DQG UHVWLWXWLRQ 6XFK LQGLYLGXDOV IHHO KXUW E\ HYHQ PLQRU RIIHQVHV (QULJKWfV JURXS (QULJKW *DVVLQ t :X (QULJKW t +'6* D (QULJKW 6DQWRV t $O0DEXN f GLYLGHG WKLV SHULRG LQWR WZR VWDJHV 'XULQJ WKH VWDJH RI UHYHQJHIXO IRUJLYHQHVV IRUJLYHQHVV LV PRWLYDWHG E\ DQ HJRFHQWULF GHVLUH IRU UHYHQJH 'XULQJ WKH VWDJH RI UHVWLWXWLRQDOFRPSHQVDWLRQDO IRUJLYHQHVV IRUJLYHQHVV LV GULYHQ E\ D GHVLUH WR UHFHLYH FRPSHQVDWLRQ DQG UHVWLWXWLRQ IRU RIIHQVHV WKDW RQH KDV H[SHULHQFHG 7KLV SHULRG RI

PAGE 84

IRUJLYHQHVV UHDVRQLQJ FRLQFLGHV ZLWK WKH VWDJHV RI MXVWLFH UHDVRQLQJ WKDW .RKOEHUJ f FDOOHG SXQLVKPHQW DQG REHGLHQFH RULHQWDWLRQ DQG UHODWLYLVW MXVWLFH 1HOVRQ f DQG (QULJKWfV JURXS (QULJKW *DVVLQ t :X (QULJKW t +'6* Df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fV f VWDJHV RI MXVWLFH UHDVRQLQJ FDOOHG JRRG ER\JRRG JLUO MXVWLFH ODZ DQG RUGHU MXVWLFH DQG VRFLDO FRQWUDFW RULHQWDWLRQ 7KH WKLUG SHULRG RI UHDVRQLQJ FRQFHUQLQJ IRUJLYHQHVV LV FKDUDFWHUL]HG E\ JHQXLQH LQWHUHVW LQ WKH ZHOO EHLQJ RI RWKHUV DQG IRU SURPRWLQJ ORYH DQG LQWHUSHUVRQDO KDUPRQ\ (QULJKW DQG DVVRFLDWHV ODEHOHG WKLV VWDJH VLPSO\ DV ORYH 7KLV SHULRG RI IRUJLYHQHVV UHDVRQLQJ SDUDOOHOV .RKOEHUJfV f XQLYHUVDO HWKLFDO SULQFLSOH RULHQWDWLRQ VWDJH RI MXVWLFH UHDVRQLQJ (QULJKW HW DO f +XDQJ f DQG 3DUN (QULJKW DQG *DVVLQ f IRXQG HYLGHQFH IRU D GHYHORSPHQWDO YLHZ RQ UHDVRQLQJ FRQFHUQLQJ IRUJLYHQHVV LQ $PHULFDQ 7DLZDQHVH DQG .RUHDQ VDPSOHV ,Q WKHVH VWXGLHV UHDVRQLQJ FRQFHUQLQJ IRUJLYHQHVV DFFRUGLQJ WR WKH PRGHO RI (QULJKW HW DO ff ZDV PRGHUDWHO\ FRUUHODWHG ZLWK MXVWLFH UHDVRQLQJ 5HDVRQLQJ FRQFHUQLQJ IRUJLYHQHVV DOVR LQFUHDVHG ZLWK DJH

PAGE 85

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fULJKWf WR SXQLVK ,Q PHUFLIXO UHVWUDLQW WKH IRUJLYHU JLYHV XS WKH LQLWLDOO\ DWWUDFWLYH RSWLRQ RI UHYHQJH RU FRQGHPQDWLRQ /DWHU KH RU VKH PD\ KDYH WKH VWUHQJWK DQG LQQHU IRUWLWXGH WR JLYH JHQHURXVO\ WR WKH RWKHU *HQHURVLW\ JRHV IXUWKHU WKDQ UHIUDLQLQJ IURP WKH EDG LW LQFOXGHV WKH GLPHQVLRQ RI JLYLQJ VXFK SRVLWLYH HOHPHQWV DV RFFDVLRQDO IULHQGOLQHVV DQG DWWHQWLRQ WR

PAGE 86

WKH RIIHQGHU 6WLOO ODWHU VRPH IRUJLYHUV PD\ RIIHU WKH JLIW RI PRUDO ORYH LQ ZKLFK WKH IRUJLYHU ZLOOLQJO\ HQWHUV LQWR WKH RWKHUfV OLIH LQ WKH KRSH RI SRVLWLYHO\ WUDQVIRUPLQJ WKH RWKHU DQG WKH FRPPXQLW\ 7KH IRUJLYHUfV GHJUHH RI WUXVW WRZDUG WKH RWKHU DQG WKH DPRXQW RI WLPH SDVVHG VLQFH WKH RIIHQVHVf SOD\ D VLJQLILFDQW SDUW LQ WKHVH XQIROGLQJ SDWWHUQV (QULJKW HW DO f 7KH PRUDO MXGJPHQW OLWHUDWXUH VXJJHVWV WKDW IRUJLYHQHVV LV GHYHORSPHQWDO (QULJKW 6DQWRV t $O0DEXN 3LDJHW f $V IRUJLYHQHVV LV ERWK D SV\FKRORJLFDO DQG VRFLDO SURFHVV LW VKRXOG EH VXEMHFW WR GHYHORSPHQWDO LQIOXHQFHV 5RPLJ t9HHQVWUD f $V SHRSOH PDWXUH WKH\ PD\ EH PRUH ZLOOLQJ WR IRUJLYH D GHHS RIIHQVH DJDLQVW WKHP 6XENRYLDN HW DO f 3LDJHW KLJKOLJKWHG VRPH SHUWLQHQW IDFWRUV WKDW LQIOXHQFH DQG DIIHFW RXU DELOLW\ WR IRUJLYH 3LDJHW f SODFHG IRUJLYHQHVV ZLWKLQ D GHYHORSPHQWDO IUDPHZRUN EHFDXVH LQ KLV YLHZ LW SRVVHVVHG FHUWDLQ GHYHORSPHQWDO FKDUDFWHULVWLFV 7KH ILUVW LV PDWXUDWLRQDO DVSHFW
PAGE 87

DQG LQWHQVH UHODWLRQVKLSV VKRXOG LQIOXHQFH WKH SURFHVV RI UHFRQFLOLQJ D UHODWLRQVKLS XQUDYHOHG E\ XQMXVWO\ LQGXFHG SDLQ 2QHfV SV\FKRVRFLDO GHYHORSPHQW PD\ DOVR KDYH D VLJQLILFDQW LQIOXHQFH LQ KRZ RQH UHDFWV WR D SDLQIXO LQMXU\ DQG WKH SURFHVVHV VHOHFWHG IRU FRSLQJ ZLWK VXFK LQMXU\ (ULNVRQfV WKHRU\ RI SV\FKRVRFLDO GHYHORSPHQW SURYLGHV PHDQV IRU XQGHUVWDQGLQJ WKH SURFHVV RI UHVROYLQJ VLJQLILFDQW UHODWLRQVKLS LQMXULHV 5RPLJ t 9HHQVWUD f (ULNVRQ f GHYHORSHG D VHTXHQFH RI HLJKW GHYHORSPHQWDO VWDJHV WKDW DUH KLHUDUFKLFDOO\ RUGHUHG DQG H[SDQG RYHU RQHfV HQWLUH OLIH $W HDFK SDUWLFXODU VWDJH RQH LV FRQIURQWHG E\ D XQLTXH FULVLV RU FRQIOLFW DOWKRXJK HDFK FRQIOLFW UHPDLQV SUHVHQW LQ VRPH IRUP WKURXJKRXW WKH OLIH VSDQ DQG LV QHYHU HQWLUHO\ UHVROYHG 5RPLJ DQG 9HHQVWUD f DQDO\]HG WKH SULPDU\ VWDJHV DQG KRZ WKH\ UHODWH WR IRUJLYHQHVV 7KH NH\ VWDJHV DUH WKH ILUVW WUXVW YV PLVWUXVWf VL[WK LQWLPDF\ YV LVRODWLRQf DQG VHYHQWK JHQHUDWLYLW\ YV VWDJQDWLRQf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

PAGE 88

)DLOLQJ WR UHVROYH WKH JHQHUDWLYLW\ YHUVXV VWDJQDWLRQ FULVLV ZRXOG JUHDWO\ FRQWULEXWH WR D SHUVRQ OLYLQJ SULPDULO\ IRU VHOILVK JUDWLILFDWLRQ DQG UHPDLQLQJ LQFRQVLGHUDWH WR WKH ZHOO EHLQJ RI RWKHUV )RUJLYHQHVV UHTXLUHV PDNLQJ D GHFLVLRQ WR SURPRWH MXVWLFH IRU WKH VDNH RI VKRZLQJ PHUF\ DQG FRPSDVVLRQ DQG D FRQFHUQ IRU WKH ZHOOEHLQJ RI WKH RIIHQGHU DQG WKLV ZRXOG PRVW OLNHO\ QRW EH SUHVHQW LQ DQ\RQH ZKR IDLOV WR UHVROYH WKLV VWDJH 5RPLJ t 9HHQVWUD f )LQDOO\ ZKDW GRHV WKH SURFHVV RI IRUJLYHQHVV ORRN OLNH" 5HFDOO WKDW IRUJLYHQHVV KDV EHHQ GHILQHG DV D fYROXQWDU\ IRUJRLQJ RI QHJDWLYH DIIHFW DQG MXGJPHQW E\ DQ LQMXUHG SDUW\ GLUHFWHG DW VRPHRQH ZKR KDV LQIOLFWHG D VLJQLILFDQW GHHS DQG XQMXVW KXUW WKLV SURFHVV DOVR LQYROYHV YLHZLQJ WKH ZURQJGRHU ZLWK ORYH DQG FRPSDVVLRQf (QULJKW t +'6* D 1RUWK f )RUJLYHQHVV LV D SURFHVV RI VWUXJJOLQJ ZLWK DQG XOWLPDWHO\ DEDQGRQLQJ QHJDWLYH WKRXJKWV IHHOLQJV DQG EHKDYLRUV GLUHFWHG DW WKH LQMXUHU ZKLOH JUDGXDOO\ DQG DFWLYHO\ LQFRUSRUDWLQJ SRVLWLYH WKRXJKWV IHHOLQJV DQG EHKDYLRUV WRZDUG WKH VDPH 7KLV JHQHUDO SURFHVV PD\ LQYROYH VRPH RU DOO RI DW OHDVW VXESURFHVVHV EDVHG RQ (QULJKWfV PRGHO *DVVLQ t (QULJKW f 7KH IRUHJRLQJ PRGHO KDV EHHQ VKRZQ HIIHFWLYH LQ WKUHH ZRUNV WR GDWH )UHHGPDQ DQG (QULJKW f LQ DQ LQWHUYHQWLRQ ZLWK IHPDOH LQFHVW VXUYLYRUV XVHG WKH PRGHO LQ D RQFHSHUZHHN HGXFDWLRQDO SURJUDP 7KH SDUWLFLSDQWV H[SORUHG WKH LGHDV RI HDFK XQLW DW HDFK ZRPDQfV RZQ SDFH IRU DQ DYHUDJH RI \HDU WR FRPSOHWH WKH SURJUDP 7KLV ZDV DQ H[SHULPHQWDO DQG FRQWUROOHG GHVLJQ WKDW ZDV UDQGRPL]HG $IWHU WKH H[SHULPHQWDO JURXS FRPSOHWHG WKH HGXFDWLRQDO SURJUDP WKH ZRPHQ ZKR FRPSRVHG WKH RULJLQDO FRQWURO JURXS SDUWLFLSDWHG LQ WKH GLVFXVVLRQ WKXV EHFRPLQJ WKH VHFRQG H[SHULPHQWDO JURXS

PAGE 89

7DEOH 3URFHVV RI )RUJLYLQJ 8QFRYHULQJ 3KDVH ([DPLQDWLRQ RI SV\FKRORJLFDO GHIHQVHV .LHO f &RQIURQWDWLRQ RI DQJHU WKH SRLQW LV WR UHOHDVH QRW KDUERU WKH DQJHU 7UDLQHU f $GPLWWDQFH RI VKDPH ZKHQ WKLV LV DSSURSULDWH 3DWWRQ f $ZDUHQHVV RI FDWKDUVLV 'UROO f $ZDUHQHVV RI FRJQLWLYH UHKHDUVDO RI WKH RIIHQVH 'UROO f ,QVLJKW WKDW WKH LQMXUHG SDUW\ PD\ EH FRPSDULQJ VHOI ZLWK WKH LQMXUHU .LHO f 5HDOL]DWLRQ WKDW RQHVHOI PD\ EH SHUPDQHQWO\ DQG DGYHUVHO\ FKDQJHG E\ WKH LQMXU\ &ORVH f ,QVLJKW LQWR D SRVVLEO\ DOWHUHG fMXVW ZRUOG f YLHZ )ODQLJDQ f 'HFLVLRQ 3KDVH $ FKDQJH RI KHDUW FRQYHUVLRQ QHZ LQVLJKWV WKDW ROG UHVROXWLRQ VWUDWHJLHV DUH QRW ZRUNLQJ 1RUWK f :LOOLQJQHVV WR FRQVLGHU IRUJLYHQHVV DV DQ RSWLRQ &RPPLWPHQW WR IRUJLYH WKH RIIHQGHU 1HEOHWW f :RUN 3KDVH 5HIUDLQLQJ WKURXJK UROH WDNLQJ ZKR WKH ZURQJGRHU LV E\ YLHZLQJ KLP RU KHU LQ FRQWH[W 6PLWK f (PSDWK\ WRZDUG WKH RIIHQGHU &XQQLQJKDP f $ZDUHQHVV RI FRPSDVVLRQ DV LW HPHUJHV WRZDUG WKH RIIHQGHU 'UROO f $FFHSWDQFH DEVRUSWLRQ RI WKH SDLQ %HUJLQ f 2XWFRPH 3KDVH )LQGLQJ PHDQLQJ IRU VHOI DQG RWKHUV LQ WKH VXIIHULQJ DQG LQ WKH IRUJLYHQHVV SURFHVV )UDQN f 5HDOL]DWLRQ WKDW VHOI KDV QHHGHG RWKHUVf IRUJLYHQHVV LQ WKH SDVW &XQQLQJKDP f ,QVLJKW WKDW RQH LV QRW DORQH XQLYHUVDOLW\ VXSSRUWf 5HDOL]DWLRQ WKDW VHOI PD\ KDYH D QHZ SXUSRVH LQ OLIH EHFDXVH RI WKH LQMXU\ $ZDUHQHVV RI GHFUHDVHG QHJDWLYH DIIHFW DQG SHUKDSV LQFUHDVHG SRVLWLYH DIIHFW LI WKLV EHJLQV WR HPHUJH WRZDUG WKH LQMXUHU DZDUHQHVV RI LQWHUQDO HPRWLRQDO UHOHDVH 6PHGHV f 6RXUFH *DVVLQ t (QULJKW S f

PAGE 90

7KUHH ILQGLQJV DUH ZRUWK QRWLQJ )UHHGPDQ t (QULJKW f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f ZLWK WKHLU RZQ RXWFRPHV GXULQJ WKH VW \HDU DV FRQWURO SDUWLFLSDQWVf 7KLV FRPSDULVRQ \LHOGHG UHVXOWV VLPLODU WR WKH ILUVW DIRUHPHQWLRQHG ILQGLQJ DERXW WKH H[SHULPHQWDO JURXS DQG WKH FRQWURO JURXS 7KH FKDQJHV LQ WKH QG \HDU FRPSDUHG ZLWK WKRVH RI WKH VW \HDU ZLWKLQ WKLV JURXS ZHUH VWDWLVWLFDOO\ VLJQLILFDQW 7KHUH ZDV D JUHDWHU GHFUHDVH LQ DQ[LHW\ DQG GHSUHVVLRQ 7KH WKLUG FRPSDULVRQ H[DPLQHG WKH RULJLQDO VW \HDUf H[SHULPHQWDO JURXS VFRUHV DW WKH \HDU SRVW WHVW ZLWKLQ WKHLU VFRUHV DW D \HDU IROORZXS \HDU DIWHU LQWHUYHQWLRQ FHDVHG IRU WKLV RULJLQDO H[SHULPHQWDO JURXSf 7KHVH SDUWLFLSDQWV PDLQWDLQHG WKHLU FKDQJH SDWWHUQV RQ DOO VFDOHV WKXV VKRZLQJ WKDW WKHUH ZDV QR ZDVKRXW HIIHFW 7KH WZR RWKHU LQWHUYHQWLRQV DOVR YDOLGDWHG WKLV PRGHO RI IRUJLYLQJ $O0DEXN (QULJKW DQG &DUGLV f UHSRUWHG SRVLWLYH PHQWDO KHDOWK RXWFRPHV IROORZLQJ VKRUWWHUP ZRUNVKRS RQ IRUJLYHQHVV HGXFDWLRQ IRU FROOHJH VWXGHQWV ZKR KDG EHHQ GHSULYHG RI SDUHQWDO ORYH +HEO DQG (QULJKW f GHPRQVWUDWHG IRUJLYLQJ UHVSRQVHV LQ WKH HOGHUO\ IROORZLQJ DQ ZHHN SURJUDP ,Q WKH ODWWHU VWXG\ ERWK H[SHULPHQWDO DQG FRQWURO JURXSV GHFUHDVHG LQ DQ[LHW\ 7KH RYHUDOO SDWWHUQ DFURVV WKHVH GLYHUVH VDPSOHV VXJJHVWHG WKDW WKH PRGHO RI IRUJLYLQJ LV HIIHFWLYH LQ EULQJLQJ SHRSOH WR D IRUJLYLQJ VWDJH WRZDUG DQ RIIHQGHU

PAGE 91

8QLWV WKURXJK UHSUHVHQW WKH SUHIRUJLYHQHVV LQWHUSHUVRQDO FRQIOLFW IROORZLQJ D GHHS XQIDLU KXUW 3V\FKRORJLFDO GHIHQVHV XQLW f PDVN HPRWLRQDO SDLQ WKDW PD\ EH WRR LQWHQVH $QJHU XQLW f LV RQH RI WKH LQLWLDO VLJQV WKDW WKH LQGLYLGXDO LV FRQIURQWLQJ WKH RIIHQVH $QJHU WKRXJK XQFRPIRUWDEOH LV FRQVLGHUHG D QHFHVVDU\ SDUW RI WKH IRUJLYHQHVV MRXUQH\ LQ LWV LQLWLDO SKDVHV +RSH f &RPPRQ EHKDYLRUV VXFK DV VKDPH DWWDFKLQJ D JUHDWHU GHDO RI HPRWLRQDO HQHUJ\ WR WKH SUREOHP FDUWKH[LVf UHKHDUVLQJ WKH HYHQW RYHU DQG RYHU LQ RQHfV PLQG FRJQLWLYH UHKHDUVDOf DQG VLPLODU SDWWHUQV DUH FRPPRQ XQLWV WKURXJK f ,Q VRPH FDVHV WKH SHUVRQ PXVW DW VRPH SRLQW FRQIURQW D SHUPDQHQW QHJDWLYH FKDQJH HJ SDUDO\VLV IURP DQ DFFLGHQW EURNHQ UHODWLRQVKLS ORVV RI VH[XDO LQQRFHQFHf LQ XQLW 8QLW FDQ EH SDUWLFXODUO\ SDLQIXO DV WKH LQMXUHG SDUW\ ZKR DFNQRZOHGJHV KLV RU KHU RZQ ORVVf VHHV QR VXFK GHILFLW LQ WKH LQMXUHU $OO RI WKLV PD\ OHDG D SHUVRQ ELWWHUO\ WR FRQFOXGH WKDW OLIH FDQ EH SURIRXQGO\ XQIDLU XQLW f ,Q XQLWV WKURXJK WKH LQMXUHG SDUW\ EHFRPHV DZDUH WKDW WKHUH DUH RWKHU SRVVLELOLWLHV DQG SDWKV WKDW RQH FDQ FKRRVH WR WUDYHO 7KHUH OLHV D JOLPPHU RI KRSH WKDW OLIH VWLOO RIIHUV ZRUWK\ RSSRUWXQLWLHV 7KHUH LV QR VHW WLPH VLWXDWLRQ RU FRQGLWLRQ WKDW WKH LQGLYLGXDO PD\ GLVFRYHU WKLV SRVVLELOLW\ 8QLWV WKURXJK FRPSDUH WKH SURFHVVHV RI FKDQJH GLUHFWHG WRZDUG IRUJLYHQHVV 7KH LQMXUHG FDQ QRZ ULVH DERYH WKH KXUW DQG ORRN EH\RQG WKH VHOI WR FRQVLGHU WKH RWKHU 5HIUDPLQJ XQLW f LV WKH SURFHVV RI YLHZLQJ DQG XQGHUVWDQGLQJ WKH RIIHQGLQJ SHUVRQ LQ FRQWH[Wf§H[DPLQLQJ WKH GHYHORSPHQWDO KLVWRU\ WKHLU GHILFLWV DQG WKH SUHVVXUHV WKH\ ZHUH XQGHU DW WKH WLPH RI WKH LQMXU\ 2QH GRHV QRW FRQGRQH EXW GHVLUHV WR XQGHUVWDQG WKH SKHQRPHQRORJLFDO YLHZ 0DQ\ LQFOXGLQJ *XHVW f DQG 7UDLQHU f DGYRFDWH WKLV VWUDWHJ\ (PSDWK\ XQLW f LV WKH HVVHQWLDO HPRWLRQDO FRXQWHUSDUW WR FRJQLWLYH UHIUDPLQJ

PAGE 92

)URP WKLV XQGHUVWDQGLQJ FRPSDVVLRQ XQLW f FDQ HPHUJH PDNLQJ WKH DFFHSWDQFH RI WKH LQMXVWLFH DQG WKH JLIW RI IRUJLYHQHVV D SRVVLELOLW\ 7KH LQVLJKWV JDLQHG IURP XQLW HQDEOH WKH IRUJLYHU WR UHDOL]H WKDW ERWK VHOI DQG RWKHU DUH LPSHUIHFW DQG IDOOLEOH ZKLFK PD\ PDNH WKH QH[W XQLW HDVLHU WR DFKLHYH :KHQ RQH DEVRUEV WKH SDLQ XQLW f LW SUHYHQWV WKH FRQIOLFW IURP EHLQJ GLUHFWO\ WUDQVPLWWHG WR LQGLYLGXDOV LQ SUHVHQW DQGRU IXWXUH JHQHUDWLRQV %HUJLQ f 8QLW KHOSV WKH RIIHQGHG ILQG OLIH PHDQLQJIXO DQG IRUPV WKH VROLG IRXQGDWLRQ RI SRVLWLYH SV\FKRORJLFDO DGMXVWPHQW )UDQN f 6RPH SHRSOH DV WKH\ KHDG WRZDUG SV\FKRORJLFDO KHDOLQJ GHYHORS D QHZ SXUSRVH LQ OLIH 2XW RI WKH DVKHV FRPHV D QHZ SURPLVLQJ OLIH DQG YLVLRQ XQLW f 7KH LQFHVW VXUYLYRU IRU H[DPSOH GHFLGHV WR XVH WKH LQVLJKW JDLQHG DQG FRXQVHO RWKHU VXUYLYRUV $V WKH SHUVRQ H[SHULHQFHV D GHFUHDVH LQ WKH QHJDWLYH HPRWLRQV HJ UHVHQWPHQW KRVWLOLW\f IRUJLYHQHVV ZKLFK RQFH VHHPHG XQDWWDLQDEOH QRZ EHFRPHV D UHDO SRVVLELOLW\ XQLW f )LQDOO\ LQ XQLW WKH ZRXQGHG SDUW\ H[SHULHQFHV D UHOHDVH RI PRVW LI QRW DOOf QHJDWLYH WR[LF HPRWLRQ GLUHFWHG DW WKH RIIHQGHU )LW]JLEERQV f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

PAGE 93

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

PAGE 94

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

PAGE 95

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f 7KHVH SUHFHGLQJ VWDJHV VHHP WR RFFXU Df VORZO\ Ef ZLWK D OLWWOH XQGHUVWDQGLQJ WRZDUG WKH RWKHU VXFK DV VHHLQJ WKH RWKHU SHUVRQ DV LPSHUIHFWf Ff LQ FRQIXVLRQ RYHU WKH HPRWLRQV DV \RX VRUW RXW WKH PL[ RI HPRWLRQVf Gf ZLWK D UHVLGXH RI DQJHU OHIW RYHU LW VHHPV WR JR DZD\ WKHQ HPHUJHV EXW RYHU WLPH LW OHVVHQVf Hf D OLWWOH DW D WLPH If IUHHO\ RU QRW DW DOO WKH RWKHU LV QR ORQJHU XQGHU REOLJDWLRQ WR \RX IRU ZKDW WKH\ GLGf (DVWLQ f :KHQ RQH KDV UHFHLYHG IRUJLYHQHVV LW LV HDVLHU WR IRUJLYH RWKHUV 6PHGHV f ,Q UHYLHZLQJ WKH OLWHUDWXUH WKH IROORZLQJ ILYH FRPSRQHQWV DSSHDU WR EH FUXFLDO LQ WKH SURFHVV RI IRUJLYHQHVV 7KH DFFHSWDQFH LQWR DZDUHQHVV RI VWURQJ HPRWLRQV VXFK DV DQJHU DQ VDGQHVV /HWWLQJ JR RI SUHYLRXVO\ XQPHW LQWHUSHUVRQDO QHHGV $ VKLIW LQ WKH IRUJLYLQJ SHUVRQfV YLHZ RI WKH RIIHQGHU 7KH GHYHORSPHQW RI HPSDWK\ IRU WKH RIIHQGHU 7KH FRQVWUXFWLRQ RI D QHZ QDUUDWLYH RI VHOI DQG RWKHU 0DOFROP t *UHHQEHUJ f 7KRXJK WKLV SURFHVV PD\ DSSHDU IL[HG DQG RUGHUO\ IRUJLYHQHVV GRHV QRW DOZD\V IORZ DV VPRRWKO\ DV LW PD\ VHHP 7KH ILUVW DQG PRVW YLWDO VWHS LQ WKH SURFHVV LV PDNLQJ WKH FRPPLWPHQW WR IRUJLYH )RUJLYHQHVV LV ILUVW DQG IRUHPRVW DQ DFW RI WKH ZLOO 7KHUH LV QR

PAGE 96

XQLYHUVDO SURFHVV WKDW ILWV HDFK SHUVRQfV VLWXDWLRQ f7KHUH LV QR FRRNERRN IRUPXOD IRU IRUJLYHQHVV LQIRUP SHRSOH WKDW WKH\ PXVW FKRRVH WR KH IRUJLYLQJ ,I WKH\ ZDLW XQWLO WKH\ IHHO IRUJLYLQJ EHIRUH WKH\ FKRRVH WR IRUJLYH LW PD\ EH D ORQJ DQG DUGXRXV ZDLWf &ROHPDQ S f 7KH 5ROH RI (PSDWK\ 3HUKDSV WKH VLQH TXD QRQ FKDUDFWHU WUDLW IRU WKH UROH RI IRUJLYLQJ LV HPSDWK\ 6WXG]LQVNL f VHHV WKH FDSDFLW\ WR IRUJLYH DQRWKHU DV WKH KDOOPDUN RI D PDWXUH SHUVRQDOLW\ D FRQVLGHUDEOH DGYDQFH RYHU WKH EUXWH GHVLUH IRU UHYHQJH ,W LV WKURXJK DQ DGYDQFHG PDWXULW\ WKDW ZH DUH DEOH WR ORRN EH\RQG RXU QHHGV DQG RXU ZRXQGV DQG IRUJLYH DQG HPSDWKL]H ZLWK DQRWKHU )RUJLYHQHVV UHTXLUHV IRFXVLQJ RXU XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RQ WKH RWKHU SHUVRQ DV ZHOO DV VHHLQJ RQHVHOI MXVW DV FDSDEOH RI KXUWLQJ RWKHUV LQWHQWLRQDOO\ RU XQLQWHQWLRQDOO\ /DPSPDQ f $ NH\ LQJUHGLHQW LQ RXU DELOLW\ WR IRUJLYH DSSDUHQWO\ RULJLQDWHV IURP WKH LQMXUHG SHUVRQfV DELOLW\ WR LGHQWLI\ RU HPSDWKL]H ZLWK WKH RIIHQGLQJ LQGLYLGXDO 5RZH HW DO f 7KH DELOLW\ WR IHHO ZLWK DQRWKHU SHUVRQ UHSUHVHQWV D WUDQVIRUPDWLRQ RI RQHfV QDUFLVVLVWLF WHQGHQF\ WR D VRFLDOO\ EHQHILFLDO GLUHFWLRQ (PSDWK\ OD\V WKH HPRWLRQDO IRXQGDWLRQ IRU WKH ODWHU FRJQLWLYH FDSDFLW\ IRU WDNLQJ VRFLDO SHUVSHFWLYH IRU H[DPLQLQJ VLWXDWLRQV IURP WKH RWKHU SHUVRQfV YDQWDJHSRLQW 7KH LQMXUHG SHUVRQ FRQFOXGHV WKDW WKH RIIHQGHU LV DOVR KXPDQ DQG FDSDEOH RI FRPPLWWLQJ PLVWDNHV DQG DOVR PLJKW SHUFHLYH WKDW WKH RIIHQGHU QHHGV WR EH IRUJLYHQ LQ WKH VDPH IDVKLRQ WKDW WKH LQMXUHG SHUVRQ ZRXOG ZDQW WR EH IRUJLYHQ LI WKH VLWXDWLRQ ZHUH UHYHUVHG 7KURXJK WKLV PDWXUDWLRQ RQH PD\ HYHQ FRQVLGHU WKDW WKHUH LV D FRPPRQ ERQG D VHQVH RI XQLW\ EHWZHHQ WKH IRUJLYHU DQG WKH RIIHQGHU IRU WKH\ VKDUH WKH PRVW IXQGDPHQWDO TXDOLW\ WKDW RI EHLQJ KXPDQ 6WXG]LQVNL f

PAGE 97

$ QXPEHU RI WKHRULVWV %UDQGVPD &XQQLQJKDP )LW]JLEERQV +RSH (QULJKW t +'6* D 0F&XOORXJK f KDYH LGHQWLILHG WKH FDSDFLW\ IRU HPSDWK\ DV WKH SULPDU\ HOHPHQW LQ VXFFHVVIXO IRUJLYHQHVV 0F&XOORXJK :RUWKLQJWRQ DQG 5DFKDO f KDYH SURSRVHG DQG LQYHVWLJDWHG DQ HPSDWK\ PRGHO RI IRUJLYHQHVV DQG 0F&XOORXJK :RUWKLQJWRQ DQG 5DFKDO f KDYH FRQFOXGHG WKDW HPSDWK\ DQG IRUJLYHQHVV DUH LQWLPDWHO\ PD\EH HYHQ FDXVDOO\ OLQNHG (PSDWK\ FDQ EH GHILQHG DV fDQ DFWLYH HIIRUW WR XQGHUVWDQG DQRWKHU SHUVRQfV SHUFHSWLRQ RI DQ LQWHUSHUVRQDO HYHQW DV LI RQH ZHUH WKDW RWKHU SHUVRQ UDWKHU WKDQ MXGJLQJ WKH RWKHU SHUVRQfV EHKDYLRU IURP WKH SHUVSHFWLYH RI RQHfV RZQ H[SHULHQFH RI WKDW HYHQWf0DOFROP t *UHHQEHUJ S f :RUWKLQJWRQ 0F&XOORXJK t :RUWKLQJWRQ Ef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t (OWHUPDQ 3RUFHUHOOL t 6DQGOHU :DWVRQ *ULVKDP 7URWWHU t %LGHUPDQ f :RUWKLQJWRQ VWDWHV WKDW fIRUJLYHQHVV LV WKH QDWXUDO UHVSRQVH WR HPSDWK\ DQG KXPLOLW\f :RUWKLQJWRQ 6DQGDJH t %HUU\ S f 7KH K\SRWKHVL]HG OLQN EHWZHHQ HPSDWK\ DQG IRUJLYHQHVV KDV EHHQ HPSLULFDOO\ FRQILUPHG LQ D VHULHV RI FRUUHODWLYH DQG LQWHUYHQWLRQ VWXGLHV E\ 0F&XOORXJK :RUWKLQJWRQ DQG WKHLU DVVRFLDWHV 0F&XOORXJK :RUWKLQJWRQ t 5DFKDO f 7KH ODFN RI HPSDWK\ LV DQ XQIRUWXQDWH FKDUDFWHULVWLF RI D QDUFLVVLVWLF SHUVRQDOLW\ DQG DFFRXQWV LQ

PAGE 98

SDUW IRU WKH GLIILFXOW\ SHRSOH ZLWK VXFK D GLVRUGHU KDYH LQ IRUJLYLQJ LQMXULHV GRQH WR WKHP :LOVRQ f ,Q WKLV ZKROH SURFHVV RI IRUJLYHQHVV DV FKDOOHQJLQJ DV LW PD\ EH WKH FRUH HOHPHQW WKDW IDFLOLWDWHV IRUJLYHQHVV LV HPSDWK\ (PSDWK\ IRU WKH RIIHQGLQJ SDUWQHU DFWV DV WKH FHQWUDO IDFLOLWDWLYH FRQGLWLRQ WKDW LQGXFHV IRUJLYHQHVV $ YDULHW\ RI SUR VRFLDO SKHQRPHQD VXFK DV FRRSHUDWLRQ FDUH DOWUXLVP DQG WKH LQKLELWLRQ RI DJJUHVVLRQ PD\ IDFLOLWDWH WKH UROH RI HPSDWK\ IRU WKH RWKHU SHUVRQ %DWVRQ %DWVRQ t 2OHVRQ (LVHQEHUJ t )DEHV (LVHQEHUJ t 0LOOHU +RIIPDQ 0RRUH 5XVEXOW 9HUHWWH :KLWQH\ 6ORYLN t /LSNXV 7DQJQH\ f )UHQFK SKLORVRSKHU DQG HGXFDWRU -HDQ 3LDJHW ZULWLQJ LQ VDZ IRUJLYHQHVV DV DQ DGYDQFHG VWDJH RI PRUDO GHYHORSPHQW DUJXLQJ WKDW HPSDWK\ LV WKH FRJQLWLYH RSHUDWLRQ PDNLQJ IRUJLYHQHVV SRVVLEOH EHFDXVH LW HQWDLOV WKH FRPSDVVLRQDWH UHFRJQLWLRQ WKDW WKH RWKHU LV DOVR KXPDQ (PSDWK\ LV WKH FRJQLWLYH DZDUHQHVV RI DQRWKHUfV LQWHUQDO VWDWHV WKDW UHIOHFW WKHLU WKRXJKWV IHHOLQJV SHUFHSWLRQV DQG LQWHQWLRQV ,FNHV f (PSDWK\ LV WKH LQYROYHPHQW RI WKH SV\FKRORJLFDO SURFHVV WKDW PDNHV D SHUVRQ KDYH IHHOLQJV WKDW FRLQFLGH ZLWK DQRWKHUfV VLWXDWLRQ PRUH WKDQ ZLWK WKHLU VLWXDWLRQ +RIIPDQ f 5REHUW (QULJKW f VXJJHVWV WKH IROORZLQJ TXHVWLRQV WR KHOS fWKH LQMXUHG SHUVRQ YLHZ WKH RIIHQGHU DV D YXOQHUDEOH KXPDQ EHLQJf :KDW ZDV LW OLNH IRU WKH SHUVRQ DV WKH\ ZHUH JURZLQJ XS" 'LG WKH RIIHQGHU FRPH IURP D KRPH LQ ZKLFK WKHUH ZDV FRQIOLFW RU HYHQ DEXVH" :KDW ZDV KDSSHQLQJ LQ WKH SHUVRQfV OLIH DW WKH WLPH WKH\ KXUW \RX" &DQ \RX VHH WKH SHUVRQ DV KDYLQJ ZRUWK VLPSO\ E\ EHLQJ D PHPEHU RI WKH KXPDQ FRPPXQLW\" ,Q DQVZHULQJ WKHVH TXHVWLRQV RQH PD\ JDLQ WKH QHFHVVDU\ LQVLJKW DQG HPSKDWKHWLF XQGHUVWDQGLQJ WR IRUJLYH RQHfV SHUSHWUDWRU

PAGE 99

+RZ 'RHV 2QH .QRZ :KHQ )RUJLYHQHVV +DV 7DNHQ 3ODFH" +DYLQJ SXW LQWR SUDFWLFH WKH DIRUHPHQWLRQHG VWHSV KRZ GRHV RQH NQRZ WKDW RQH KDV DFKLHYHG DQ DGHTXDWH OHYHO RI IRUJLYHQHVV" )ODQLJDQ f IRXQG WKDW LQWHUYLHZHHV FRQVLGHUHG IRUJLYHQHVV FRPSOHWH ZKHQ WKH\ KDG DFKLHYHG RQH RI WKHVH IRXU HQGVWDWHV RU VRPH FRPELQDWLRQ RI WKHP :KHQ WKH\ QR ORQJHU KDUERUHG UHVHQWPHQW RU KDWUHG WRZDUG WKH RIIHQGHUV :KHQ WKH\ IHOW QHXWUDO WRZDUG WKHLU RIIHQGHUV :KHQ WKH\ RQFH DJDLQ H[SHULHQFHG VRPH GHJUHH RI WUXVW LQ WKHLU RIIHQGHUV :KHQ WKH\ KDYH DFKLHYHG UHFRQFLOLDWLRQ ZLWK WKHLU RIIHQGHUV 6PHGHV f VWDWHV VLPSO\ DQG FOHDUO\ WKDW \RX ZLOO NQRZ IRUJLYHQHVV KDV EHJXQ LQ \RX ZKHQ \RX UHFDOO WKDW SHUVRQ ZKR KXUW \RX DQG QRZ DUH DEOH WR ZLVK KLPKHU ZHOO 5RVHQDN DQG +DPGHQ f VWDWH WKDW LQWHUQDO VLJQV IRU WKH IRUJLYHU DUH ODFN RI SDLQ DQ LQQHU VHQVH RI SHDFH WKH DELOLW\ WR HQMR\ OLIH WKH GLVFRYHU\ RI WKH UHVRXUFHV WR SUD\ DQG QRW EHLQJ SUHRFFXSLHG ZLWK SDVW KXUW :LOVRQ f (YHQWXDOO\ RYHU WLPH ZLWK IXOO H[SUHVVLRQ RI WKRXJKW IHHOLQJ DQG EHKDYLRU WKH RQH ZKR LV LQMXUHG JUDGXDOO\ EHFRPHV DZDUH WKDW KHVKH KDV UHOLQTXLVKHG WKH ULJKW LQVLVWDQFH QHHG RU GHVLUH IRU UHYHQJH +RSH 6PHGHV f 5HWDOLDWLRQ LV QR ORQJHU DQ RSWLRQ WKDW VHHPV EHQHILFLDO WR KHDOLQJ WKH VHOI -DPSROVN\ f 2QH FDQ WUXO\ DQG ZLWK KHDUWIHOW VLQFHUHO\ EHJLQ WR ZLVK WKH RWKHU ZHOO 6PHGHV f )RUJLYHQHVV LV D SURFHVV SULPDULO\ FRQFHUQHG ZLWK WKH H[SHULHQFH RI UHVROXWLRQ RI PRYLQJ RQ RI KHDOLQJ WKH SDVW ,W VWULYHV WR JHW XQVWXFN IURP WKH DJRQ\ DQG EXUGHQ RI SDVW LQMXULHV 7KH IXWXUH KROGV DQ LPPHGLDWH VHQVH RI EHLQJ RQ WKH YHUJH RI EULJKW QHZ EHJLQQLQJV DQG LV DJDLQ DYDLODEOH ZKHUH SUHYLRXVO\ LW ZDV QRW WKH SDVW DOWKRXJK QHLWKHU IRUJRWWHQ QRU UDWLRQDOL]HG DZD\ QR ORQJHU LV D KDXQWLQJ KHDY\ DQG WURXEOLQJ LVVXH 5RZH HW DO S f

PAGE 100

)RZ f EHOLHYHV WKDW IRUJLYHQHVV KDV WDNHQ SODFH ZKHQ fEHLQJ DQJU\ FHDVHV WR EH DV ILJXUDO DQG GLVWXUELQJ RQH QR ORQJHU H[SHULHQFHV WKH YLRODWLRQ DV DQ XQUHVROYHG EORFNLQJ RI HYHU\GD\ OLIH RI RQHf XQIROGLQJ IXWXUHf SS f 2YHU WLPH WKH LQMXUHG SHUVRQ UHFHLYHV WKH JLIW RI QR ORQJHU EHLQJ KHOG ERXQG WR UHSUHVVHG DQJHU UHVHQWPHQW DQG GHVLUHG UHYHQJH $W WKLV VWDJH RI IRUJLYHQHVV WKH SHUVRQ ZRXOG QR ORQJHU IHHO WKLQN RU DFW DV LI WKH\ ZHUH LQ ERQGDJH WR WKH KDUPIXO HYHQW RU WR WKH LQGLYLGXDO WKDW LQMXUHG WKHP )ODQLJDQ f $ SRVVLEOH VLGH HIIHFW RU E\SURGXFW RI WKLV UHOHDVH LV WKDW WKH LQMXUHG SHUVRQ PD\ QRW RQO\ EH IUHH IURP QHJDWLYH HPRWLRQV EXW DFWXDOO\ KDYH SRVLWLYH IHHOLQJV WRZDUG WKH LQMXUHU (DVWLQ f :KHQ WKLV RFFXUV RQH FDQ VDIHO\ DVVXPH WKDW RQH LV ZHOO RQ WKH URDG RI IRUJLYHQHVV 7KH FULWLFDO GLPHQVLRQ RI IRUJLYLQJ LV WKDW RQH H[SHULHQFHV DQ DOWHUDWLRQ LQ RQHfV XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI DQG UHODWLRQVKLS WR WKH RWKHU RQHVHOI DQG WKH ZRUOG 7KHUH LV DQ H[SHULHQFH RI UHFODLPLQJ RQHVHOI ZKLFK DW WKH VDPH WLPH LPSOLHV D VKLIW LQWR D ODUJHU SHUVSHFWLYH 5RZH SS f :KDW $UH WKH %HQHILWV LQ )RUJLYLQJ 'HVSLWH WKH HIIRUW DQG WKH VWUHQXRXV GHPDQGV LQ WKH IRUJLYLQJ SURFHVV WKHUH DUH PDQ\ EHQHILWV GHULYHG IURP LW :H KDYH PRGHP H[DPSOHV RI WKRVH ZKR VXIIHUHG WUHPHQGRXV LQMXVWLFHV DQG \HW ZHUH DEOH WR IRUJLYH ,Q 3RSH -RKQ 3DXO ,, ZHQW LQWR WKH ERZHOV RI 5RPHfV 5DELLELD SULVRQ WR YLVLW 0HQHW $OL$NKJD D KLUHG DVVDVVLQ ZKR WULHG WR NLOO KLP LQ DQG DOPRVW VXFFHHGHG ,Q &KULVWLSKHU :LOVRQ D %ODFN &DOLIRUQLDQ IRUJDYH WZR :KLWH WHHQV ZKR GRXVHG KLP ZLWK JDVROLQH DQG VHW KLP DILUH \HOOLQJ DW KLP f'LH QLJJHU GLHf DV KH UROOHG LQ DJRQ\ 5HJLQDOG 'HQQ\ ZKR LV :KLWH IRUJDYH WZR %ODFN PHQ ZKR SXOOHG KLP IURP KLV WUXFN DQG WULHG WR EHDW KLP WR GHDWK GXULQJ WKH /RV $QJHOHV ULRWV 7KH\ FODLPHG WKDW E\ IRUJLYLQJ WKH\ KDYH D JUHDWHU VHQVH RI SHDFH DQG FDOP 7KHVH H[DPSOHV SRLQW WR WKH VDOXWDU\ HIIHFWV DQG KHDOLQJ SRZHU RI IRUJLYHQHVV

PAGE 101

5HFHQW UHVHDUFK KDV VXJJHVWHG PDQ\ EHQHILWV RI IRUJLYHQHVV LQFOXGLQJ LQFUHDVHG PHQWDO KHDOWK $O0DEXN (QULJKW t &DUGLV &R\OH t (QULJKW )UHHGPDQ t (QULJKW )ODUJUDYH t 6HOOV +HEO t (QULJKW f DQG PDULWDO VDWLVIDFWLRQ )HQQHO f ,Q FRQWUDVW GHIHQVLYH UHVSRQVHV VXFK DV UHYHQJH IDQWDVLHV DQG EODPLQJ KDYH EHHQ DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK SV\FKRSDWKRORJ\ HJ *UHHQZDOG t )ODUGHU =HOLQ $GOHU t 0\HUVRQ f FULPLQDOLW\ +ROEURRN :KLWH t +XWW f SRRU KHDOWK RXWFRPHV HJ $IIOHFN 7HQQHQ &URRJ t /HYLQH 7HQQHQ t $IOHFN f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f )RUJLYHQHVV OHDGV WR IUHHGRP f:H FDQQRW EH IUHH XQWLO ZH VHW RWKHUV IUHH E\ IRUJLYLQJ WKHPf 2JLOLYLH S f ,W LV EHFRPLQJ DSSDUHQW WKDW WKH RQO\ ZD\ WR KHDO WKH SDLQ WKDW ZLOO QRW KHDO LWVHOI LV WR IRUJLYH WKH SHUVRQ ZKR KXUW XV 6PHGHV f )RUJLYLQJ KDV WKH SRZHU WR ILQDOO\ VWRS WKH UHUXQV RI WKH SDLQ DQG IUHHV XV IURP WKH ERQGDJH WR WKH RIIHQGHU %HQVRQ f 7KHUH DUH PDQ\ UHDVRQV ZK\ LW LV VR LPSRUWDQW WR IRUJLYH QRW WKH OHDVW RI ZKLFK LV WKDW WKH DOWHUQDWLYHV DUH VR GHVWUXFWLYH $ &KLQHVH SURYHUE VD\V f7KH RQH ZKR SXUVXHV UHYHQJH VKRXOG GLJ WZR JUDYHVf ,W KDV EHHQ VWDWHG WKDW b RI SHRSOH LQ KRVSLWDOV ZLWK SK\VLFDO LOOQHVVHV KDYH VLFNQHVVHV URRWHG LQ HPRWLRQDO FDXVHV DQG LQ IDFW WKHVH SDWLHQWV DUH SXQLVKLQJ WKHPVHOYHV ZLWK WKHLU LOOQHVVHV VXJJHVWLQJ WKHLU LQYROXQWDU\ FRQIHVVLRQV RI JXLOW %HOJXLP f )RUJLYHQHVV LV PXFK PRUH WKDQ D PRUDO LPSHUDWLYH DQG PXFK PRUH WKDQ D WKHRORJLFDO GLFWXP ,W LV WKH RQO\ PHDQV JLYHQ RXU KXPDQQHVV DQG LPSHUIHFWLRQV WR

PAGE 102

FDVW DVLGH KDWUHG DQG FRQGHPQDWLRQ DQG JR IRUZDUG ZLWK WKH EXVLQHVV RI JURZLQJ DQG ORYLQJ &ROHPDQ f ,W KDV EHHQ NQRZQ IRU \HDUV WKDW GHSUHVVLRQ LV TXLWH RIWHQ DFFRPSDQLHG E\ D VLJQLILFDQW IHHOLQJ RI JXLOW 7KH GLUHFWRU RI D SV\FKLDWULF KRVSLWDO LQ .QR[YLOOH 7HQQHVVHH VWDWHV WKDW b RI WKH SDWLHQWV FRXOG JR KRPH LI WKH\ NQHZ WKH\ ZHUH IRUJLYHQ 0F'RZHOO f 2QH RI WKH PRVW VHULRXV FRQVHTXHQFHV IURP ODFNLQJ IRUJLYHQHVV LV WKDW RQH EHFRPHV ERQGHG WR WKRVH RQH QHHGV WR IRUJLYH DQG LQGHEWHG WR WKRVH ZKR QHHG WR EH IRUJLYHQ ZKLFK LQ HIIHFW JLYHV RWKHUV FRQWURO RYHU RXU OLYHV $V WKH DYHQJHU RQH LQVWHDG LV FRQWUROOHG UDWKHU WKDQ WKH RQH LQ FRQWURO +HUVKH\ f 6HWWLQJ RWKHUV IUHH WUDQVODWHV LQWR VHWWLQJ RQHVHOI IUHH EHFDXVH UHVHQWPHQW LV UHDOO\ D IRUP RI DWWDFKPHQWf§D FRVPLF WLH WR WKH WKLQJ WKDW ZH KDWH 7KH LQDELOLW\ WR OHW JR RI D KXUW PD\ FDXVH DQ HQPHVKPHQW ZLWK DQRWKHU SHUVRQ DV ZH KROG IDVW WR KDWH DQG DQJHU SHUKDSV WR DYRLG IHHOLQJV RI JULHI DQG VDGQHVV 5RZH t /HLWHU f 7KLV ERQG PD\ DOVR SURYLGH XV ZLWK VRPHRQH WR EODPH IRU RXU SUREOHPV ZKLFK LOOXVWUDWHV WKH H[WUHPHO\ FORVH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ IDFLQJ UHVSRQVLELOLW\ DQG IRUJLYLQJ 6HDPDQGV f 7KH YLFWLP ZKR GRHV QRW IRUJLYH WKH SHUSHWUDWRU RI WKH DEXVH EHFRPHV XQLWHG WR KLPKHU DQG UHPDLQV LQGHEWHG WR WKH SHUSHWUDWRU ZKLFK FRQVHTXHQWO\ KDQGV RYHU WR WKH SHUSHWUDWRU FRQWURO RYHU WKH YLFWLPnV OLIH %\ VHWWLQJ WKH RIIHQGHU IUHH EHOLHYHV %HQVRQ f WKH VXUYLYRU PRVW LPSRUWDQWO\ ZRXOG EH VHW IUHH EHFDXVH UHVHQWPHQW LV UHDOO\ D GLVJXLVHG IRUP RI DWWDFKPHQW 6KH EHOLHYHV WKDW WKH VXUYLYRU ZKR FOLQJV WR WKH KDWH DQG DQJHU FDXVHV DQ HQPHVKPHQW ZLWK WKH SHUSHWUDWRU ZKLFK PD\ LQ IDFW EH XVHG DV D GHIHQVH PHFKDQLVP WR DYRLG IHHOLQJ JULHI DQG VDGQHVV %HQVRQ TXHVWLRQV LI WKH SHUSHWUDWRU PLJKW SURYLGH VRPHRQH WR EODPH IRU WKH SUREOHPV LQ WKH VXUYLYRUnV OLIH DQG KHOS WKH VXUYLYRU DYRLG WDNLQJ UHVSRQVLELOLW\ IRU KRZ WR OLYH )XUWKHU VKH VWDWHV WKDW LQ EHLQJ XQZLOOLQJ WR

PAGE 103

IRUJLYH WKH VXUYLYRU KDV IDU PRUH WR ORVH WKDQ WKH SHUSHWUDWRU EHFDXVH ZKDWHYHU RQH FDQQRW IRUJLYH RQH LV GRRPHG WR OLYH RXW 7KH LQDELOLW\ WR IRUJLYH IUDLOW\ LQ WKH SHUSHWUDWRU SRLJQDQWO\ LQGLFDWHV WKDW WKH VDPH QHJDWLYH FRQGLWLRQV H[LVW LQ WKH VXUYLYRU %HQVRQ f .DXIPDQ f D SV\FKLDWULVW VWDWHV f,I VDQLW\ LV WR EH VHFXUHG WKH KDWH WKDW ELQGV LQ VODYHU\ PXVW EH ORRVHQHG E\ IRUJLYLQJ WKRVH ZKR KDYH LQ WUXWK RU LOOXVLRQ KXUW DQG ZURQJHG XVf S f ,Q D FDUHIXOO\ FRQWUROOHG H[SHULPHQWDO GHVLJQ +XDQJ f IRXQG WKDW WKRVH ZLWK D KLJK OHYHO RI IRUJLYHQHVV ZHUH VLJQLILFDQWO\ ORZHU LQ ERWK EORRG SUHVVXUH DQG OHYHOV RI QHJDWLYH HPRWLRQV DV PHDVXUHG E\ REVHUYDWLRQ RI IDFLDO H[SUHVVLRQ WKDQ PDWFKHG FRQWUROV $O0DEXN f VKRZHG VLJQLILFDQW FRUUHODWLRQV EHWZHHQ IRUJLYHQHVV DQG WKH IROORZLQJ YDULDEOHV ORZHU OHYHOV RI SV\FKRORJLFDO GHSUHVVLRQ ORZHU OHYHOV RI DQ[LHW\ DQG KLJKHU OHYHOV RI VHOIHVWHHP :KHQ RQH IRUJLYHV FHUWDLQ HOHPHQWV DUH VXEWUDFWHG IURP HDFK V\VWHP 1HJDWLYH HPRWLRQV VXFK DV DQJHU KDWUHG UHVHQWPHQW VDGQHVV DQGRU FRQWHPSW DUH JLYHQ XS 5LFKDUGV f 7KLV PD\ RFFXU VORZO\ EXW LW HYHQWXDOO\ LV DFFRPSOLVKHG VSHFLILFDOO\ WRZDUG WKH LQMXULQJ SHUVRQ LQ WKH FRQWH[W RI WKH JLYHQ RIIHQFH ,Q WKH FRJQLWLYH V\VWHP RQH FHDVHV FRQGHPQLQJ MXGJHPHQWV DQG WKH SODQQLQJ RI UHYHQJH LI WKLV RFFXUUHG ,Q WKH EHKDYLRUDO V\VWHP RQH QR ORQJHU DFWV RXW WKH UHYHQJH LI VXFK ZHUH RFFXUULQJ KRZHYHU VXEWOHf :KHQ RQH IRUJLYHV FHUWDLQ HOHPHQWV DUH DGGHG WR HDFK V\VWHP ,Q WKH DIIHFWLYH V\VWHP WKH QHJDWLYH HPRWLRQV DUH UHSODFHG E\ PRUH QHXWUDO HPRWLRQV DQG HYHQWXDOO\ E\ SRVLWLYH DIIHFW VXFK DV FRPSDVVLRQ 'RZQLH &XQQLQJKDP 1RUWK f 3RVLWLYH WKRXJKWV HPHUJH WRZDUG WKH RWKHU VXFK DV ZLVKLQJ WKH LQGLYLGXDO ZHOO 6PHGHV f DQG YLHZLQJ WKHP UHVSHFWIXOO\ DV D PRUDO HTXDO &XQQLQJKDP f ,Q WKH EHKDYLRUDO UHDOP WKHUH LV D ZLOOLQJQHVV WR MRLQ LQ ORYLQJ FRPPXQLW\ ZLWK WKH RWKHU SHUKDSV

PAGE 104

PDNLQJ RYHUWXUHV LQ WKDW GLUHFWLRQ $XJVEXUJHU f 6XFK RYHUWXUHV ZLOO GHSHQG RQ WUXH FKDQJH LQ WKH RWKHU 7KHUH LV WKH SRWHQWLDO IRU WKH IRUJLYHU WR H[SHULHQFH ERWK LQQHU UHOHDVH DQG D KHDOHG UHODWLRQVKLS $XJVEXUJHU f ,Q D VWXG\ FRQGXFWHG DW +RSH &ROOHJH LQ +ROODQG 0LFKLJDQ SURIHVVRU RI SV\FKRORJ\ 'U :LWYOLHW LQ SUHVVf LQYHVWLJDWHG WKH ERG\fV UHDFWLRQ WR SRVLWLYH DQG QHJDWLYH LPDJLQJ 3ODFLQJ HOHFWURGHV RQ WKH \RXQJ YROXQWHHUV VKH SXW WKH YROXQWHHUV WKURXJK D IRXUVWDJH PHQWDO LPDJLQJ SURFHVV 7KH\ ZHUH ILUVW DVNHG WR WKLQN DERXW D KXUW WKDW KDG EHHQ GRQH WKHP DQG WKHQ fDFWLYHO\ UHKHDUVHf LW IRU VHFRQGV $W WKH VRXQG RI WKH WRQH WKH\ ZHUH WR HVFDODWH WKH WKRXJKW WR fQXUVLQJ D JUXGJHf DQG PDNLQJ WKH RIIHQGHU IHHO KRUULEOH $QRWKHU EHHS FXHG WKHP WR VKLIW JHDUV DQG fHPSDWKL]H ZLWK WKH RIIHQGHUf )LQDOO\ WKH\ ZHUH WR LPDJLQH ZD\V WR fZLVK WKDW SHUVRQ ZHOOf 7KURXJKRXW WKH WZRKRXU VHVVLRQ WKH IRXU UHVSRQVHV RFFXUUHG LQ GLIIHUHQW VHTXHQFHV DQG 'U :LWYOLHW PHDVXUHG WKHLU KHDUW UDWH EORRG SUHVVXUH VZHDW DQG PXVFOH WHQVLRQ LQ SUHVVf 6R IDU VKH KDV VWXGLHG VXEMHFWV PDOH IHPDOHf :LWYOLHW IRXQG fUREXVWf SK\VLRORJLFDO GLIIHUHQFHV EHWZHHQ QRW IRUJLYLQJ DQG IRUJLYLQJ VWDWHV 6XEMHFWVf FDUGLRYDVFXODU V\VWHPV LQHYLWDEO\ ODERU ZKHQ WKH\ UHFDOO WKH SHUVRQ ZKR KDUPHG WKHP %XW VWUHVV LV fVLJQLILFDQWO\ JUHDWHUf ZKHQ WKH\ FRQVLGHU UHYHQJH UDWKHU WKDW IRUJLYHQHVV :LWYOLHW VXJJHVWV WKDW ZH PD\ EH GUDZQ WR KROG JUXGJHV EHFDXVH LW PD\ RIIHU XV D IDOVH VHQVH RI EHLQJ LQ FRQWURO ,QWHUYLHZV ZLWK KHU VXEMHFWV LQGLFDWHG WKDW WKH\ VXUSULVLQJO\ IHOW LQ HYHQ JUHDWHU FRQWURO ZKHQ WKH\ WULHG WR HPSDWKL]H ZLWK WKHLU RIIHQGHUV DQG HQMR\HG WKH JUHDWHVW VHQVH RI SRZHU ZHOOEHLQJ DQG UHVROXWLRQ ZKHQ WKH\ PDQDJHG WR JUDQW IRUJLYHQHVV LQ SUHVVf )RUJLYHQHVV RIIHUHG WR RQHfV SHUSHWUDWRU OHDGV DOVR WR IRUJLYHQHVV RI RQHVHOI ,I RQH ORRNV DW WKH OHYHO RI XQFRQVFLRXV SURFHVV LW FDQ EH VHHQ WKDW WKH VWDQGDUGV E\ ZKLFK D

PAGE 105

SHUVRQ MXGJHV RWKHUV LV WKH VDPH VWDQGDUG WKH\ XVH WR MXGJH WKHPVHOYHV ,Q SV\FKRORJLFDO WHUPV LI SHRSOH FRQGHPQ RWKHUV WKH\ PD\ EH H[SHFWHG WR KDYH D KDUVK DQG SXQLWLYH VXSHUHJR PRQLWRULQJ WKHLU RZQ EHKDYLRU %\ SUDFWLFLQJ D IRUJLYLQJ DWWLWXGH WRZDUG RWKHUV D SHUVRQ FDQ DOVR H[SHFW WR WHPSHU WKH ULJLGLW\ E\ ZKLFK RQH MXGJHV RQHVHOI +RSH S f 6WDSOHWRQ f VWDWHV WKDW DV ZH DGDPDQWO\ UHIXVH WR IRUJLYH ZH KDYH IDU PRUH WR ORVH WKDQ WKH RIIHQGHU EHFDXVH ZKDWHYHU ZH FDQQRW IRUJLYH ZH DUH GRRPHG WR OLYH RXW 7KH LQDELOLW\ WR IRUJLYH D IUDLOW\ LQ DQRWKHU SHUVRQ LQGLFDWHV WKDW ZH KDYH WKH VDPH QHJDWLYH FRQGLWLRQ H[LVWLQJ LQ XV %HQVRQ f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f +RSH S f )URP WKH LQMXUHG SDUW\fV SRLQW RI YLHZ fIRUJLYHQHVV ZLOO KDYH WKH HIIHFW RI SUHYHQWLQJ WKH ZURQJ IURP FRQWLQXLQJ WR GDPDJH RQHfV VHOIHVWHHP DQG RQHfV SV\FKH VR EULQJLQJ WR DQ HQG WKH GLVWRUWLRQ DQG FRUUXSWLRQ RI RQHfV UHODWLRQV ZLWK RWKHUVf 1RUWK S f $ SDUDGR[ H[LVWV LQ WKDW ZKHQ RQH JLYHV XS FHUWDLQ WKLQJV E\ IRUJLYLQJ WKH IRUJLYHU JDLQV 3V\FKRWKHUDSLVWV )LW]JLEERQV f DQG +RSH f GLVFXVV WKH PDMRU JDLQ RI HQKDQFHG PHQWDO KHDOWK DV D IRUJLYHU RYHUFRPHV GHHS GHELOLWDWLQJ DQJHU ,Q IRUJLYHQHVV RXU VHQVH RI ZHOO EHLQJ LV HQKDQFHG ZKHQ ZH UHDOL]H WKDW DQJHU ZLOO QRW FRQVXPH WKH VHOI )LW]JLEERQV f DQG +RSH f REVHUYHG WKDW FOLHQWV ZKR IRUJLYH RIWHQ EHQHILW IURP D FRQFRPLWDQW GHFUHDVH LQ DQJHU GHSUHVVLRQ DQ[LHW\ DQG UHODWHG V\PSWRPV %UDQGVPD f QRWHG WKDW ZKHQ D FOLHQW UHPDLQV ELWWHU WRZDUG D SHUFHLYHG RIIHQGHU WKH DQJHU FDQ HVFDODWH FDXVLQJ DGGLWLRQDO SV\FKRORJLFDO GLIILFXOWLHV ZKHUHDV IRUJLYHQHVV FDQ UHYHUVH WKH WUHQG +HEO t (QULJKW f

PAGE 106

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f :DOWHUV f DVVHUWV WKDW WKHUH DUH LOOXVRU\ EHQHILWV LQ QRW IRUJLYLQJ VXFK DV fWKH QHXURWLF VDWLVIDFWLRQ RI VHOISLW\ WKH DSSHDO RI YHQJHDQFH WKH WHPSRUDU\ UHOLHI RI WDNLQJ WKH HDV\ ZD\ RXW WKH KRSH IRU DQG VRPHWLPHV WKH DFWXDOLW\ RI V\PSDWK\ IRUP RWKHUVf S f 7KXV WKH IRUJLYHU GLVFRYHUV WKH SDUDGR[ RI IRUJLYHQHVV DV ZH JLYH WR RWKHUV WKH JLIW RI IRUJLYHQHVV ZH RXUVHOYHV DUH KHDOHG )UHHGPDQ DQG (QULJKW f GHPRQVWUDWHG JDLQV LQ IRUJLYHQHVV VHOIHVWHHP DQG KRSH LQ D ORQJWHUP HGXFDWLRQDO LQWHUYHQWLRQ ZLWK IHPDOH LQFHVW VXUYLYRUV 5RPLJ DQG 9HHQVWUD f PHDVXUHG WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ IRUJLYHQHVV DQG SV\FKRVRFLDO GHYHORSPHQW 6WXG\LQJ D SRSXODWLRQ RI XSSHU GLYLVLRQ VWXGHQWV LQ ILUVW \HDU WHDFKHU HGXFDWLRQ IRXQG WKDW UHVROXWLRQ RI UHODWLRQVKLS PDWWHUV DVVRFLDWH ZLWK WUXVW LQWLPDF\ DQG JHQHUDWLYLW\ SV\FKRVRFLDO WDVN FRUUHODWHG ZLWK SRVLWLYH DVSHFWV RI IRUJLYHQHVV +RVWLOLW\ $QJHU DQG 3K\VLFDO +HDOWK f+RVWLOLW\ LV PRUH RU OHVV DQ HQGXULQJ SDWWHUQ RI VXVSLFLRXVQHVV UHVHQWPHQW IUHTXHQW DQJHU DQG F\QLFDO PLVWUXVW RI RWKHUVf .RHQLJ 0F&XOORXJK t /DUVRQ S f 6XEVWDQWLDO UHVHDUFK RQ KRVWLOLW\ DQG SK\VLFDO KHDOWK ZDV SLRQHHUHG E\ 5HGIRUG :LOOLDPV DQG KLV FROOHDJXHV DW 'XNH 8QLYHUVLW\ :LOOLDPV HW DO %DUHIRRW HW DO

PAGE 107

:LOOLDPV f DV WKH\ H[SORUHG WKH FKDUDFWHULVWLFV RI 7\SH $ EHKDYLRU 7KH FRQFHSW RI 7\SH $ EHKDYLRU PDUNHG E\ WLPH SUHVVXUHG KLJK OHYHOV RI FRPSHWLWLYHQHVV DQG DPELWLRQ SURQH WR KRVWLOLW\ DQG DQJHU ZDV VWXGLHG H[WHQVLYHO\ EHJLQQLQJ LQ WKH V DQG KDV VLQFH KDV EHFRPH YHU\ ZHOO NQRZQ WR WKH JHQHUDO SXEOLF *UDGXDOO\ KRZHYHU WKH HPSKDVLV KDV IRFXVHG RQ WKH VLQJXODU FRQFHSW KRVWLOLW\ VLQFH WKH UHVXOWV KDYH UHSHDWHGO\ VKRZQ WKDW LW LV WKH KRVWLOH HOHPHQW RI WKH 7\SH $ SDWWHUQ WKDW ZDV WKH fWR[LFf FRPSRQHQW UHODWHG WR FRURQDU\ KHDUW GLVHDVH HJ )ULHGPDQ t %RRWK.HZOH\ 'HPEURVNL t &RVWD :LOOLDPV t :LOOLDPV f 7ZLFH DV PDQ\ 7\SH $ PHQ GHYHORSHG KHDUW GLVHDVH LQ DQ HLJKW DQG D KDOI \HDU WLPH IUDPH DV WKRVH ZLWKRXW WKHVH IHDWXUHV ODEHOHG 7\SH %Vf 6HH 5RVHQPDQ HW DO )ULHGPDQ t 5RVHQPDQ f ,Q D VWXG\ RI SDWLHQWV XQGHUJRLQJ DQJLRJUDSK\ WKH ILIW\ +RVWLOLW\ VFDOH TXHVWLRQV IURP WKH 003, ZHUH FORVHO\ VFUXWLQL]HG 7KRVH ZLWK KLJKHU KRVWLOLW\ VFRUHV KDG PRUH VHYHUH DUWHULRVFOHURVLV DQG WKH KRVWLOLW\ VFRUHV ZHUH DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK DUWHULRVFOHURVLV HYHQ PRUH VWURQJO\ WKDQ WKRVH RI WKH 7\SH $ VFRUHV ,Q D VWXG\ RI ODZ VWXGHQWV WKRVH ODZ\HUV ZKRVH KRVWLOLW\ VFRUHV KDG EHHQ LQ WKH KLJKHVW TXDUWHU RI WKHLU FODVV \HDUV HDUOLHU VKRZHG WKDW E\ DJH QHDUO\ b ZHUH QRZ GHFHDVHG LQ FRQWUDVW WR WKH RQO\ b RI WKRVH ZLWK KRVWLOLW\ VFRUHV LQ WKH ORZHVW TXDUWHU KDG GLHG %DUHIRRW HW DO f $OWKRXJK QRW HQWLUHO\ FRQVLVWHQW WKHUH LV YDOXDEOH ORQJLWXGLQDO HYLGHQFH SRLQWLQJ WR D UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ KRVWLOLW\ DQG FRURQDU\ KHDUW GLVHDVH &)7'f 3HRSOH KLJK LQ KRVWLOLW\ H[SHULHQFH WZR WR IRXU WLPHV WKH ULVN RI &+' FRPSDUHG WR WKRVH ZKR VFRUH ORZ RQ WKLV WUDLW %DUHIRRW HW DO &KHVQH\ +HFNHU t %ODFN f ,Q D UHFHQW PHWDDQDO\VLV RI SURVSHFWLYH VWXGLHV 0LOOHU 6PLWK 7XUQHU *XLMDUUR t +DOOHW f IRXQG WKDW PHDVXUHV RI KRVWLOLW\ LQFOXGLQJ WKH ZLGHO\ XVHG &RRN0HGOH\ +RVWLOLW\ >+R@ VFDOH &RRN t 0HGOH\ f ZHUH LQGHSHQGHQW SUHGLFWRUV

PAGE 108

RI DOOFDXVH PRUWDOLW\ HYHQ DIWHU FRQWUROOLQJ IRU SRWHQWLDO FRYDULDWHV DQG FRQIRXQGLQJ YDULDEOHV %DUHIRRW /DUVHQ 9RQ GHU /LHWK DQG 6FKUROO f IRXQG D PXOWLSOH DGMXVWHG ULVN RI RQ DFXWH P\RFDUGLDO LQIDUFWLRQ IRU DQ LQFUHDVH LQ KRVWLOLW\ VFRUH RI WZR VWDQGDUG GHYLDWLRQV ,Q D UHFHQW UHYLHZ RQ WKH UROH RI KRVWLOLW\ LQ FDUGLRYDVFXODU GLVHDVH 0LOOHU DQG FROOHDJXHV f IRXQG WKDW KRVWLOLW\ ZDV LQGHSHQGHQWO\ DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK REMHFWLYH HYLGHQFH RI &+' VXFK DV D FRQILUPHG P\RFDUGLDO LQIDUFWLRQ 6RPH HYLGHQFH LV QRZ HPHUJLQJ RQ WKH SRVVLEOH HIIHFWV WKDW KRVWLOLW\ PLJKW KDYH RQ WKH FDUGLRYDVFXODU V\VWHP +RVWLOLW\ ZDV IRXQG WR EH DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK DQJLRJUDSKLF FRURQDU\ VWHQRVLV :LOOLDPV HW DO %DUHIRRW HW DO f DQG VLOHQW YHQWULFXODU G\VIXQFWLRQ %XUJ HW DO f 1RW RQO\ KHDUW GLVHDVH EXW KRVWLOLW\ KDV DOVR EHHQ OLQNHG WR RWKHU OLIH WKUHDWHQLQJ LOOQHVVHV DQG PRUWDOLW\ &KHVQH\ t 5RVHQPDQ )ULHGPDQ -RKQVRQ 0DWWKHZV HW DO 6PLWK f ,Q D SURVSHFWLYH VWXG\ 6FKHNHOOH HW DO f IRXQG KRVWLOLW\ VFRUHV WR SUHGLFW PRUWDOLW\ IURP RWKHU LOOQHVVHV DV ZHOO DV &+' 6LPLODUO\ %DUHIRRW HW DO f IRXQG WKDW KRVWLOLW\ SUHGLFWHG DOOFDXVH PRUWDOLW\ RYHU DQG \HDU IROORZXS SHULRGV $QRWKHU SHUWLQHQW ILQG IURP WKH UHVHDUFK RQ 7\SH $ EHKDYLRU ZDV WKDW WKURXJK H[DPLQLQJ WKH ELRORJLFDO PHFKDQLVPV RI KRVWLOLW\ LW LQGLFDWHV WKDW KRVWLOLW\ FDQ PDJQLI\ WKH LPSDFW RI EORRG FKROHVWHURO WKHUHE\ PDNLQJ D KLJK FKROHVWHURO OHYHO IDU PRUH GDQJHURXV IRU D KRVWLOH SHUVRQ $PRQJ PLGGOHDJHG PHQ ZLWK KLJK KRVWLOLW\ VFRUHV WKRVH ZLWK KLJKHU EORRG FKROHVWHURO OHYHOV VHFUHWH PRUH DGUHQDOLQH ZKLOH SHUIRUPLQJ PHQWDO WDVNV WKDQ GLG WKRVH ZLWK ORZHU EORRG FKROHVWHURO OHYHOV ,Q FRQWUDVW DPRQJ PHQ ZLWK ORZ KRVWLOLW\ VFRUHV WKHUH ZDV DQ LQYHUVH DVVRFLDWLRQ EHWZHHQ EORRG FKROHVWHURO OHYHOV DQG DGUHQDOLQH UHVSRQVHV WR WKH WDVN DV FKROHVWHURO OHYHOV URVH WKH DGUHQDOLQH UHVSRQVHV

PAGE 109

GLPLQLVKHG 6XDUH] :LOOLDPV .XKQ =LPPHUPDQ t 6FKDQEHUJ f ,W DSSHDUV WKDW KRVWLOH PHQ ZLWK KLJK FKROHVWHURO DUH PRUH OLNHO\ WR KDYH ODUJHU DGUHQDOLQH UHVSRQVH KRVWLOLW\ VWUHVVD FRPELQDWLRQ WKDW LQFUHDVHV WKH OLNHOLKRRG RI DUWHULRVFOHURWLF SODTXH EXLOGXS LQ WKHLU FRURQDU\ DUWHULHV ,Q FRQWUDVW WKH VPDOOHU DGUHQDOLQH UHVSRQVHV LQ QRQKRVWLOH PHQ ZLWK KLJK FKROHVWHURO FDQ EH H[SHFWHG WR DWWHQXDWH WKH HIIHFW RI WKHLU KLJK FKROHVWHURO WR FDXVH DUWHULRVFOHURWLF SODTXH EXLOGXS :LOOLDPV t :LOOLDPV S f )XUWKHUPRUH KRVWLOH SHUVRQV SRVVHVV DW OHDVW WZR RWKHU SRWHQWLDOO\ GDQJHURXV ELRORJLF FKDUDFWHULVWLFV WKDW PD\ EH GDPDJLQJ WR KHDOWK D ZHDN SDUDV\PSDWKHWLF QHUYRXV V\VWHP DQG ZHDN LPPXQH V\VWHP 2XU V\PSDWKHWLF QHUYRXV V\VWHP 616f LV WKH VRXUFH RI WKH DGUHQDOLQH DQG QRUDGUHQDOLQH UHOHDVHG GXULQJ WKH PRUH IUHTXHQW ILJKWRUIOLJKW UHVSRQVHV H[SHULHQFHG E\ KRVWLOH SHUVRQ ,W LV WKH SDUDV\PSDWKHWLF QHUYRXV V\VWHP 316f WKDW FDOPV WKH LQGLYLGXDO :KHQ DFWLYDWHG 316 QHUYHV UHOHDVH WKH FKHPLFDO FRPSRXQG DFHW\OFKROLQH LQWR ZKDWHYHU WLVVXH WKH\ VXSSO\ 2QFH LW PDNHV LWV ZD\ LQVLGH D FHOO DFHW\OFKROLQH KDV WKH IXQFWLRQ RI VWRSSLQJ WKH HIIHFWV RI DGUHQDOLQH VXFK DV WKH PRUH UDSLG FHDVHOHVV DQG IRUFHIXO EHDWLQJ RI KHDUWPXVFOH FHOOV %HFDXVH PRVW RUJDQV LQYROYHG LQ WKH ILJKWRUIOLJKW UHVSRQVH HJ WKH KHDUW DQG WKH DUWHULHVf UHFHLYH LQSXW IURP ERWK WKH 616 DQG 316 LW LV SRVVLEOH IRU 316 DFWLYDWLRQ WR SHUIRUP DV D fEUDNHf RQ WKH ILJKWRU IOLJKW SK\VLFDO FKDQJHV FDXVHG E\ 616 DFWLYDWLRQ :LOOLDPV t :LOOLDPV f 7R LQFUHDVH WKHLU FKDQFHV RI KDUP KLJKO\ KRVWLOH SHRSOH DOVR WHQG WR HQJDJH LQ PRUH ULVN\ EHKDYLRUV LQFOXGLQJ VPRNLQJ DQG JUHDWHU FRQVXPSWLRQ RI IRRG DQG DOFRKRO DOO RI ZKLFK H[DFHUEDWH WKH ULVN IRU GLVHDVH 7KH\ XQIRUWXQDWHO\ WHQG WR H[SHULHQFH OHVV VRFLDO VXSSRUW ZKLFK SXWV WKHP HYHQ DW JUHDWHU ULVN IRU ERWK PHQWDO DQG SK\VLFDO SUREOHPV :LOOLDPV t :LOOLDPV f

PAGE 110

,Q D VHULHV RI VWXGLHV DW WKH 7RKRNX 0HGLFDO 6FKRRO LQ 6HQDL -DSDQ PHQ ZLWK FKDUDFWHULVWLFV RI WKH 7\SH $ SHUVRQDOLW\ SDUWLFXODUO\ WKRVH ZLWK KLJK KRVWLOLW\ VFRUHV GLVSOD\HG ZHDNHU 316 UHVSRQVHV WKDQ ORZ +RVFRULQJ 7\SH % PHQ 0XUDQDND HW DO f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f EDVHG &RRN0HGOH\ +RVWLOLW\ VFDOH WKDW KDV EHHQ XVHG E\ PRVW LQYHVWLJDWRUV +RZHYHU UHFHQWO\ WKHUH LV DQ LQFUHDVHG WUHQG WRZDUG LGHQWLI\LQJ PRUH VSHFLILF SHUVRQDOLW\ IDFWRUV LQYROYHG LQ WKH UHODWLRQ EHWZHHQ KRVWLOLW\ DQG KHDOWK RXWFRPHV %DUHIRRW HW DO f IRXQG WKDW &RRN0HGOH\ LWHPV UHIOHFWLQJ WKH FRQVWUXFWV RI F\QLFLVP KRVWLOH DIIHFW DQG DJJUHVVLYH UHVSRQGLQJ ZDV DQ LPSURYHG SUHGLFWRU RI PRUWDOLW\ WKDQ WKH IXOO KRVWLOLW\ VFDOH LQ D VDPSOH RI IRUPHU ODZ VFKRRO VWXGHQWV ZKR FRPSOHWHG WKH IXOO VFDOH LQ WKH ODWH V 'U 6KDSLUR DQG KLV FROOHDJXHV 6KDSLUR -DPQHU *ROGVWHLQ t +X\ f DW 8&/$ H[DPLQHG VWUHVV LQ DPEXODQFH ZRUNHUV :RUNHUV ZLWK KLJK KRVWLOLW\ VFRUHV VKRZHG ODUJHU EORRG SUHVVXUH LQFUHDVHV GXULQJ DQJU\ LQWHUFKDQJHV ZLWK HPHUJHQF\ URRP SHUVRQQHO WKDQ GLG WKRVH ZLWK ORZ KRVWLOLW\ VFRUHV 6WXG\LQJ WKH ELRORJLFDO PHFKDQLVPV RI KRVWLOLW\ :LOOLDPV /DUVRQ %XFNOHU +HFNPDQQ DQG 3\OH f IRXQG WKDW KRVWLOLW\ FDQ PDJQLI\ WKH LPSDFW RI DQRWKHU ULVN IDFWRU EORRG FKROHVWHURO $PRQJ PLGGOH DJHG PHQ ZLWK KLJK KRVWLOLW\ VFRUHV WKRVH ZLWK UDLVHG EORRG FKROHVWHURO OHYHOV VHFUHWHG PRUH DGUHQDOLQH ZKLOH

PAGE 111

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f $ NQRZQ PDMRU LQGHSHQGHQW ULVN IDFWRU IRU &$' LV SV\FKRORJLFDO VWUHVV 7KURXJKRXW KXPDQ KLVWRU\ LW LV WKH KXPDQ KHDUW ZKLFK KROGV WKH ORIW\ V\PERO RI WKH EHLQJ WKH FHQWHU RI KXPDQ HPRWLRQV ,Q UHFHQW UHVHDUFK HPRWLRQV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK SV\FKRORJLFDO VWUHVV SDUWLFXODUO\ DQJHU DQG KRVWLOLW\ KDYH EHHQ DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK LQFUHDVH ULVN RI 0, P\RFDUGLDO LQIDUFWLRQf 'LDPRQG f :HQQHEHUJ HW DO f FRQGXFWHG DQ H[SHULPHQW LQ ZKLFK WKHLU VXEMHFWV SHUIRUPHG VL[ PLQXWHV RI PHQWDO DULWKPHWLF WHVWV XQGHU WLPH SUHVVXUH ,Q WKDW EULHI WLPH VSDQ WKHUH ZDV D SRVLWLYH FRUUHODWLRQ EHWZHHQ FROODJHQLQGXFHG SODWHOHW DJJUHJDWLRQ DQG RXWZDUGO\ H[SUHVVHG DQJHU 7KLV ILQGLQJ OHDGV XV WR VXVSHFW WKDW SK\VLRORJLFDO PHFKDQLVP E\ ZKLFK DQJHU LQLWLDWHV PD\ SUHFLSLWDWH D FRURQDU\ HYHQW ,Q VXPPDU\ LW DSSHDUV WKDW WKH KRVWLOH SHUVRQn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

PAGE 112

GHFUHDVHG LQ WKH LPPXQH V\VWHP IXQFWLRQV DUH FDSDEOH RI LJQLWLQJ SDWKRORJLFDO SURFHVVHV WKDW H[SODLQ WKH KLJKHU GHDWK UDWHV QRWHG LQ KRVWLOH SHUVRQV :LOOLDPV t :LOOLDPV f 3V\FKRORJLFDO VWUHVV PD\ IXUWKHU LQFUHDVH WKH ULVN RI KHDUW GLVHDVH WKURXJK LWV QHJDWLYH HIIHFWV RQ WKH LPPXQH V\VWHP $Q LPSDLUHG LPPXQH V\VWHP LQ WXUQ LV FULSSOHG DQG OHVV DEOH WR SUHYHQW RU FRQWDLQ LQIHFWLRQV E\ RULJLQV OLNH F\WRPHJDORYLUXV RU & SQHXPRQLDH ZKLFK KDYH EHHQ LPSOLFDWHG LQ WKH HWLRORJ\ RI FRURQDU\ DWKHURVFOHURVLV =KRX HW DO +RRSHU f 7KH 5ROH RI $QJHU $QJHU LV JHQHUDOO\ FRQVLGHUHG WR EH D VLPSOHU FRQFHSW WKDQ KRVWLOLW\ RU DJJUHVVLRQ 7KH FRQFHSW RI DQJHU XVXDOO\ UHIHUV WR DQ fHPRWLRQDO VWDWH WKDW FRQVLVWV RI IHHOLQJV WKDW YDU\ LQ LQWHQVLW\ IURP PLOG LUULWDWLRQ RU DQQR\DQFH WR IXU\ DQG UDJHf 6SLHOEHUJHU S f 6SLHOEHUJHU DQG FROOHDJXHV KDYH SURYLGHG D FRKHUHQW WKHRUHWLFDO IUDPHZRUN IRU GLVWLQFWLRQV EHWZHHQ VWDWH DQG WUDLW DQJHU DQG EHWZHHQ VXSSUHVVHG DQG H[SUHVVHG DQJHU 6SLHOEHUJHU HW DO 6SLHOEHUJHU f $ VL]HDEOH ERG\ RI HYLGHQFH KDV EHHQ DFFXPXODWHG RQ WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ DQJHU H[SUHVVLRQ DQG K\SHUWHQVLRQ %RWK VXSSUHVVHG 'LDPRQG +DUEXUJ HW DO -XOLXV t -RKQVRQ 7KRPDV f DQG H[SUHVVHG DQJHU (QJHEUHWVRQ 0DWWKHZV t 6FKHLHU *HQWU\ *HQWU\ &KHVQH\ *DU\ +DOO t +DUEXUJ 6FKDOOLQJ 6SLHOEHUJHU HW DO f KDYH EHHQ IRXQG WR EH VLJQLILFDQWO\ UHODWHG WR HOHYDWHG EORRG SUHVVXUH DQG K\SHUWHQVLRQ 7KH OLWHUDWXUH RQ &+' KLJKOLJKWV WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI ERWK VXSSUHVVHG DQJHU 'HPEURVNL 0DF'RXJDOO :LOOLDPV +DQH\ t %OXPHQWKDO +D\QHV )HLQOHLE t .DQQHO f DQG H[SUHVVHG DQJHU &OHYHODQG t -RKQVRQ +DPPHUVWHQ &DWKH\ 5HGPRQG t :ROI +HFNHU &KHVQH\ %ODFN t )UDXWFKL f ,Q D ORQJLWXGLQDO

PAGE 113

VWXG\ RQ WKH )DUPLQJWRQ VDPSOH +D\QHV HW DO f IRXQG WKDW DQJHU ZDV UHODWHG WR &+' LQFLGHQFH %LRPHGLFDO VFKRODUV VXJJHVW WKDW FKURQLF DQJHU FRQWULEXWHV WR WKH GHYHORSPHQW DQG SURJUHVVLRQ RI GLVHDVH )ULHGPDQ t %RRWK.HZH\ f $OVR WKH DVVRFLDWLRQ ZDV LQGHSHQGHQW RI WKH DVVRFLDWLRQ RI 7\SH $ DQG &+' LQFLGHQFH 6LPLODUO\ 0DWWKHZV HW DO f LQ D VWXG\ RQ WKH :HVWHUQ &ROODERUDWLYH *URXS IRXQG H[SUHVVHG DQJHU WR EH DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK KLJKHU LQFLGHQFH RI &+' )LQDOO\ .DZDFKL 6SDUURZ 6SLUR 9RNRQDV t :HLVV f UHSRUW D UHODWLYH ULVN RI IRU WKH HIIHFW RI DQJHU RQ FRURQDU\ KHDUW GLVHDVH ,Q VWXGLHV XWLOL]LQJ DGYDQFHG WHFKQRORJ\ LW KDV EHHQ SRVVLEOH WR HOXFLGDWH VRPH RI WKH VSHFLILF HIIHFWV WKDW DQJHU PLJKW KDYH RQ WKH FDUGLRYDVFXODU V\VWHP )RU H[DPSOH DQJHU KDV EHHQ VKRZQ WR FRUUHODWH ZLWK SODWHOHW DJJUHJDWLRQ :HQQHEHUJ HW DO f DQG LW KDV DOVR EHHQ VKRZQ WR FRUUHODWH ZLWK D GHFUHDVH LQ GLDPHWHU LQ QDUURZHG DUWHULHV %ROWZRRG 7D\ORU %XUNH *URJHQ t *LDFRPLQL f $QJHU KRVWLOLW\ DQG RWKHU UHODWHG HPRWLRQV DUH QRW RQO\ KDUPIXO WR WKH FDUGLRYDVFXODU V\VWHP EXW KDYH DGYHUVH LPPXQRORJLFDO DQG KRUPRQDO HIIHFWV *HUULWVHQ +HLMQHQ :LHJDQW %HUPRQG t )ULMGD f DQG KDYH EHHQ FRQQHFWHG WR SRRU KHDOWK RXWFRPHV &DUQH\ 5LFK )UHHGODQG 6DLQ 7H9HOGH t 6LPHRQH t &ODUN )UDVXUH 6PLWK /HVSHUDQFH t 7DODMLF /DGZLJ 5ROO %UHLWKDUGW %XGGH t %RUJJUHIIH 9DQGHUYRUW /XLV t +DPLOWRQ f +\SHUWHQVLRQ WKH fVXVWDLQHG RU FKURQLF HOHYDWLRQ LQ EORRG SUHVVXUHf .RHQLJ 0F&XOORXJK t /DUVRQ S f LV NQRZQ DV D PDMRU ULVN IDFWRU IRU FRURQDU\ DUWHU\ GLVHDVH DQG WKH LQFLGHQFH LQFUHDVHV ZLWK DJH ,W PD\ DOVR FRQWULEXWH WR D KRVW RI RWKHU LOOQHVVHV VWURNH FRQJHVWLYH KHDUW IDLOXUH GLDEHWHV DQG UHQDO G\VIXQFWLRQ 7KRXJK WKHUH DUH PDQ\ IDFWRUV VXFK DV JHQHWLFV FLJDUHWWH VPRNLQJ DQG KHDY\ DOFRKRO XVH LW LV UHFRJQL]HG WKDW QHJDWLYH HPRWLRQV FDQ KDYH D GDPDJLQJ HIIHFW RQ DQ LQGLYLGXDOfV EORRG SUHVVXUH 7KH SV\FKRORJLFDO DQG VRFLDO VWUHVV LQFUHDVHV

PAGE 114

FDWHFKROPLQHV DQG FRUWLVRO ZKLFK DUH KHOG WR EH D PDMRU FRPSRQHQW LQ SRRU TXDOLW\ KHDOWK RXWFRPHV 6FKQDOO /DQVEHUJLV t 3HLSHU &HVDQD )HUDULR t 6HJD -RQDV )UDQNV t ,QJUDP /DQGVEHUJLV 6FKQDOO t :DUUHQ f 2WKHU HDUOLHU VWXGLHV KDYH OLQNHG KLJK EORRG SUHVVXUH ZLWK SV\FKRVRFLDO IDFWRUV VXFK DV DQ[LHW\ UHSUHVVHG KRVWLOLW\ DQG SV\FKRORJLFDO VWUHVV %URG\ -DFRE .UDPHU t $JUDV /LQGHQ t )HXHUVWHLQ 7D\ORU t )RUWPDQ :HLQHU f 3K\VLRORJLFDO VWUHVV FDQ SRVVLEO\ DFWLYDWH WKH DXWRQRPLF QHUYRXV V\VWHP DIIHFWLQJ DGYHUVHO\ JDVWURQRPLFDO IXQFWLRQ DQG OHDGLQJ WR SHSWLF XOFHU GLVHDVH LUULWDEOH ERZHO GLVHDVH DQG SRVVLEO\ HYHQ SDQFUHDWLF G\VIXQFWLRQ DQG GLDEHWHV (QJHO &REE t 5RVH +DJJORI HW DO .RHQLJ 0F&XOORXJK t /DUVRQ /HKPDQ 5RGLQ 0F(ZHQ t %ULQWRQ f +HDWKHUWRQ DQG 5HQLQ f REVHUYHG WKDW HPRWLRQDO VWUHVV ZKHQ OHIW XQWUHDWHG FDQ LQFUHDVH WKH OLNHOLKRRG WKDW D SHUVRQ ZLOO UHHQJDJH LQ DQ[LHW\ UHGXFLQJ EHKDYLRUVFLJDUHWWH VPRNLQJ DOFRKRO DEXVH RU XQKHDOWK\ HDWLQJ GLVRUGHUV 7KLV SKHQRPHQRQ LV VR FRPPRQ LW KDV EHHQ ODEHOHG fWKH VWUHVV GLVLQKLELWLRQ HIIHFWf 0DUODWW f 1RW DOO XQIRUJLYLQJ EHKDYLRUDO SDWWHUQV QHFHVVDULO\ UHDFK VXFK OHYHOV EXW LW GRHV IRU VRPH DQG LW UHPDLQV D GLVWLQFW SRVVLELOLW\ IRU RWKHUV %\ LVRODWLQJ WKH DQJHU IDFWRU LW KDV EHHQ VKRZQ KRZ LW FRUUHODWHV WR RWKHU FRPPRQ KHDOWK SUREOHPV $UHQD DQG DVVRFLDWHV f QRWLFHG WKDW WHQVLRQ KHDGDFKH VXIIHUHUV KDG VLJQLILFDQWO\ PRUH VXSSUHVVHG DQJHU FRPSDUHG WR QRQSDLQ FRQWUROV -RKQVRQ DQG %URPDQ f IRXQG WKDW KLJKHU OHYHOV RI RXWZDUGO\ H[SUHVVHG DQJHU ZDV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK D JUHDWHU QXPEHU RI KHDOWK SUREOHPV HJ XOFHUV FDQFHU K\SHUWHQVLRQ DQG GLDEHWHVf LQ D QDWLRQDO VDPSOH RI %ODFN DGXOWV 6LPLODUO\ 9DQGHUYRRUW 5DJODQG DQG 6\PH f QRWHG WKDW VXSSUHVVHG DQG H[SUHVVHG DQJHU UHODWHG WR KHDOWK SUREOHPV UDQJLQJ IURP JDVWURLQWHVWLQDO WR PXVFXORVNHOHWDO KHDOWK FRPSODLQWV

PAGE 115

7KH SV\FKRQHXURLPPXQRORJ\ OLWHUDWXUH EDVH VXSSRUWV WKH YLHZ WKDW DQJHU LV UHODWHG WR KHDOWK RXWFRPHV 7KHUH LV FRQVLGHUDEOH HYLGHQFH WKDW DQJHU DQG KRVWLOLW\ DUH UHODWHG WR QHXURHQGRFULQH FKDQJHV VXFK DV VWUHVV UHODWHG KRUPRQHV .HOWLNDQJDV-DYLQHQ 5DVNRQHQ +DQWDQHQ t $GOHUFUHXW] 0LOOV 6FKQHLGHU t 'LPVGDOH f )XUWKHU WKHUH LV HYLGHQFH WKDW DQJHU LV UHODWHG WR LPSDLUHG LPPXQH V\VWHP IXQFWLRQLQJ (VWHUOLQJ $QWRQL .XPDU t 6FKQHLGHUDQ .LHFROW*ODVHU HW DO 0LOOV t 'LPVGDOH 3HQQHEDNHU .LHFROW*ODVHU t *ODVHU f ZKLFK FDQ LQFUHDVH WKH YXOQHUDELOLW\ WR DQ DUUD\ RI GLVHDVHV $V ZLWK KRVWLOLW\ OLWHUDWXUH WKHUH UHPDLQV VRPH LQFRQVLVWHQW ILQGLQJV HJ 5XVVHN .LQJ 5XVVHN t 5XVVHN IDLOHG WR ILQG DQ DVVRFLDWLRQ EHWZHHQ VXSSUHVVHG DQG H[SUHVVHG DQJHU DQG &+' LQ D \HDU IROORZXS RI D FROOHJH SRSXODWLRQf EXW RYHUDOO WKH GDWD SURYLGH FRQVLGHUDEOH HYLGHQFH WKDW DQJHU DQG LWV H[SUHVVLRQ SOD\ D UROH LQ GLVHDVH 7KHRUHWLFDO &ODLPV 2Q WKH 3K\VLFDO +HDOWK (QKDQFLQJ 3RWHQWLDO RI )RUJLYHQHVV 7KH HVVHQWLDO JRDO LQ WKH IRUJLYHQHVV SURFHVV LV WKH UHGXFWLRQ DQGRU RYHUFRPLQJ QHJDWLYH KDUPIXO HPRWLRQV 7KLV FOHDUO\ KDV EHHQ WKH PRVW FRPPRQ H[SODQDWLRQ IRU WKH EHQHILW RI IRUJLYLQJ (OLDV t .HWFKDP )R[ t )R[ 3RZHOO 6LQDWUD 6REHO t 2PVWHLQ f )RUJLYHQHVV LV D YDOXDEOH PLQGERG\ FRQFHSW WKDW QHHGV WR EH LQFRUSRUDWHG LQ ZHVWHUQ PHGLFLQH 3HUW f $Q LQFUHDVLQJ QXPEHU RI WKHRULVWV KDV SURSRVHG WKDW WKH ZD\V SHRSOH UHVSRQG WR LQWHUSHUVRQDO RIIHQVHV FDQ VLJQLILFDQWO\ DIIHFW WKHLU KHDOWK 0F&XOORXJK 6DQGDJH t :RUWKLQJWRQ f 8QIRUJLYLQJ UHVSRQVHV UHKHDUVLQJ WKH KXUW KDUERULQJ D JUXGJH DOORZLQJ UHVHQWPHQW WR IHVWHUf DUH FRQVLGHUHG KHDOWK HURGLQJ ZKHUHDV IRUJLYHQHVV UHVSRQVHV HPSDWK\ EHQHYROHQFH OHWWLQJ JR RI KXUWf DUH WKRXJKW WR EH KHDOWK HQKDQFLQJ 7KRUHVHQ HW DO :LOOLDPV t :LOOLDPV :LWYOLHW /XGZLJ t 9DQGHU /DPP f

PAGE 116

6HYHUDO SXEOLVKHG VWXGLHV KDYH IRXQG D SRVLWLYH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ IRUJLYHQHVV DQG PHQWDO KHDOWK YDULDEOHV 2QH VWXG\ 0DXJHU HW DO f XQGHUWDNHQ IRU WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI )RUJLYHQHVV 6FDOH )RUJLYHQHVV RI 2WKHUV DQG )RUJLYHQHVV RI 6HOI 6FDOH PHDVXUHG GLVWLQFW GLVSRVLWLRQDO FRQVWUXFWV UDWKHU WKDQ SHRSOHfV UHVSRQVHV WR LVRODWHG KDUPIXO HYHQWV /RZ IRUJLYHQHVV VFRUHV RQ ERWK VFDOHV ZHUH FRUUHODWHG ZLWK LQGLFDWRUV RI SV\FKRSDWKRORJ\ RQ WKH 0LQQHVRWD 0XOWLSKDVLF 3HUVRQDOLW\ ,QYHQWRU\ /RZ VFRUHV RQ WKH )RUJLYHQHVV RI 6HOI KDG VWURQJHU OLQNV WR GHSUHVVLRQ DQ[LHW\ DQG ORZ VHOIHVWHHP 0F&XOORXJK %HOODK .LOSDWULFN DQG -RKQVRQ f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f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f 6FLHQWLILF HYLGHQFH IRU WKH FRQQHFWLRQ EHWZHHQ HPRWLRQV DQG SK\VLFDO KHDOWK KDV EHHQ LQFUHDVLQJ UDSLGO\ RYHU WKH

PAGE 117

SDVW IHZ GHFDGHV )ULHGPDQ .UDQW] %DXP t 6LQJHU 0DWWKHZV HW DO 6WRQH &RKHQ t $GOHU 7D\ORU t 6LQJHU f ,QFUHDVLQJO\ WKHUH LV PRUH HYLGHQFH EHWZHHQ WKH FRQQHFWLRQ RI SK\VLFDO LOOQHVV DQG LWV UHODWLRQ WR SV\FKRORJLFDO GLVWXUEDQFH UHVXOWLQJ IURP GHSUHVVLRQ DQGRU DQ[LHW\ ,W LV HVWLPDWHG WKDW KDOI RI WKH RUJDQLF LOOQHVVHV IRU ZKLFK LQGLYLGXDOV VHHN WUHDWPHQW DW PHGLFDO VHWWLQJV KDYH SV\FKRORJLFDO IDFWRUV LQ WKHLU HWLRORJ\ .DSODQ f 2QO\ QRZ LV WKH KHDOWK ILHOG VHULRXVO\ H[DPLQLQJ WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ IRUJLYHQHVV DQG SK\VLFDO KHDOWK 5HVHDUFK DVVRFLDWHV WKH XQIRUJLYLQJ UHVSRQVHV RI EODPH DQJHU DQG KRVWLOLW\ ZLWK LPSDLUHG KHDOWK $IIOHFN 7HQQHQ &URRJ t /HYLQH 7HQQHQ t $IIOHFN f SDUWLFXODUO\ FRURQDU\ KHDUW GLVHDVH DQG SUHPDWXUH GHDWK 0LOOHU HW DO f $V SUHYLRXVO\ VWDWHG KRVWLOLW\ LV D SULPDU\ IDFWRU LQ SRRU KHDOWK RXWFRPHV 5HGXFWLRQ RI KRVWLOLW\ WKURXJK IRUJLYHQHVV PHDVXUHV PD\ OHDG WR UHGXFWLRQV LQ FRURQDU\ SUREOHPV )ULHGPDQ .DSODQ f .DSODQ f ZKR DVVLVWHG DV D FRQVXOWDQW LQ )ULHGPDQfV 5HFXUUHQW &RURQDU\ 3UHYHQWLRQ 3URMHFW 5&33f DQ LQWHUYHQWLRQ VXFFHVVIXO LQ UHGXFLQJ PRUELGLW\ DQG PRUWDOLW\ LQ SRVWLQIDUFWLRQ SDWLHQWV )ULHGPDQ HW DO f IRXQG D SRZHUIXO DVVHW IRU WKH LPSURYHPHQW RI KHDOWK WKH SRZHU RI IRUJLYHQHVV ,Q WKH WKHUDSHXWLF VHVVLRQV DQG GHEULHILQJV DW WKH VWXG\fV FRQFOXVLRQ fOHDUQLQJ WR EH PRUH IRUJLYLQJf DQG fFXOWLYDWLQJ D IRUJLYLQJ KHDUWf ZHUH UHSHDWHG WKHPHV LQ WKH FRPPHQWDULHV IURP WKH SDUWLFLSDQWV LQ WKH VWXG\ +HDOWK LV D XQLWDU\ FRQFHSW GHILQHG E\ WKH :RUOG +HDOWK 2UJDQL]DWLRQ f DV fWKH SUHVHQFH RI SK\VLFDO PHQWDO DQG VRFLDO ZHOO EHLQJf S f 3K\VLFDO PHQWDO DQG VRFLDO KHDOWK DUH LQWHUFRQQHFWHG 3HRSOH WHQG WR KDYH FRQVLVWHQW SRVLWLRQV RQ DOO WKUHH VFDOHVSK\VLFDO PHQWDO DQG VRFLDO DQG WKHLU ZD\ RI OLYLQJ LH VRFLDO DQG GHPRJUDSKLF

PAGE 118

,OO FKDUDFWHULVWLFV SHUVRQDO KDELWV IDPLOLDO FXOWXUDO DQG HQYLURQPHQWDO IDFWRUVfDQG WKH\ ZRXOG DIIHFW DQG EH DIIHFWHG E\ SK\VLFDO PHQWDO DQG VRFLDO KHDWK %HOORF %UHVORZ t +RFKVWLP f +HDOWK LQYROYHV WKH WRWDO SHUVRQPLQG ERG\ VRXO DQG VSLULW 7KH\ DUH DOO LQWHUUHODWHG DQG HDFK RQH DIIHFWV WKH RWKHU :HLO f LQ KLV ZHHN SURJUDP RI RSWLPDO KHDOWK H[SODLQV WKDW HYHQ LI RQHfV VLQJXODU JRDO LV WR DYRLG D KHDUW DWWDFN RQH PXVW VWLOO WDNH LQWR DFFRXQW WKH fZKROH SLFWXUHf ,W LV QRW VXIILFLHQW WR FXW \RXU VDWXUDWHG IDW FRQVXPSWLRQ /RZHULQJ FKROHVWHURO OHYHO LV ODXGDWRU\ EXW QRW HQRXJK ,W LV QRW HQRXJK WR LQFUHDVH H[HUFLVH DQG WR GHFUHDVH WKDW WR[LF DJHQWVWUHVV 7KHVH DUH DOO FRPPHQGDEOH EXW WR RSWLPL]H WKH IXQFWLRQ RI WKH ERG\fV QDWXUDO KHDOLQJ V\VWHP RQH PXVW LPSURYH RQHfV VSLULWXDO KHDOWK WKURXJK IRUJLYHQHVV +H VXJJHVWV WKDW WKH DFW RI IRUJLYLQJ KHDOV WKH IRUJLYHU DQG DORQJ ZLWK RWKHU FRPSRQHQWV RI WKH ERG\ WKH FRURQDU\ DUWHULHV PLJKW EH WKH UHFLSLHQWV RI WKH KHDOLQJ V\QHUJLHV WKDW DUH UHOHDVHG :HLO f ([SORULQJ SRVVLEOH UHODWLRQVKLSV DPRQJ IRUJLYHQHVV GLVHDVH DQG SK\VLFDO KHDOWK LV WUXO\ WKH IURQWLHU RI IRUJLYHQHVV UHVHDUFK /LWWOH E\ OLWWOH GDWD LV SRLQWLQJ WR WKH SRVLWLYH FRQQHFWLRQ EHWZHHQ IRUJLYHQHVV DQG SK\VLFDO KHDOWK )RUJLYHQHVV LV FRQVLGHUHG DQ HVVHQWLDO FRPSRQHQW LQ PDLQWDLQLQJ JRRG SK\VLFDO KHDOWK &DVDLMLDQ 'RPDU t 'UHKHU f 7KHUH LV VRPH GDWD WKDW VXJJHVWV D VHFXODU DSSURDFK WR LQFUHDVLQJ IRUJLYHQHVV LPSURYHV VRPH PHQWDO KHDWK PHDVXUHV VXFK DV GHSUHVVLRQ DQG DQJHU /XVNLQ t 7KRUHVHQ :RUWKLQJWRQ 6DQGDJH t %HUU\ f 7KRXJK QR FRQWUROOHG VWXGLHV KDYH \HW UHSRUWHG LPSURYHG SK\VLFDO KHDWK LQ SHUVRQV ZLWK PDMRU GLVHDVHV IRUJLYHQHVV KDV EHHQ SDUW RI VHYHUDO VXFFHVVIXO PXOWLIDFHWHG LQWHUYHQWLRQ WULDOV IRU SDWLHQWV ZLWK VHULRXV KHDOWK SUREOHPV VXFK DV FDQFHU DQG KHDUW GLVHDVH 7KH VSHFLILF HIIHFWV RI IRUJLYHQHVV LQ WKHVH VWXGLHV KDYH QRW \HW EHHQ DVVHVVHG )ULHGPDQ HW DO 2UQLVK %URZQ 6FKHUZLW] t %LOOLQJV 6SLHJHO %ORRP .UDHPHU t *RWWKHLO f )RUJLYHQHVV

PAGE 119

KDV EHHQ GLVFXVVHG IRU D YDULHW\ RI FOLQLFDO SUREOHPV LQFOXGLQJ GHSUHVVLRQ VRFLRSDWKRORJ\ K\VWHULD )LW]JLEERQV f ERUGHUOLQH SUREOHPV :ROEHUJ f WHUPLQDO LOOQHVV DQG JULHYLQJ $FKWHUEHUJ 0DWWKHZV t 6LPRQWRQ /HYLQH 3KLOOLSV t 2VERUQH f &RUWLV f D YHWHUDQ FDUGLRORJLVW ZLWK \HDUV H[SHULHQFH FRPSDUHV KLV SDWLHQWV ZKR IDLO WR IRUJLYH DQ LQWHUSHUVRQDO KXUW WR D SHUVRQ FDUU\LQJ D KHDY\ REMHFW VXFK DV D FKDLU 6WHSE\VWHS WKH EXUGHQ EHFRPHV KHDYLHU 7R OLEHUDWH RQHVHOI IURP WKLV EXUGHQ RQH QHHGV WR JLYH XS WKH JUXGJH 'U &RUWLV HQFRXUDJHV KLV SDWLHQWV WR IRUJLYH VR WKH\ FDQ IUHH WKHPVHOYHV IURP WKLV RSSUHVVLRQ RI UHVHQWPHQW DQG KRVWLOLW\ 'U /HYLQ f LV VR FRQYLQFHG LQ WKH KHDOLQJ SRZHU RI IRUJLYHQHVV WKDW KH EHOLHYHV LW LV WKH ILQDO DQG PRVW LPSRUWDQW VWHS WKH FDUGLDF SDWLHQW PXVW PDNH LQ WKH KHDOLQJ SURFHVV 3KLOOLSV DQG 2VERUQH f HQGRUVH IRUJLYHQHVV HYHQ IRU FDQFHU SDWLHQWV ZLWK WKH FRQYLFWLRQ WKDW LW LV DEOH WR UHOHDVH WKDW WR[LF HOHPHQW +RZ )RUJLYHQHVV 0LJKW ,QIOXHQFH +HDOWK 2YHUFRPLQJ QHJDWLYH HPRWLRQV LV WKH PRVW FRPPRQ H[SODQDWLRQ RIIHUHG IRU WKH SRWHQWLDOO\ HQKDQFLQJ SURSHUWLHV RI IRUJLYHQHVV (OLDV t .HWFKDP )R[ t )R[ 3RZHOO 6LQDWUD 6REHO t 2PVWHLQ f 7KHUH KDV EHHQ FRQVLGHUDEOH HYLGHQFH RYHU WKH SDVW \HDUV RI WKH DGYHUVH HIIHFW RI QHJDWLYH HPRWLRQV WR RQHfV KHDOWK &KHVQH\ t 5RVHQPDQ )ULHGPDQ 0DWWKHZV HW DO 6WRQH &RKHQ t $GOHU 7D\ORU t 6LQJHU 9DQGHUYRRUW f )RUJLYHQHVV HQWDLOV OHWWLQJ JR RI WKH QHJDWLYH IHHOLQJV DQG UHSODFLQJ WKHP ZLWK D PRUH PHUFLIXO HPSDWKHWLF IHHOLQJ DQG DQ RIIHULQJ RI JRRGZLOO WR WKH RIIHQGHU /XVNLQ t 7KRUHVHQ f 7KLV DFWLRQ PD\ UHOHDVH WKH ZRXQGHG SHUVRQ IURP KXUW DQG WKH GHVLUH IRU UHYHQJH \LHOGLQJ ERWK HPRWLRQDO DQG SK\VLFDO EHQHILWV LQFOXGLQJ UHGXFHG VWUHVV OHVV QHJDWLYH HPRWLRQ IHZHU

PAGE 120

FDUGLRYDVFXODU SUREOHPV DQG LPSURYHG LPPXQH V\VWHP SHUIRUPDQFH 0F&XOORXJK HW DO :RUWKLQJWRQ f :KHUHDV XQIRUJLYLQJ UHVSRQVHV UHKHDUVLQJ WKH KXUW KDUERULQJ D JUXGJHf DUH FRQVLGHUHG KHDOWK HURGLQJ IRUJLYLQJ UHVSRQVHV DUH WKRXJKW WR EH KHDOWK HQKDQFLQJ 7KRUHVHQ HW DO :LOOLDPV t :LOOLDPV f 1HJDWLYH HPRWLRQV KDYH DQ HIIHFW RQ RXU SK\VLFDO KHDWK $ VWXG\ LQYHVWLJDWHG WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ HPRWLRQV DQG LPPXQH UHVSRQVHV LQ WKH H[SHULPHQWDO VHWWLQJ RI VRFLDO IHDU RI VSHDNLQJ LQ SXEOLF *HUULWVHQ +HLMQHQ :LHJDQW %HUPRQG t )ULMGD f 7KRVH VXEMHFWHG WR WKH IHDULQGXFLQJ VRFLDO VLWXDWLRQ UHSRUWHG HQKDQFHG FDUGLRYDVFXODU DFWLYLW\ HOHYDWHG SODVPD KRUPRQH OHYHOV DQG FKDQJHV LQ LPPXQRORJLFDO SDUDPHWHUV QDWXUDO NLOOHU FHOO QXPEHU DQG KHOSHULQGXFHU FHOOVf LQGLFDWLQJ D UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ HPRWLRQ DQG LPPXQH UHVSRQVHV ,Q WKLV FDVH WKH QHJDWLYH HPRWLRQV RI UHVHQWPHQW DQG ELWWHUQHVV FDQ SHUVLVW RYHU ORQJ SHULRGV RI \HDUV DQG LQ VRPH FDVHV DQ HQWLUH OLIHWLPH (QULJKW HW DO f )R[ DQG )R[ f KDYH SRVWXODWHG WKDW ZKHQ RQH GRHV QRW IRUJLYH WKH KXPDQ ERG\ PDQXIDFWXUHV FRPSRXQGV OLNH WKH DGUHQRFRULWFRWURSKLF KRUPRQH DQG FRUWLVRQH LQ UHVSRQVH WR HQGXULQJ QHJDWLYH HPRWLRQV $V WKHVH FKHPLFDO FRPSRXQGV EXLOG XS LQ WKH EORRG VWUHDP D SHUVRQ EHFRPHV YXOQHUDEOH WR GLVHDVH )XUWKHU 7DXE f KDV DOVR FODLPHG WKDW SHUSHWXDO QHJDWLYH HPRWLRQV LQ WKH FRQWH[W RI VHURXV LQWHUSHUVRQDO KXUWV FDQ FRQWULEXWH WR DQ\WKLQJ IURP FORJJHG DUWHULHV WR XOFHUV DQG KHDUW SUREOHPV DQG LPSHGH KHDOLQJ RU UHFRYHU\ IURP GLVHDVH ,W LV E\ IRUJLYHQHVV WKDW RQH FDQ WUDQVFHQG UHVHQWPHQW ELWWHUQHVV DQG DQJHU DQG PD\ LPSURYH GDPDJHG UHODWLRQVKLSV )RUJLYHQHVV VWRSV WKH RXWSRXULQJ RU WKH KROGLQJ RQ WR WKH QHJDWLYH IHHOLQJV DQG DOORZV IRU D UHQHZHG DWWLWXGH )ORSH f )RUJLYHQHVV LV WKH ZLOOIXO DFW WR JLYH XS WKH UHVHQWPHQW DQG DOORZ WKH ERG\ WR VWRS SRXULQJ GDPDJLQJ FKHPLFDOV LQWR WKH EORRG VWUHDP ZKLFK WKHQ DOORZV WKH KHDOLQJ SURFHVV WR EHJLQ )R[ t )R[ f

PAGE 121

$IIOHFN 7HQQHQ &URRJ DQG /HYLQH f GHPRQVWUDWHG WKDW FDUGLDF SDWLHQWV ZKR EODPHG WKHLU LQLWLDO KHDUW DWWDFN RQ RWKHU SHRSOH ZHUH PRUH OLNHO\ WR KDYH LQIDUFWLRQV HYHQ ZKHQ VHYHUDO RWKHU ELRORJLFDO DQG SV\FKRVRFLDO YDULDEOHV ZHUH FRQWUROOHG 7HQQHQ DQG $IIOHFN f UHYLHZHG SXEOLVKHG VWXGLHV UHSRUWLQJ WKH KHDOWK LPSDFW RQ EODPLQJ RWKHUV IRU WKHLU SDLQIXO HYHQWV %ODPLQJ RWKHUV IRU RQHfV PLVIRUWXQH HJ KHDUW DWWDFNV LQDELOLW\ WR FRQFHLYHf ZDV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK LPSDLUPHQWV LQ HPRWLRQDO ZHOOEHLQJ DQG SK\VLFDO KHDOWK ,Q PXOWLYDULDWH DQDO\VHV DQJHU DQG KRVWLOLW\ RYHU PDQ\ \HDUV KDYH ERWK EHHQ SUHGLFWLYH RI DOOFDXVH PRUWDOLW\ LQ VHYHUDO EXW QRW DOO VWXGLHV 0LOOHU HW DO f 5HFHQW UHVHDUFK KDV VKRZQ VLJQLILFDQW QHJDWLYH UHODWLRQV EHWZHHQ IRUJLYHQHVV DQG DQ[LHW\ DQG IRUJLYHQHVV DQG DQJHU 6XENRYLDN HW DO f IRXQG WKDW ZKHQ GHHSO\ KXUW E\ RWKHUV IRUJLYHUV ZKR PD\ KDYH H[SHULHQFHG D ZLGH DUUD\ RI GLIIHUHQW LQWHUSHUVRQDO LQMXULHV DUH OHVV DQ[LRXV WKDQ WKRVH ZKR FKRRVH QRW WR IRUJLYH 6DULQRSRXORV f UHSRUWHG D VLJQLILFDQW QHJDWLYH FRUUHODWLRQ EHWZHHQ IRUJLYHQHVV DQG DQJHU LQ WKH UDQJH IRU ERWK FROOHJH VWXGHQWV DQG PLGGOHDJHG DGXOWV +XDQJ f IRXQG ORZHU DQJHU DQG EORRG SUHVVXUH LQ D 7DLZDQHVH VDPSOH RI SHRSOH ZKR SUDFWLFHG IRUJLYHQHVV DV DQ H[SUHVVLRQ RI ORYH FRPSDUHG WR WKRVH ZKR GLG QRW ,Q D VHULHV RI VWXGLHV 0F&UDW\ $WNLQVRQ 7LOOHU 5HLQ DQG :DWNLQV f GHPRQVWUDWHG WKDW E\ LQFUHDVLQJ SRVLWLYH HPRWLRQDO VWDWHV LPSURYHG LPPXQH FRPSHWHQFH DQG UHGXFHG KHDUW UDWH EORRG SUHVVXUH DQG UHVSLUDWRU\ YDULDELOLW\ RFFXUUHG 6WURQJ SRVLWLYH HPRWLRQDOLW\ OHG WR JUHDWHU V\QFKURQL]DWLRQ RI LPPXQROJLFDO DQG FDUGLRYDVFXODU IXQFWLRQLQJ )RUJLYHQHVV PD\ EH DQ LPSRUWDQW IDFWRU WKDW IRVWHUV VXFK V\QFKURQL]DWLRQ WKURXJK UHGXFLQJ QHJDWLYH HPRWLRQDOLW\ DQG IRVWHULQJ SRVLWLYH FRJQLWLYH SURFHVVHV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK PRUH FRPSDVVLRQ DQG XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI RWKHUV

PAGE 122

$QRWKHU OLQH RI UHVHDUFK VXJJHVWV WKDW JUDQWLQJ RU ZLWKKROGLQJ IRUJLYHQHVV PD\ LQIOXHQFH FDUGLRYDVFXODU KHDOWK WKURXJK FKDQJHV LQ WKH DOORVWDVLV DQG DOORVWDWLF ORDG $OORVWDVLV LQYROYHV FKDQJHV LQ WKH PXOWLSOH SK\VLRORJLFDO V\VWHPV WKDW DOORZ SHRSOH WR VXUYLYH WKH GHPDQGV RI ERWK LQWHUQDO DQG H[WHUQDO VWUHVVRUV 0F(ZHQ f $OWKRXJK DOORVWDVLV LV QHFHVVDU\ IRU VXUYLYDO H[WHQGHG SK\VLRORJLFDO VWUHVV UHVSRQVHV WULJJHUHG E\ SV\FKRVRFLDO IDFWRUV VXFK DV DQ[LHW\ DQG KRVWLOLW\ FDQ UHVXOW LQ DOORVWDWLF RYHUORDG HYHQWXDOO\ OHDGLQJ WR D SK\VLFDO EUHDNGRZQ ,QWHUSHUVRQDO WUDQVJUHVVLRQV DQG SHRSOHfV QHJDWLYH UHDFWLRQV WR WKHP PD\ FRQWULEXWH WR DOORVWDWLF ORDG DQG KHDOWK ULVN WKURXJK V\PSDWKHWLF QHUYRXV V\VWHP 616f HQGRFULQH DQG LPPXQH V\VWHP FKDQJHV HJ .LHFROW *ODVHU f ,Q FRQWUDVW WKH JLIW RI IRUJLYHQHVV PD\ EXIIHU KHDOWK E\ UHGXFLQJ SK\VLRORJLFDO UHDFWLYLW\ UHGXFLQJ VWUHVV FRQWULEXWLQJ WR D VLJQLILFDQW GHFUHDVH LQ WKH DOORVWDWLF ORDG 7KRUHVHQ HW DO f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b UHGXFWLRQ LQ DQJU\ UHDFWLRQ IURP SUHWHVW WR SRVWWHVW WKDW UHPDLQHG VWDEOH DW IROORZXS 6LJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV ZHUH IRXQG IRU 6WDWH $QJHU RU VKRUW WHUP DQJHU EHWZHHQ WKH WZR JURXSV RYHU DOO PHDVXUHPHQW SHULRGV DQG LQ IROORZXS HYDOXDWLRQV DW SRVWWHVW 7KH

PAGE 123

WUHDWPHQW JURXS VKRZHG D b UHGXFWLRQ LQ 6WDWH $QJHU IURP WKH SUHWHVW WR ERWK WKH SRVWWHVW DQG IROORZXS $QRWKHU VWXG\ FRQGXFWHG E\ WKH 6WDQIRUG )RUJLYHQHVV 3URMHFW DQDO\]LQJ WKH HIIHFWV RI JURXS IRUJLYHQHVV LQWHUYHQWLRQ RQ SHUFHLYHG VWUHVV DQJHU DQG KHDOWK UHLQIRUFHG WKH VDOXWDU\ HIIHFWV RI IRUJLYHQHVV $PRQJ WKH DGXOWV ZKR UHFHLYHG WKH LQWHUYHQWLRQ UHVXOWV ZHUH SURPLVLQJ 6WDWH DQG 7UDLW DQJHU VKRZHG VLJQLILFDQW GHFUHDVHV IRU WUHDWPHQW JURXS SDUWLFLSDQWV S DQG f 3RVLWLYH UHVXOWV ZHUH VHHQ LQ 7UDLW $QJHU ORQJn WHUPf ZLWK D SRVWWHVW (6 RI DQG 6WDWH $QJHU VKRUWWHUPf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f H[DPLQHG WKH K\SRWKHVLV LQ WKH 5HFXUUHQW &RURQDU\ 3UHYHQWLRQ 3URMHFW D FRQWUROOHG FOLQLFDO WULDO 7KH\ XQFRYHUHG WKDW IRU WKH 7\SH $ SDUWLFLSDQWV ZKR ZHUH DW ULVN IRU UHFXUULQJ KHDUW DWWDFNV WKRVH UDQGRPO\ DVVLJQHG WR D EHKDYLRUDO PRGLILFDWLRQ SURJUDP LQ FRQWUDVW WR VWDQGDUG WUHDWPHQW IURP D FDUGLRORJLVW VKRZHG D JUHDWHU UHGXFWLRQ LQ KRVWLOH EHKDYLRU DQG D UHGXFWLRQ LQ KHDUW SUREOHPV .DSODQ f D SULPH FRQVXOWDQW IRU WKLV UHVHDUFK ZDV NHHQO\ LQWHUHVWHG LQ WKH QHJOHFWHG FRQVWUXFW RI 7\SH % SHUVRQDOLW\ ZKLFK HPSKDVL]HV D OHWWLQJJR DQJHU UHVHQWPHQW DQG XQGR VWUHVV DQG DQ RSHQQHVV WR RIIHU IRUJLYHQHVV .DSODQ QRWLFHG WKDW WKH EHKDYLRUDO LQWHUYHQWLRQ ZKLFK ZDV HIIHFWLYH IRU WUHDWLQJ 7\SH $ SHUVRQDOLWLHV HPSKDVL]HG WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI WKHVH 7\SH % IHDWXUHV

PAGE 124

,PSUHVVLYHO\ ZKHQ WKHVH LQGLYLGXDOV ZHUH DVVHVVHG DIWHU WUHDWPHQW WKH\ RIWHQ FRPPHQWHG RQ WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI OHDUQLQJf KRZ WR FXOWLYDWH WKH IRUJLYLQJ KHDUWf S f 7KHVH SDWLHQWV VHHPHG WR HIIHFWLYHO\ UHGXFH WKHLU KRVWLOLW\ E\ fOHDUQLQJ WR EH PRUH IRUJLYLQJf S f 7KHUH LV D VWURQJ LQGLFDWLRQ WKDW EHLQJ IRUJLYLQJ PD\ SURPRWH FRURQDU\ KHDOWK UHGXFLQJ WKH QHJDWLYH FRURQDU\ HIIHFWV RI DQJHU DQG KRVWLOLW\ $QRWKHU SXEOLVKHG VWXG\ RI IRUJLYHQHVV +XDQJ t (QULJKW f LQFOXGHG SK\VLRORJLFDO DQG EHKDYLRUDO PHDVXUHV 7KH UHVHDUFKHUV DVVHVVHG SDUWLFLSDQWVf PRWLYDWLRQ IRU IRUJLYLQJ DQG FRPSDUHG WKH DQJHUUHODWHG H[SUHVVLRQV RI SHRSOH ZKR IRUJDYH EHFDXVH RI REOLJDWLRQ WR WKH H[SUHVVLRQV RI SHRSOH ZKR IRUJDYH EHFDXVH RI XQFRQGLWLRQDO ORYH 7KH\ IRXQG WKDW GXULQJ WKH GHVFULSWLRQ RI D SDLQIXO SDVW H[SHULHQFH SDUWLFLSDQWV ZKR IRUJDYH XQGHU REOLJDWLRQ H[SUHVVHG PRUH DQJHUUHODWHG UHVSRQVHV VXFK DV PDVNLQJ VPLOHV DQG GRZQFDVW H\HV 7KH\ DOVR IRXQG WKDW LQ WKH ILUVW PLQXWH RI GHVFULELQJ WKLV LQWHUSHUVRQDO KXUW YV GHVFULELQJ D W\SLFDO GD\f LQGLYLGXDOV ZKR KDG IRUJLYHQ EHFDXVH RI REOLJDWLRQ VKRZHG JUHDWHU EORRG SUHVVXUH LQFUHDVHV FRPSDUHG ZLWK WKRVH ZKR KDG IRUJLYHQ EHFDXVH RI XQFRQGLWLRQDO ORYH 7KHVH GDWD VXJJHVW WKDW IRUJLYHQHVV LVQfW PHUHO\ DQ RYHUW EHKDYLRU EXW D TXDOLW\ RI WKH KHDUW DQG WKH LQWHQWLRQ VWURQJO\ LQIOXHQFHV SK\VLRORJLFDO UHVSRQVHV 3RVVLEOH 3K\VLRORJLFDO 0HFKDQLVPV 6FKHLGWfV f SHUVSHFWLYH RQ SV\FKRVRFLDO IDFWRUV DQG FRURQDU\ KHDUW GLVHDVH PD\ VKHG OLJKW RQ KRZ WKH IRUJLYHQHVV SURFHVV LQIOXHQFHV SK\VLFDO KHDOWK 6FKHLGW RIIHUHG RYHU SRVVLEOH SK\VLRORJLFDO DQG SV\FKRVRFLDO PHFKDQLVPV 3URPLQHQW DPRQJ WKHVH ZDV WKH HIIHFWV RI WKH FKURQLF V\PSDWKHWLF QHUYRXV V\VWHP 616f ZKRVH K\SHU DURXVDO ZKHQ XQGHU FRQVWDQW VWUHVV LQIOXHQFHV WKH HQGRFULQH SURGXFWLRQ HJ QRUHSLQHSKULQHf %\ GHFUHDVLQJ FKURQLF 616 DURXVDO WKH GHPDQGV XSRQ WKH FDUGLRYDVFXODU V\VWHP DUH UHGXFHG

PAGE 125

HJ ORZHUHG EORRG SUHVVXUH HQGRJHQRXV SURGXFWLRQ RI ORZ GHQVLW\ OLSRSURWHLQV KHDUW UDWH YDULDELOLW\ DWKHURVFOHURVLVf -LDQJ HW DO f GHPRQVWUDWHG WKDW SDWLHQWV ZLWK HOHYDWHG OHYHOV RI VLOHQW LVFKHPLD VKRUWWHUP FRQWUDFWLRQV RI FRURQDU\ DUWHULHVf GXULQJ VWUHVVIXO WDVNV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK 616 DURXVDO ZHUH QHDUO\ WKUHH WLPHV DV OLNHO\ WR VXIIHU D PDMRU FRURQDU\ HYHQW RYHU \HDUV WKDQ WKRVH ZLWK OHVV UHDFWLRQ WR HPRWLRQDO VWUHVV 6LJQLILFDQWO\ WKHVH UHVXOWV FRXOG QRW EH H[SODLQHG E\ VHYHUDO SK\VLRORJLFDO YDULDEOHV ,Q DGGLWLRQ LPPXQH FRPSHWHQFH HJ LQFUHDVHG QDWXUDO NLOOHU DQG WFHOOV FDQ EH HQKDQFHG ZKHQ 616 DURXVDO LV GLPLQLVKHG $QGHUVRQ $OPJUHQ DQG 3HUVVRQ f UHFHQWO\ IRXQG WKDW LQ ZRPHQ ZLWK EUHDVW FDQFHU SV\FKRORJLFDO VWUHVV UHGXFHV 1. FHOO DQG &' DFWLYLW\ DV ZHOO DV ORZHULQJ LPPXQH UHVSRQVH WR H\WNLQH SURWHLQV &RQWUROOLQJ VHYHUDO ELRORJLFDO DQG GHPRJUDSKLF IDFWRUV LW ZDV SV\FKRVRFLDO VWUHVV WKDW VWLOO PHGLDWHG GLPLQLVKHG LPPXQH FRPSHWHQFH RYHU VHYHUDO PRQWKV 3HQQHEDNHU .LHFROW*ODVHU 3HWULH %RRWK t 3HQQHEDNHU f 2QH RI WKH PRVW SURPLVLQJ H[SODQDWLRQV XQGHUVFRUHV WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI DOORVWDVLV WKH DELOLW\ RI VHYHUDO SK\VLRORJLFDO V\VWHPV WR DFKLHYH DQG PDLQWDLQ VWDELOLW\ ZKHQ WU\LQJ WR DGDSW WR VWUHVV 0F(ZHQ t 6WHOODU f ,QLWLDWHG E\ DOORVWDVLV WKH DXWRQRPLF QHUYRXV V\VWHP WKH K\SRWKDODPLFSLWXLWDU\DGUHQDO +3$f D[LV DQG WKH FDUGLRYDVFXODU PHWDEROLF DQG LPPXQH V\VWHPV DOO PDNH WKH UHTXLUHG FKDQJHV WR DGDSW DQG VWDELOL]H ZKHQ FKDOOHQJHG E\ HLWKHU LQWHUQDO DQG H[WHUQDO VWUHVV SHUFHLYHG GHPDQGVf 0DMRU OLIH HYHQWV WUDXPD VHYHUH QHJOHFW WUDJHG\ DQG DEXVH IRU H[DPSOH UHSUHVHQW VWUHVVIXO H[SHULHQFHV ZKLFK PD\ KDYH WUDQVSLUHG DW KRPH DW ZRUN RU LQ WKH QHLJKERUKRRG %RWK FKURQLF DQG DFXWH VWUHVV SUHVHQW FKDOOHQJHV WKDW DOHUW WKH SK\VLRORJLFDO V\VWHPV WR DGDSW 7KHVH FKDQJHV UHTXLUH GLIIHUHQW SK\VLRORJLFDO UHVSRQVH SDWWHUQV f$OORVWDWLF ORDGf UHIHUV WR WKH ORQJWHUP SK\VLRORJLFDO SULFH RI FKURQLF RYHU RU XQGHUDFWLYLW\ RI DOORVWDWLF V\VWHPV 0F(ZHQ

PAGE 126

f 1RUPDOO\ D VWUHVVRU SURGXFHV DQ DURXVDO EXW WKHQ UHFRYHUV DV LQ EORRG SUHVVXUH RU KHDUW UDWH YDULDELOLW\ +RZHYHU KLJK DOORVWDVWLF ORDG FDQ UHVXOW LQ PDODGDSWLYH FKDQJHV VXFK DV DQ H[WHQGHG DQG KHLJKWHQHG OHQJWK RI DURXVDO ZLWK PHDJHU RU QR UHFRYHU\ RU HYHQ IDLOXUH WR DGDSW ([FHVVLYH DQG SURORQJHG DFWLYDWLRQ RI WKH 616 DQG +3 $ SDWKZD\V FDQ GLVWXUE EUDLQ IXQFWLRQLQJ KLSSRFDPSHDO FHOO GDPDJHf WKDW DFFHOHUDWHV DJLQJ 0F(ZHQ f GHVFULEHV VHYHUDO GLVHDVHV WKDW PLJKW RULJLQDWH IURP LQDGHTXDWH RU LQDSSURSULDWH SK\VLFDO FKDQJHV 7KH FRQFHSW RI DOORVWDVLV DGDSWLYH SK\VLRORJLFDO FKDQJHV WR VWUHVVIXO H[SHULHQFHV RYHU WLPH LQGLFDWHV WKDW IRUJLYHQHVV H[SHULHQFH PLJKW LPSURYH KHDOWK E\ UHGXFLQJ H[FHVVLYH SK\VLRORJLFDO EXUGHQ WKDW RULJLQDWHV IURP XQUHVROYHG VWUHVVIXO H[SHULHQFHV VXFK DV WKH SDLQ DQG RIIHQVH DWWULEXWHG WR RWKHUV 0F(ZHQ f 3RVVLEO\ WKH LQFUHDVHG IUHTXHQF\ RI IRUJLYLQJ RWKHUV DQG VHHNLQJ IRU DQG DFFHSWLQJ IRUJLYHQHVV PLJKW IXQFWLRQ WR UHGXFH WKH FKURQLFLW\ RI GLVWUHVV HJ DQJHU EODPH DQG YHQJHIXO WKRXJKWV DQG IHHOLQJVf WKDW KDV SURVSHFWLYHO\ EHHQ VKRZQ WR FKDQJH EUDLQ FRURQDU\ DQG LPPXQH IXQFWLRQLQJ 7KHVH UHGXFWLRQV FRXOG HQFRXUDJH GLPLQLVKHG 616 DURXVDO LQ IUHTXHQF\ PDJQLWXGH DQG GXUDWLRQ ZKLFK RYHU WLPH UHVXOWV LQ OHVV SK\VLFDO GLVHDVH ULVN 7KRUHVHQ +DUULV t /XVNLQ f 3V\FKRVRFLDO PHFKDQLVPV PD\ SOD\ D YLWDO UROH LQ GHWHUPLQLQJ KRZ IRUJLYHQHVV PLJKW DIIHFW SK\VLFDO VWDWXV )RUJLYHQHVV PD\ WULJJHU UHGXFWLRQV LQ DQ[LHW\ GHSUHVVLRQ DQG DQJHU &R\OH DQG (QULJKW f HPSOR\HG D UDQGRPL]HG H[SHULPHQWDO DQG FRQWURO JURXS GHVLJQ WR LQYHVWLJDWH WKH UROH DQG RXWFRPH RI DQ HGXFDWLRQDO SURJUDP ZLWK SRVWDERUWLRQ PHQ 7KH H[SHULPHQWDO JURXSV UHODWLYH WR FRQWURO JURXS LPSURYHG LQ IRUJLYHQHVV DQG DW WKH VDPH WLPH GHFUHDVHG VLJQLILFDQWO\ LQ DQJHU $O0DEXN (QULJKW DQG &DUGLV f VKRZHG WKDW DQ[LHW\ FDQ EH UHGXFHG E\ XWLOL]LQJ DQ HGXFDWLRQDO LQWHUYHQWLRQ GHVLJQHG DW SURPRWLQJ IRUJLYHQHVV 7KURXJK WKHLU ZRUN ZLWK IHPDOH LQFHVW VXUYLYRUV

PAGE 127

)UHHGPDQ DQG (QULJKW f IRXQG UHGXFHG DQ[LHW\ DQG GHSUHVVLRQ LQ WKRVH ZKR XQGHUZHQW D IRUJLYHQHVV LQWHUYHQWLRQ SURJUDP 7KH SV\FKRVRFLDO PHFKDQLVPV WKDW DUH WULJJHUHG E\ WKH DFW RI IRUJLYHQHVV PLJKW SRVVLEO\ IXQFWLRQ LQ WKH IROORZLQJ ZD\V 7KRUHVHQ +DUULV t /XVNLQ f )RUJLYHQHVV PD\ LQVWLOO D PRUH SHUFHLYHG VHFXULW\ DQGRU JUHDWHU SRVLWLYH VHOI HYDOXDWLYH DQG RSWLPLVWLF WKRXJKWV WKDW GHIHQG WKH fKRVW UHVSRQVHf IURP WDNLQJ RIIHQVH 6XFK DFWLRQ PLJKW UHGXFH WKH SUREDELOLW\ RI IHDU UHVHQWPHQW DQ[LHW\ DQJHU LOO ZLOO KRVWLOLW\ GHSUHVVLRQ DQG RU KRSHOHVVQHVV DOO RI ZKLFK KDYH EHHQ VKRZQ LQ YDU\LQJ GHJUHHV WR LQFUHDVH SK\VLFDO GLVHDVH ULVN (YHUVRQ *ROGEHUJ .DSODQ -XONXQHQ t 6DORQHQ (YHUVRQ .DXKDQHQ t .DSODQ 6HJHUVWURP 7D\ORU .HPHQ\ t )DK\ f )RUJLYHQHVV PD\ LQVWLOO D VWURQJO\ SHUFHLYHG FRPSHWHQFH RU VHOIHIILFDF\ WR XQGHUWDNH WKH QHFHVVDU\ VWHSV WR ZDUG RII GLVHDVH HQKDQFLQJ RU SDWKRJHQLF fDJHQWV HJ WDNH DFWLRQ WR DOWHU FKURQLF KRVWLOH IHHOLQJV SHVVLPLVWLF EHOLHIV DQG JOREDO DWWULEXWLRQVf ZKLFK PD\ LQFUHDVH SRVLWLYH VWLPXOXVRXWFRPH H[SHFWDWLRQV )RUJLYHQHVV PD\ FKDQQHO RQH WRZDUGV KLJKHU OHYHOV RI SHUFHLYHG VRFLDO DQG HPRWLRQDO VXSSRUW HVSHFLDOO\ IURP VLJQLILFDQW RWKHUV IDPLO\ DQG FORVH IULHQGVKLSV 7KLV LQFOXGHV WKH H[SHULHQFH RI D JUHDWHU VHQVH RI EHLQJ FRQQHFWHG WR RWKHUV TXLWH RIWHQ IURP EHLQJ RI VHUYLFH WR RWKHUV )HHOLQJ PRUH FRQQHFWHG WR RWKHUV PD\ SURPRWH SK\VLFDO KHDOWK +RXVH /DQGLV t 8PEHUVRQ 2PDQ 7KRUHQVHQ t 0F0DKRQ f )RUJLYHQHVV PD\ SURPRWH D JUHDWHU VHQVH RI D WUDQVFHQGHQFH VSLULWXDO XQLRQ ZLWK *RG D +LJKHU 3RZHU RU DQ ,QILQLWH8QLYHUVDO (QHUJ\ HVSHFLDOO\ DPRQJ WKRVH VSLULWXDOO\ RU UHOLJLRXVO\ RULHQWHG SHUVRQV $OERP 5LFKDUGV t %HUJHU :DOVK t 9DXJKQ f 1RWHG LQ WKH KHDOWK OLWHUDWXUH WKHUH VWDQGV WKH K\SRWKHVLV WKDW VRPH RI WKH KHDOWK EHQHILWV RI IRUJLYHQHVV DUH RZHG WR WKH HPHUJHQFH RI SRVLWLYH IHHOLQJV 7KLV LV FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK IRUJLYHQHVV WKHRU\ ZKLFK PDLQWDLQV WKDW RYHUFRPLQJ QHJDWLYH HPRWLRQV DQG UHSODFLQJ WKHP ZLWK SRVLWLYH HPRWLRQV LV RQH RI WKH PRVW FHQWUDO DVSHFWV RI IRUJLYHQHVV (QULJKW t )'6* Df $V QHJDWLYH HPRWLRQV DUH GLPLQLVKHG WKURXJK WKH IRUJLYHQHVV SURFHVV DOORZLQJ ORYH DQG FRPSDVVLRQ WR HPHUJH WKLV OD\V WKH JURXQGZRUN IRU SK\VLFDO ZHOOEHLQJ WR IORXULVK 6KDSLUR f )XUWKHUPRUH SURVSHFWLYH VWXGLHV LQGLFDWH WKDW

PAGE 128

VXVWDLQHG SRVLWLYH HPRWLRQDO VWDWHV PD\ SRVLWLYHO\ LPSDFW SK\VLFDO KHDOWK RXWFRPHV :KHQ SHRSOH IRUJLYH WKHLU UHVSRQVHV WRZDUG SHRSOHZKDW WKH\ WKLQN RI IHHO DERXW GHVLUH WR GR WR RU KRZ WKH\ DFWXDOO\ EHKDYH WRZDUGV SHRSOH ZKR KDYH KXUW RU VOLJKWHG WKHPEHFRPH PRUH SRVLWLYH DQG OHVV QHJDWLYH 0F&XOORXJK 3DUJDPHQW t 7KRUHVHQ f $ VHQVH RI MR\ DQG HDJHUQHVV DQG HQWKXVLDVP IRU OLIH ZDV IRXQG WR EH WKH PRVW FRQYLQFLQJ SUHGLFWRU RI VXUYLYDO LQ D JURXS RI ZRPHQ FDUGLRYDVFXODU SDWLHQWV /HY\ /HH %DJOH\ t /LSSPDQ f ,Q D VWXG\ RI PHQ DQG ZRPHQ XQGHUJRLQJ FRURQDU\ DQJLRSODVW\ VWULNLQJO\ LW ZDV WKH GHJUHH RI UHSRUWHG ORYH DQG VXSSRUW UHFHLYHG WKDW FRLQFLGHG WR WKH GHJUHH RI EORFNDJHV LQ WKH FRURQDU\ DUWHULHV 6HHPDQ t 6\PH f )XUWKHU QHDUO\ PHQ SDUWLFLSDQWV ZKR UHFHLYHG KLJK OHYHOV RI H[SUHVVHG ORYH DQG VXSSRUW IURP WKHLU VSRXVHV GLVSOD\HG VLJQLILFDQWO\ OHVV DQJLQD 0HGDOLH 6WUDQJH =\]DQRNL t *ROGERXUW f 7KH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ IRUJLYHQHVV DQG SRVLWLYH HPRWLRQV VWLOO QHHGV HPSLULFDO LQYHVWLJDWLRQ FRUUHODWLRQDO GDWD RIIHUV KRSHIXO VLJQV E\ VKRZLQJ VLJQLILFDQW SRVLWLYH UHODWLRQV EHWZHHQ IRUJLYHQHVV DQG D VHQVH RI ZHOO EHLQJ $VKOHPDQ 1RXVVH f )RUJLYHQHVV DV D SULPDU\ FRSLQJ VW\OH IRU KDQGOLQJ OLIHfV LQHYLWDEOH KXUWV IUXVWUDWLRQV DQG RIIHQVHV RIWHQ SURGXFHV D FDOPHU DQG PRUH FDULQJ ZD\ RI OLYLQJ .XVKQHU f %\ XWLOL]LQJ IRUJLYHQHVV VNLOOV LW FDQ FRQFHLYDEO\ HQKDQFH KHDOWK VWDWXV QRW RQO\ WKURXJK UHGXFHG V\PSDWKHWLF K\SHUDURXVDO DQG ULVN\ KHDOWK EHKDYLRUV EXW DOVR WKURXJK D PRUH RSWLPLVWLF DQG SRVLWLYH RXWORRN RQ OLIH 6XFK D SHUVSHFWLYH KDV WUDGLWLRQDOO\ EHHQ SURPRWHG E\ YDULRXV UHOLJLRXVO\ LQVSLUHG fZLVGRP WUDGLWLRQVf DV WKH NH\ WR OLYLQJ D OLIH ZLWK JUHDWHU SXUSRVH GLUHFWLRQ DQG KHDOWK HJ 6PLWK $OOUHG 0RUULVRQ t &DUOVRQ f

PAGE 129

$ 7KHRUHWLFDO )UDPHZRUN 7R DFTXLUH DQ XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI WKH UHODWLRQVKLS DPRQJ IRUJLYLQJ DQG XQIRUJLYLQJ UHVSRQVHV LQ SK\VLRORJ\ HPRWLRQV DQG LQ RQHfV KHDOWK LW PD\ SURYH EHQHILFLDO WR YLHZ LW IURP WKH HVWDEOLVKHG IUDPHZRUN RI ELRLQIRUPDWLRQDO WKHRU\ /DQJ f /DQJ KHOG WKDW SK\VLRORJLFDO UHVSRQVHV DUH XQLTXHO\ WLHG WR DQ HVVHQWLDO SURGXFW RI HPRWLRQDO H[SHULHQFHV PHPRULHV DQG LPDJLQHG UHVSRQVHV &RQVLGHUDEOH DPRXQW RI OLWHUDWXUH KDV VXSSRUWHG WKLV YLHZ GHPRQVWUDWLQJ WKDW SK\VLRORJLFDO UHVSRQVHV UHOLDEO\ YDU\ GHSHQGLQJ RQ WKH HPRWLRQDO H[SHULHQFHV SHRSOH SRQGHU RU LPDJLQH HJ &RRN +DZN 'DYLV t 6WHYHQVRQ /DQJ :LWYOLHW t 9UDQD f 3ULPDULO\ WZR HPRWLRQDO GLPHQVLRQV JUHDWO\ LQIOXHQFH WKH SK\VLRORJLFDO UHDFWLRQV YDOHQFH QHJDWLYHSRVLWLYHf DQG DURXVDO HJ /DQJ :LWYOLHW t 9UDQD f 2QH H[DPSOH LV WKH YDOHQFH RI HPRWLRQ WKDW LV VR LPSRUWDQW IRU IDFLDO H[SUHVVLRQV WKURXJK QHJDWLYH LPDJHU\ ZKLFK VWLPXODWHV JUHDWHU PXVFOH WHQVLRQ LQ WKH EURZ WKDQ ZRXOG SRVLWLYH LPDJHU\ :LWYOLHW t 9UDQD f :LWK D KHLJKWHQHG HPRWLRQDO DURXVDO FDUGLRYDVFXODU PHDVXUHV VXFK DV EORRG SUHVVXUH HJ
PAGE 130

SOHDVDQW DQG UHOD[LQJ LPDJHU\ :LWYOLHW t 9UDQD f ,Q WHUPV RI DOORVWDVLV 0F(ZHQ f HPRWLRQDO VWDWHV HJ XQIRUJLYLQJ UHVSRQVHVf WKDW PDJQLI\ DQG OHQJWKHQ FDUGLRYDVFXODU DQG V\PSDWKHWLF UHDFWLYLW\ ZRXOG LQFUHDVH DOORVWDWLF ORDG ZKHUHDV WKRVH WKDW FRXQWHUDFW WKHVH SK\VLRORJLFDO UHDFWLRQV HJ D IRUJLYHQHVV UHVSRQVHf ZRXOG LPSURYH KHDOWK %DVHG RQ WKLV IUDPHZRUN 'U :LWYOLHW f SURIHVVRU RI SV\FKRORJ\ DW +RSH &ROOHJH LQ +ROODQG 0LFKLJDQ FRQGXFWHG D VWXG\ UHFRUGLQJ LQGLYLGXDOfV SK\VLFDO UHDFWLRQ WR FHUWDLQ LPDJHU\ SURFHVVHV 'U :LWYOLHW SODFHG HOHFWURGHV RQ FROOHJH VWXGHQWV 7KHVH YROXQWHHUV ZHUH SXW WKURXJK D IRXUVWDJH PHQWDO LPDJLQJ SURFHVV 7KH\ ZHUH ILUVW DVNHG WR WKLQN DERXW D KXUW WKDW KDG EHHQ GRQH WR WKHP DQG WKHQ fDFWLYHO\ UHKHDUVHf LW IRU VHFRQGV $W WKH VRXQG RI D WRQH WKH LQGLYLGXDOV HVFDODWHG WKHLU WKRXJKWV WR fQXUVLQJ D JUXGJHf DQG PDNLQJ WKH RIIHQGHU IHHO KRUULEOH )ROORZLQJ WKH QH[W FXH WKH\ ZRXOG VKLIW JHDUV DQG fHPSDWKL]H ZLWK WKH RIIHQGHUf )LQDOO\ DW WKH ODVW VWDJH WKH\ LPDJLQHG ZD\V WR fZLVK WKDW SHUVRQ ZHOOf 7KURXJKRXW WKLV WZRKRXU VHVVLRQ IRU HDFK GLVWLQFW VWDJH 'U :LWYOLHW PHDVXUHG WKHLU KHDUW UDWH EORRG SUHVVXUH VZHDW DQG PXVFOH WHQVLRQ 7KH UHVXOWV ZHUH TXLWH FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK WKH ELRLQIRUPDWLRQDO WKHRU\ /DQJ f 7KH LPDJHU\ RI XQIRUJLYLQJ DQG IRUJLYLQJ UHVSRQVHV WR D SDUWLFXODU RIIHQGHU \LHOGHG GLIIHUHQFHV LQ QRW RQO\ VHOIUHSRUWHG HPRWLRQ EXW SK\VLRORJLFDO UHVSRQGLQJ 3DUWLFLSDQWV IHOW VLJQLILFDQWO\ PRUH QHJDWLYH DURXVDODQJU\ DQG GHVSRQGHQW DQG OHVV LQ FRQWUROZKLOH LQ WKH XQIRUJLYLQJ FRQGLWLRQ WKDQ GXULQJ WKH IRUJLYLQJ FRQGLWLRQ 7KH\ GLVSOD\HG JUHDWHU IDFLDO WHQVLRQ DW WKH FRUUHJDWRU EURZf PXVFOH UHJLRQ GXULQJ XQIRUJLYLQJ LPDJHU\ 'XULQJ WKH XQIRUJLYLQJ LPDJHU\ SDUWLFLSDQWV H[SHULHQFHG VLJQLILFDQWO\ JUHDWHU 616 DURXVDO DQG JUHDWHU FDUGLRYDVFXODU UHDFWLYLW\ LQ WHUPV RI KHDUW UDWH DQG EORRG SUHVVXUH

PAGE 131

/DQJ f SRVLWHG WKDW SK\VLRORJLFDO HIIHFWV GXULQJ HPRWLRQDO LPDJHU\ PLUURU QDWXUDOO\ RFFXUULQJ HIIHFWV EXW DUH OHVV SRWHQW ,Q GDLO\ OLIH ZH IRUWLI\ WKH SDLQIXO PHPRULHV E\ UHKHDUVLQJ WKHP LQ RXU PLQGV HPEHOOLVKLQJ WKHP DQG DFFHQWXDWLQJ WKHP QHJDWLYHO\ E\ RYHUW EHKDYLRUV VODPPLQJ GRRUV VKRXWLQJ WKURZLQJ REMHFWVf WKHUHE\ LQWHQVLI\LQJ DQG H[WHQGLQJ EORRG SUHVVXUH VXUJHV KHDUW UDWH HOHYDWLRQV DQG 616 DFWLYDWLRQ :LWYOLHW f &KURQLF XQIRUJLYLQJ ELWWHU UHVSRQVHV PD\ FRQWULEXWH WR SRRU KHDOWK RXWFRPHV E\ SHUSHWXDWLQJ DQJHU DQG LQFUHDVLQJ 616 DURXVDO DQG FDUGLRYDVFXODU UHDFWLYLW\ 7KH H[SUHVVLRQ DQG GLVSOD\ RI DQJHU KDV EHHQ VWURQJO\ DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK FKURQLFDOO\ HOHYDWHG EORRG SUHVVXUH 6FKZHQNPH]JHU t +DQN f DQG ZLWK WKH DJJUHJDWLRQ RI SODWHOHWV WKDW PD\ KHLJKWHQ WKH ULVN IRU KHDUW GLVHDVH :HQQHEHUJ HW DO f SDUWLFXODUO\ LI H[SUHVVLRQV RI DQJHU DUH FRPPRQ DQG HQGXULQJ 7KRUHVHQ HW DO f )R[ DQG )R[ f KDYH K\SRWKHVL]HG WKDW ZKHQ RQH UHIXVHV WR IRUJLYH WKH KXPDQ ERG\ SURGXFHV FRPSRQHQWV OLNH DGUHQRFRUWLFRWURSKLF KRUPRQH DQG FRUWLVRQH LQ UHVSRQVH WR SHUSHWXDO DQG FKURQLF QHJDWLYH HPRWLRQV $V WKHVH FKHPLFDO FRPSRXQGV EXLOG XS LQ SHUSHWXDO QHJDWLYH HPRWLRQV WKH\ H[HUW WKHLU DGYHUVH RXWFRPHV E\ FRQWULEXWLQJ WR DQ\WKLQJ IURP FORJJHG DUWHULHV WR XOFHUV DQG FDUGLRYDVFXODU SUREOHPV DQG E\ UHWDUGLQJ KHDOLQJ RU UHFRYHU\ IURP GLVHDVH &RUUHODWLRQDO GDWD KDYH VKRZQ VLJQLILFDQW QHJDWLYH UHODWLRQV EHWZHHQ IRUJLYHQHVV DQG DQ[LHW\ DQG IRUJLYHQHVV DQG DQJHU 6XENRYLDN HW DO f IRXQG WKDW ZKHQ GHHSO\ ZRXQGHG E\ RWKHUV IRUJLYHUV ZKR H[SHULHQFHG D ZLGH YDULHW\ RI LQWHUSHUVRQDO LQMXULHV DUH OHVV DQ[LRXV WKDQ WKRVH ZKR GHFLGH QRW WR IRUJLYH 6DULQRSRXORV f UHSRUWHG D VLJQLILFDQW QHJDWLYH FRUUHODWLRQ EHWZHHQ IRUJLYHQHVV DQG DQJHU LQ WKH UDQJH RI IRU ERWK FROOHJH VWXGHQWV DQG PLGGOHDJHG DGXOWV +XDQJ f IRXQG ORZHU DQJHU DQG EORRG

PAGE 132

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

PAGE 133

&+$37(5 0(7+2'2/2*< 2YHUYLHZ 7KH SXUSRVH RI WKLV VWXG\ ZDV WR H[DPLQH WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ WKH DWWLWXGH RI IRUJLYHQHVV DQG DQ LQGLYLGXDOnV SK\VLFDO KHDOWK ,QFOXGHG ZDV DQ H[DPLQDWLRQ RI WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ KHDOWK DQG KRVWLOLW\ DQG DQJHU H[SUHVVLRQ 7KH FRKRUW ZDV VHQLRU FLWL]HQV 1 PDOHV IHPDOHV f &RUUHODWLRQDO DQDO\VHV DQG PXOWLSOH UHJUHVVLRQ ZHUH SHUIRUPHG EHWZHHQ WKH IRUJLYHQHVV KRVWLOLW\ DQG KHDOWK ULVN YDULDEOHV &RQWHQW DQDO\VHV RQ WKH UHSRUWV RI WKH RIIHQVH LQYROYHG FODVVLI\LQJ UHVSRQVHV RQ WKH EDVLV RI HLJKW FDWHJRULHV 5LTXH t (QULJKW f 'DWD ZHUH JDWKHUHG RQ IRUJLYHQHVV DV HVWLPDWHG E\ WKH (QULJKW )RUJLYHQHVV ,QYHQWRU\ (),f (QULJKW 5LTXH t &R\OH f KRVWLOLW\ E\ WKH ,WHP 9HUVLRQ RI WKH &RRN DQG 0HGOH\ +RVWLOLW\ 6FDOH %DUHIRRW f DQJHU H[SUHVVLRQ E\ 6WDWH7UDLW $QJHU ([SUHVVLRQ ,QYHQWRU\ 67$;,f 6SLHOEHUJHU f DQG VHOIUHSRUW KHDOWK FRQGLWLRQ WKURXJK WKH 3K\VLFDO +HDOWK 6WDWXV 9DQGHUYRRUW f +HDOWK ULVN YDULDEOHV ZHUH DOVR SURYLGHG $ GHPRJUDSKLF FRPSRQHQW SURYLGHG LQIRUPDWLRQ RQ SDUWLFLSDQWVn DJH JHQGHU UHOLJLRQ RFFXSDWLRQ DQG VRFLRHFRQRPLF VWDWXV 7KLV FKDSWHU GHVFULEHV WKH PHWKRGRORJ\ HPSOR\HG LQ WKLV VWXG\ ,QFOXGHG DUH GHVFULSWLRQV RI WKH VDPSOH VDPSOLQJ SURFHGXUHV UHVHDUFK GHVLJQ LQVWUXPHQWDWLRQ DQG GDWD DQDO\VLV

PAGE 134

'HILQLWLRQV nn$QJHU LV D VWURQJ IHHOLQJ RI GLVSOHDVXUH DQG DQWDJRQLVP DURXVHG E\ D VHQVH RI LQMXU\ RU ZURQJf )LW]JLEERQV SJ f $ FKURQLF FRQGLWLRQ LV RQH WKDW KDV H[LVWHG IRU DW OHDVW PRQWKV 1DWLRQDO &HQWHU IRU +HDOWK 6WDWLVWLFV S f (OGHUO\ LV WKH WHUP HTXDWHG WR WKH FDWHJRU\ UHIHUUHG WR DV fROGHU SRSXODWLRQf SHUVRQV \HDUV DQG ROGHU DV LGHQWLILHG E\ WKH 86 %XUHDX RI WKH &HQVXV DQG WKH 1DWLRQDO &HQWHU IRU +HDOWK 6WDWLVWLFV 'HSDUWPHQW RI +HDOWK DQG +XPDQ 6HUYLFHV f +RVWLOLW\ LV PRUH RU OHVV DQ HQGXULQJ SDWWHUQ RI VXVSLFLRXVQHVV UHVHQWPHQW IUHTXHQW DQJHU DQG F\QLFDO PLVWUXVW RI RWKHUV .RHQLJ 0F&XOORXJK t /DUVRQ S f +HDOWK LV D XQLWDU\ FRQFHSW GHILQHG EH WKH :RUOG +HDOWK 2UJDQL]DWLRQ DV WKH SUHVHQFH RI SK\VLFDO PHQWDO DQG VRFLDO ZHOO EHLQJ S f (PSDWK\ LV WKH FRJQLWLYH DZDUHQHVV RI DQRWKHU SHUVRQnV LQWHUQDO VWDWHV WKDW LV WKHLU WKRXJKWV IHHOLQJV SHUFHSWLRQV DQG LQWHQWLRQV ,FNHV S f )RUJLYHQHVV LV WKH fRYHUFRPLQJ RI QHJDWLYH DIIHFW DQG MXGJHPHQW WRZDUG WKH RIIHQGHU QRW E\ GHQ\LQJ RXUVHOYHV WKH ULJKW WR VXFK DIIHFW DQG MXGJHPHQW EXW E\ HQGHDYRULQJ WR YLHZ WKH RIIHQGHU ZLWK EHQHYROHQFH FRPSDVVLRQ DQG HYHQ ORYH ZKLOH UHFRJQL]LQJ WKDW KH RU VKH KDV DEDQGRQHG WKH ULJKW WR WKHP 6XENRYLDN HW DO S f 6WDWH DQJHU LV GHILQHG DV D SV\FKRORJLFDO HPRWLRQDO VWDWH RU FRQGLWLRQ PDUNHG E\ VXEMHFWLYH IHHOLQJV WKDW YDU\ LQ LQWHQVLW\ IURP PLOG LUULWDWLRQ RU DQQR\DQFH WR LQWHQVH IXU\ DQG UDJH 6SLHOEHUJHU S f

PAGE 135

7UDLW DQJHU LV GHILQHG LQ WHUPV RI LQGLYLGXDO GLIIHUHQFHV LQ WKH GLVSRVLWLRQ WR SHUFHLYH D ZLGH UDQJH RI VLWXDWLRQV DV DQQR\LQJ RU IUXVWUDWLQJ DQG E\ WKH WHQGHQF\ WR UHVSRQG WR VXFK VLWXDWLRQV ZLWK HOHYDWLRQV LQ VWDWH DQJHU 6SLHOEHUJHU S f" 3DUWLFLSDQWV 7KH VDPSOH Q f ZDV VHQLRU FLWL]HQV ZLWK DJHV UDQJLQJ IURP WR \HDUV ROG b b b O bf 3DUWLFLSDQWV ZHUH YROXQWHHUV SULPDULO\ IURP WZR &DWKROLF FKXUFKHV LQ &HQWUDO )ORULGD ,QGLDODQWLF DQG 2UPRQG %HDFK 7KH RYHUZKHOPLQJ PDMRULW\ OLVWHG WKHPVHOYHV DV &DWKROLF bf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

PAGE 136

DQG LQVWUXFWLRQV GLUHFWHG WKH SDUWLFLSDQWV WR FRPSOHWH HDFK LQVWUXPHQW LQ WKH SDFNDJHG RUGHU ZKLFK ZHUH SUHYLRXVO\ UDQGRPL]HG 3V\FKRORJLFDO 9DULDEOH ,QVWUXPHQWV 7KH IROORZLQJ LQVWUXPHQWV (QULJKW )RUJLYHQHVV ,QYHQWRU\ WKH $QJHU ([SUHVVLRQ ,QYHQWRU\ 67$;,f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f 7KH (), KDV LWHPV DQG WKUHH VXEVFDOHV RI LWHPV HDFK WKDW DVVHVV WKH GRPDLQV RI $IIHFW %HKDYLRU DQG &RJQLWLRQ (DFK VXEVFDOH LV IXUWKHU GLYLGHG LQWR WZR LQWHUQDO VXEVFDOHV FRPSRVHG RI SRVLWLYH LWHPV DQG QHJDWLYH LWHPV LH 3RVLWLYH DIIHFW 1HJDWLYH DIIHFW 3RVLWLYH EHKDYLRU 1HJDWLYH EHKDYLRU 3RVLWLYH FRJQLWLRQ DQG 1HJDWLYH FRJQLWLRQf )LYH ILQDO LWHPV DUH DGGHG IRU FRQVWUXFW YDOLGLW\ $V ZHOO XQGHUVWDQGLQJ WKDW WKH ZRUG IRUJLYHQHVV PD\ JHQHUDWH FRQFHSWXDO ELDVHV WKH ZRUG fIRUJLYHQHVVf LV QRW XVHG LQ WKH (), RU GXULQJ WKH YHUEDO LQVWUXFWLRQ SULRU WR DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ 7R FRPSOHWH WKH (), WKH SDUWLFLSDQWV IRFXV RQ D SDUWLFXODU H[SHULHQFH RI VRPHRQH KXUWLQJ WKHP XQMXVWO\ DQG

PAGE 137

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f DQG $XJVEXUJHU f KDYH GLVFXVVHG SVHXGRIRUJLYHQHVV DV D IRUP RI GHQLDO RU FRQGRQDWLRQ ,QWHUQDO &RQVLVWHQF\ 5HOLDELOLW\ )RUJLYHQHVV LV FRQFHSWXDOL]HG WR EH D KRPRJHQHRXV FRQVWUXFW 7KHUHIRUH WKH UHOLDELOLW\ HVWLPDWH IRU WKH (), LV &URQEDFKfV $OSKD &RHIILFLHQW RI H[WHUQDO UHOLDELOLW\ DFURVV WKH LWHPV )LQGLQJV SURYLGH HYLGHQFH WKDW (), LV LQWHUQDOO\ UHOLDEOH ZLWK VWURQJ &URQEDFKfV $OSKD FRHIILFLHQWV DFURVV VDPSOHV DW 6XENRYLDN HW DO f 6DULQRSRXORV f DQG 6DULQRSRXORV f 9DOLGLW\ IRU WKH (), 7KH RQHLWHP )RUJLYHQHVV VFDOH WKDW DFFRPSDQLHV WKH (), KDV EHHQ WKH SULPDU\ PHDVXUH WR SURYLGH HYLGHQFH WKDW WKH (), PHDVXUHV IRUJLYHQHVV DQG QRW D GLIIHUHQW FRQVWUXFW 7KH :DGH )RUJLYHQHVV 6FDOH :DGH f ZKLFK KDV VLPLODU WKHRUHWLFDO FRQVWUXFWV WR WKH (), KDV EHHQ XVHG DV D FRQFXUUHQW PHDVXUH 7KH ILQGLQJV KDYH LQGLFDWHG WKDW WKH FRUUHODWLRQ EHWZHHQ WKH (), DQG RQHLWHP )RUJLYHQHVV 6FDOH LV SRVLWLYH VWURQJ DQG DSSURDFKHV WKH H[SHFWHG PDJQLWXGH 6DULQRSRXORV 6XENRYLDN

PAGE 138

:DOWPDQ HW DO f 2WKHU HYLGHQFH WKDW (), SDVVHV FRQVWUXFW YDOLGLW\ ZDV GHPRQVWUDWHG E\ VLJQLILFDQW DQG QHJDWLYH FRUUHODWLRQV ZLWK DQ[LHW\ DQG DQJHU 6XENRYLDN HWDO 6DULQRSRXORV f 7KH (), FRQWDLQV LWHPV HYHQO\ GLYLGHG DPRQJ WKH VL[ DUHDV QRWHG DERYH (DFK LWHP LV VFRUHG RQ D ILYHSRLQW VFDOH DQG WKH UDQJH RI VFRUHV IRU WKH LWHP IRUP LV IURP ZLWKLQ HDFK RI WKH VXEVFDOHVf 6XENRYLDN HW DO f UHSRUW LQWHUYDO FRQVLVWHQF\ UHOLDELOLWLHV IRU WKH VXEVFDOHV DV DVVHVVHG E\ DOSKD FRHIILFLHQWV LQ WKH KLJK V ZHOO ZLWKLQ WKH DFFHSWDEOH UDQJH IRU VRFLDO VFLHQFH UHVHDUFK LQVWUXPHQWV 7KH $QJHU ([SUHVVLRQ ,QYHQWRU\ $ PDMRU PRWLYDWLRQ IRU FRQVWUXFWLQJ WKH DQJHU H[SUHVVLRQ VFDOH ZDV WR GHYHORS DQ LQVWUXPHQW WKDW ZRXOG IDFLOLWDWH WKH LQYHVWLJDWLRQ RI KRZ YDULRXV FRPSRQHQWV RI DQJHU FRQWULEXWH WR WKH HWLRORJ\ RI K\SHUWHQVLRQ DQG FRURQDU\ KHDUW GLVHDVH 7KH 6WDWH7UDLW $QJHU ([SUHVVLRQ ,QYHQWRU\ 67$;,f FRQVLVWV RI LWHPV ZKLFK SURYLGH FRQFLVH PHDVXUHV RI H[SHULHQFH H[SUHVVLRQ DQG FRQWURO RI DQJHU 7KH 67$;, ZDV GHYHORSHG SULPDULO\ IRU WZR UHDVRQV Df WR DVVHVV FRPSRQHQWV RI DQJHU IRU GHWDLOHG HYDOXDWLRQV RI QRUPDO DQG DEQRUPDO SHUVRQDOLW\ DQG Ef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f

PAGE 139

7UDLW DQJHU LV GHILQHG LQ WHUPV RI LQGLYLGXDO GLIIHUHQFHV LQ WKH GLVSRVLWLRQ WR SHUFHLYH D ZLGH UDQJH RI VLWXDWLRQV DV DQQR\LQJ DQG IUXVWUDWLQJ DQG E\ WKH WHQGLQJ WR HDFK WR VHHN VLWXDWLRQV ZLWK HOHYDWLRQV LQ VWDWH DQJHU ,QGLYLGXDOV ZLWK KLJK DQJHU VFRUHV H[SHULHQFH VWDWH DQJHU PRUH RIWHQ DQG ZLWK JUHDWHU LQWHQVLW\ WKDQ LQGLYLGXDOV ZKR DUH ORZ LQ WUDLW DQJHU 6SLHOEHUJHU f 'HVFULSWLYH 6WDWLVWLFV IRU WKH 1RUPDWLYH 6DPSOHV 7KH QRUPDWLYH GDWD IRU WKH 67$;, DUH EDVHG RQ WKH UHVSRQVHV RI PRUH WKDQ LQGLYLGXDOV IURP WZR SRSXODWLRQV KHWHURJHQHRXV VDPSOHV RI QRUPDO DGXOWV 1 IHPDOHV PDOHVf DQG KRVSLWDOL]HG SV\FKLDWULF SDWLHQWV 1 IHPDOHV PDOHVf $OSKD FRHIILFLHQW PHDVXUHV RI LQWHUQDO FRQVLVWHQF\ ZHUH XQLIRUPO\ KLJK DFURVV DOO VFDOHV DQG VXEVFDOHV RU KLJKHU PHGLDQ U f 7KH LQWHUQDO FRQVLVWHQF\ UHOLDELOLWLHV RI WKH VFDOHV DQG VXEVFDOHV DUH VDWLVIDFWRU\ DQG ZHUH QRW LQIOXHQFHG E\ HLWKHU JHQGHU RU SV\FKRSDWKRORJ\ $QJHU ([SUHVVLRQ DQG $QJHU &RQWURO $QJHU H[SUHVVLRQ DQG DQJHU FRQWURO DUH WKRXJKW RI DV KDYLQJ IRXU PDMRU FRPSRQHQWV 7KH ILUVW FRPSRQHQW $QJHU ([SUHVVLRQRXW LQYROYHV WKH H[SUHVVLRQ RI DQJHU WRZDUG RWKHU SHUVRQV RU REMHFWV LQ WKH HQYLURQPHQW ZKLOH WKH VHFRQG FRPSRQHQW $QJHULQ LV DQJHU GLUHFWHG LQZDUG LH KROGLQJ LQ RU VXSSUHVVLQJ DQJU\ IHHOLQJVf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

PAGE 140

GLVHDVH 376' DQG RWKHU PHGLFDO DQG SV\FKRORJLFDO GLVRUGHUV KDYH EHHQ H[DPLQHG LQ D QXPEHU RI VWXGLHV &XOEHUWVRQ t 6SLHOEHUJHU -XONXQHQ /DZOHU HW DO 6SLFHU t &KDPEHUODLQ f 67$;, 6FDOHV DQG 6XEVFDOHV 7KH 67$;, FRQVLVWV RI VL[ VFDOHV ILYH VXEVFDOHV DQG DQ $QJHU ([SUHVVLRQ ,QGH[ ZKLFK SURYLGHV DQ RYHUDOO PHDVXUH RI WKH H[SUHVVLRQ DQG FRQWURO RI DQJHU 7KH $QJHU2XW VFDOH PHDVXUHV DQJHU H[SUHVVHG RXWZDUGO\ ZKLOH WKH $QJHU,Q VFDOH DVVHVVHV VXSSUHVVHG DQJHU (DFK VFDOH FRQWDLQV LWHPV DQG HDFK LWHP LV VFRUHG RQ D SRLQW VFDOH 7KH ,WHP 9HUVLRQ RI WKH &RRN DQG 0HGOH\ +RVWLOLW\ 6FDOH 7KH 003,EDVHG &RRN DQG 0HGOH\ +RVWLOLW\ VFDOH f LV D PHDVXUH WKDW KDV EHHQ FRPPRQO\ XWLOL]HG LQ D QXPEHU RI VWXGLHV IRU WKH KHDOWK FRQVHTXHQFH RI KRVWLOLW\ %DUHIRRW HW DO 6FKHNHOOH *DOH 2VWIHOG t 3DXO :LOOLDPV +DQH\ /HH .RQJ %OXPHQWKDO t :KDOHQ f 7KH FRQVWUXFW KRVWLOLW\ D EURDG SV\FKRORJLFDO GRPDLQ HQFRPSDVVHV YDULRXV FRJQLWLYH HPRWLRQDO DQG EHKDYLRUDO DVSHFWV RI DQ LQGLYLGXDOfV QHJDWLYH RULHQWDWLRQ WRZDUG LQWHUSHUVRQDO LQWHUDFWLRQV 7KH KRVWLOLW\ GRPDLQ LQFOXGHV PRVW QRWDEO\ WKH WUDLWV RI F\QLFLVP DQJHU PLVWUXVW DQG DJJUHVVLRQ ,Q FURVVVHFWLRQDO VWXGLHV KRVWLOLW\ VFRUHV FRUUHODWH ZLWK WKH VHYHULW\ RI FRURQDU\ DUWHU\ GLVHDVH :LOOLDPV f SHULSKHUDO DUWHU\ GLVHDVH -RHVRHI :HOWHUKDOO 'H6WHIDQR 6WURXS t )URQHN f DQG FDUGLRYDVFXODU UHDFWLYLW\ +DUG\ t 6PLWK 6PLWK HW DO 6XDUH] t :LOOLDPV :HLGQHU )ULHQG )LFDUURWWR t 0HQGHOO f +RVWLOLW\ VFRUHV DV ZHOO KDYH EHHQ IRXQG WR SUHGLFW FRURQDU\ KHDUW GLVHDVH %DUHIRRW 'DKOVWURP t :LOOLDPV 6FKHNHOOH HW DO f K\SHUWHQVLRQ %DUHIRRW HW DO %DUHIRRW 'RGJH 3HWHUVRQ 'DKOVWURP t :LOOLDPV f

PAGE 141

7KHUH DUH VL[ LGHQWLILDEOH VXEVHWV RI LWHPV LQ WKH VFDOH +RVWLOH $WWULEXWLRQV &\QLFLVP +RVWLOH $IIHFW $JJUHVVLYH 5HVSRQGLQJ DQG 6RFLDO $YRLGDQFH DQG D JURXS RI PLVFHOODQHRXV LWHPV ZKLFK DUH LQ WKH 2WKHU &DWHJRU\ +RVWLOH $WWULEXWLRQV LWHPVf UHIOHFW D WHQGHQF\ WR LQWHUSUHW WKH EHKDYLRU RI RWKHUV DV LQWHQGHG WR KDUP WKH UHVSRQGHQW 7KHVH LWHPV DUH DGPLVVLRQ RI VXVSLFLRQ SDUDQRLD DQG IHDU RI WKUHDW WR VHOI &\QLFLVP LWHPVf UHIOHFW D JHQHUDOO\ QHJDWLYH YLHZ RI KXPDQNLQG GHSLFWLQJ RWKHUV DV XQZRUWK\ GHFHLWIXO DQG VHOIVHUYLQJ +RVWLOH (IIHFW VXEVHWV LWHPVf SRLQW WR WKH H[SHULHQFH RI QHJDWLYH HPRWLRQV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK VRFLDO UHODWLRQVKLSV 7KH\ DUH DGPLVVLRQV RI DQJHU LPSDWLHQFH DQG IUXVWUDWLRQ ZKHQ GHDOLQJ ZLWK RWKHUV $JJUHVVLYH 5HVSRQGLQJ LWHPVf KLJKOLJKW WKH UHVSRQGHQWV WHQGHQF\ WR HPSOR\ DQJHU DQG DJJUHVVLRQ DV LQVWUXPHQWDO UHVSRQVHV WR GLIILFXOWLHV RU WR SURPRWH WKRVH EHKDYLRUV DV UHDVRQDEOH DQG MXVWLILHG 6RFLDO $YRLGDQFH LWHPVf UHYHDO WKH UHVSRQGHQWfV WHQGHQF\ WR DYRLG RWKHUV UHIUDLQ IURP VRFLDO LQWHUDFWLRQ RU ZLWKGUDZ IURP LQWHUSHUVRQDO LQYROYHPHQW :KLOH WKH FDWHJRU\ 2WKHU HQFRPSDVVHV D VXEVHW RI LWHPV WKDW GR QRW FRUUHVSRQG WR D FRPPRQ SV\FKRORJLFDO FRQWHQW 7KLV YHUVLRQ RI WKH 0LQQHVRWD 0XOWLSKDVLF 3HUVRQDOLW\ ,QYHQWRU\ 003,f EDVHG &RRN0HGOH\ +RVWLOLW\ VFDOH FRQWDLQV VWDWHPHQWV LQ D WUXHRUIDOVH IRUPDW 7KH VFDOH DVVHVVHV WKH F\QLFLVP DIIHFWLYH DQG DJJUHVVLYH UHVSRQGLQJ DVSHFWV RI KRVWLOLW\ DQG LV D EHWWHU SUHGLFWRU RI PRUWDOLW\ WKDQ WKH IXOO KRVWLOLW\ VFDOH XVLQJ IXOOLQIRUPDWLRQ PD[LPXP OLNHOLKRRG IDFWRU DQDO\VLV $GHTXDWH SV\FKRPHWULF SURSHUWLHV KDYH EHHQ UHSRUWHG %DUHIRRW HW DO f

PAGE 142

3K\VLFDO +HDOWK 6WDWXV 'HYHORSHG SUHYLRXVO\ LQ WKH SXEOLVKHG ZRUN RI 3URIHVVRU 'HERUDK 9DQGHUYRRUW RI WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI +DZDLL WKH SK\VLFDO KHDOWK VWDWXV XVHV IRXU GLIIHUHQW NLQGV RI VHOI UHSRUW PHDVXUHV 7KH ILUVW 3K\VLFDO 6\PSWRP &KHFNOLVW DVNV WKH SHUVRQ WR UHIOHFW RQ UHFHQW DLOPHQWV DQG fLQGLFDWH KRZ RIWHQf WKH\ ZHUH ERWKHUHG E\ VXFK DLOPHQWV LQ WKH SDVW WZR ZHHNV $ VLPLODU IRUP RI WKH 3K\VLFDO 6\PSWRPV 6FDOH DVVHVVHV FKURQLF DLOPHQWV E\ DVNLQJ WKH SHUVRQ RQFH DJDLQ WR UHIOHFW RQ FKURQLF DLOPHQWV DQG fLQGLFDWH KRZ RIWHQf WKH\ ZHUH ERWKHUHG E\ VXFK DLOPHQWV RQ D UHJXODU EDVHV EXW WKLV WLPH RYHU D ORQJ SHULRG RI WLPH 7ZR VFRUHV DUH REWDLQHG RQ UHFHQW DLOPHQWV Df WKH QXPEHU RI DLOPHQW FDWHJRULHV VXFK DV IHYHU VRUH WKURDW FRXJK KHDGDFKH VNLQ UDVK KHDUWEXUQ HDU LQIHFWLRQ ORZHU EDFN SDLQ DQG RWKHU V\PSWRPVf UHSRUWHG E\ WKH LQGLYLGXDO DV EHLQJ SUHVHQW LQ WKH SDVW WZR ZHHNV DQG Ef WKH IUHTXHQF\ RI WKH V\PSWRPV VFDOHf 7ZR VLPLODU VFRUHV ZHUH REWDLQHG IRU WKH FKURQLF DLOPHQWV DV IROORZV Df WKH QXPEHU RI DLOPHQW FDWHJRULHV WKH VDPH FDWHJRULHV ZHUH XVHG DV LQ WKH UHFHQW DLOPHQW VHFWLRQ KHDGDFKH VRUH WKURDW KHDUWEXUQ IHYHU FROG VNLQ UDVK DQG RWKHU V\PSWRPVf UHSRUWHG E\ WKH SDUWLFLSDQW DV EHLQJ D SUREOHP DQG Ef WKH IUHTXHQF\ RI WKH V\PSWRP VFDOHf 7KH +HDOWK 3UREOHP 6FDOH UHTXLUHG WKH SDUWLFLSDQW WR SXW D FKHFN PDUN E\ DQ\ RI GLIIHUHQW KHDOWK SUREOHPV RU FKURQLF FRQGLWLRQV WKDW D SK\VLFLDQ fLQIRUPHG \RX WKDW \RX KDYHf IRU D VHFRQG PHDVXUH 7KH UDQJH RI SUREOHPV LQFOXGH DVWKPD XOFHU FKURQLF EURQFKLWLV GLDEHWHV FROLWLV DQG VR IRUWK 7KH OLVW RI FKURQLF FRQGLWLRQV ZDV IURP WKDW XVHG LQ WKH $ORPHGD &RXQW\ +XPDQ 3RSXODWLRQ /DERUDWRU\ 6WXG\ %HOORF %DVORZ t +RFKVWLP f DV FROOHFWHG E\ 9DQGHUYRRUW f 7KH TXHVWLRQQDLUH KDV EHHQ IRXQG

PAGE 143

DFFHSWDEO\ UHOLDEOH DQG YDOXHG LQ FRPSDULVRQ ZLWK PHGLFDO UHFRUGV $QGUHZV 6FKRQHOO t 7HQQDQW 0HOW]HU t +RFKVWLP f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t *XUDOQLN f )XUWKHU HYLGHQFH RI WKH YDOLGLW\ RI VXEMHFWLYH UHSRUWV RI VRPDWLF KHDOWK LV JDUQHUHG IURP D UHYLHZ RI VWXGLHV E\ :DUH 'DLYHV$YHU\ DQG 'RQDOG f $GGLWLRQDO VWXGLHV FRQILUP WKH UHSRUWHG KHDOWK VWDWXV WR EH KLJKO\ SUHGLFWLYH RI PRUWDOLW\ /D5XH %DQN -DUYLN t +HWODQG 0DGGR[ t 'RXJODV 0RVVH\ t 6DSLUR f 7KH KHDOWK RXWFRPHV ZHUH HYDOXDWHG XWLOL]LQJ D WRWDO RI VHYHQ SK\VLFDO KHDOWK RXWFRPHV QXPEHU RI UHFHQW SK\VLFDO V\PSWRPV 36& 5HFHQWf IUHTXHQF\ RI UHFHQW SK\VLFDO V\PSWRPV )36& 5HFHQWf QXPEHU RI FKURQLF SK\VLFDO V\PSWRPV 36& &KURQLFf IUHTXHQF\ RI FKURQLF SK\VLFDO V\PSWRPV )36& &KURQLFf QXPEHU RI GLDJQRVLV RI PDMRU KHDOWK SUREOHPV GLDJQRVLV RI KHDUW GLVHDVHDQGK\SHUWHQVLRQ KHDUW GLVHDVH UHODWHG V\PSWRPV +HDOWK5LVN 9DULDEOHV *LYHQ WKH QRWDEOH HYLGHQFH WKDW VWURQJO\ VXJJHVWV WKH IROORZLQJ YDULDEOHV DUH ULVN IDFWRUV IRU D YDULHW\ RI LOOQHVVHV /HLJK 0DWDUD]]R t /HFNOLWHU 0RRV :HLQHU t )DZU\ f WKH\ ZHUH XVHG DV FRQWUROV LQ WKH PXOWLSOH UHJUHVVLRQ PRGHOV 7KH YDULDEOHV DUH WKH IROORZLQJ DJH JHQGHU ERG\ PDVV LQGH[ ZHLJKW .JfKHLJKW FPf H[HUFLVH QXPEHU RI KRXUV SHU ZHHNf FLJDUHWWH VPRNLQJ FXUUHQWO\ EHLQJ D VPRNHU

PAGE 144

RU QRWf DOFRKRO QXPEHU RI GULQNV RI ZLQH EHHU DQG KDUG OLTXRU LQ DQ DYHUDJH ZHHNf VDOW LQWDNH DQG FDIIHLQH LQWDNH WKH QXPEHU RI FDIIHLQDWHG FRIIHH RU VRIW GULQNV SHU GD\f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

PAGE 145

&+$37(5 5(68/76 7KH SXUSRVH RI WKLV VWXG\ ZDV WR H[DPLQH WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ IRUJLYHQHVV DQG SK\VLFDO KHDOWK ZKLOH FRQWUROOLQJ IRU KHDOWK ULVN YDULDEOHV HJ VH[ ERG\ PDVV VPRNLQJ DOFRKRO VDOW FDIIHLQH DQG H[HUFLVH ,Q DGGLWLRQ WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ KRVWLOLW\ DQG DQJHU XSRQ RQHf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

PAGE 146

IURP WR 7KHUH ZHUH PDOHV DQG IHPDOHV 7KHUH ZHUH QR SDUWLFLSDQWV RI FRORU 5HVXOWV $V WZR LQFLGHQWV RI IRUJLYHQHVV ZHUH UHSRUWHG LQ PRVW FDVHV WKH ILUVW (QULJKW )RUJLYHQHVV ,QYHQWRU\ (),f ZDV XVHG 7KH FULWHULD IRU FKRRVLQJ DQ LQFLGHQW ZDV WR IDYRU WKRVH LQYROYLQJ D FORVH UHODWLRQVKLS DQG D GHHS KXUW RU LQ D VFDOHf :H WHQG WR EHFRPH DPELYDOHQW RU ZRUVH WRZDUGV WKRVH SHRSOH ZKR DUH PRVW LPSRUWDQW WR XV +RSH f 7KH GHILQLWLRQ RI D FORVH UHODWLRQVKLS ZDV DGRSWHG IURP 6XENRYLDN HW DO f &RQWHQW DQDO\VLV RQ UHSRUWV RI WKH RIIHQVHV LQYROYHG FODVVLI\LQJ UHVSRQVHV RQ WKH EDVLV RI HLJKW FDWHJRULHV )DOVH $FFXVDWLRQV /DFN RI &DUH $JJUHVVLRQ )LQDQFHV 5HMHFWLRQ 7UXVW ,QILGHOLW\ /DFNLQJ RI 3UDLVHf SURSRVHG E\ 5LTXH DQG (QULJKW f 7KHUH ZHUH WHQ UHVSRQGHQWV ZKR GLG QRW FKRRVH D FDWHJRU\ 5HMHFWLRQ IRU ERWK PDOH bf DQG IHPDOH bf ZDV WKH PRVW FRPPRQ FDWHJRU\ 7UXVW ODFNLQJ RI SUDLVH ODFN RI FDUH DQG IDOVH DFFXVDWLRQV DOO UHJLVWHUHG DW b WKH VHFRQG KLJKHVW FDWHJRU\ IRU PDOHV )RU WKH IHPDOHV ODFN RI FDUH ZDV b ODFNLQJ SUDLVH b WUXVW b DQG IDOVH DFFXVDWLRQV b ZHUH WKH PRVW FRPPRQ IRU IHPDOHV $OSKD FRHIILFLHQWV PHDQV DQG VWDQGDUG GHYLDWLRQV IRU WKH SUHGLFWRU YDOXDEOHV LQFOXGLQJ WKH (QULJKW )RUJLYHQHVV ,QYHQWRU\ (),f DQG LWV VXEVFDOHV WKH $QJHU,Q DQG $QJHU2XW VXEVFDOHV DQG WKH LWHP YHUVLRQ RI WKH &RRN DQG 0HGOH\ +RVWLOLW\ 6FDOH DUH SUHVHQWHG LQ 7DEOH 7KH (), GHPRQVWUDWHV D VWURQJ LQWHUQDO FRQVLVWHQF\ UHOLDELOLW\ 7KH DQJHU H[SUHVVLRQ VFDOHV DQG WKH KRVWLOLW\ VFDOH DOVR GHPRQVWUDWHG DGHTXDWH LQWHUQDO FRQVLVWHQF\ UHOLDELOLW\

PAGE 147

7DEOH 'HVFULSWLYH 6WDWLVWLFV IRU )RUJLYHQHVV 6XSSUHVVHG DQG ([SUHVVHG $QJHU DQG +RVWLOLW\ RI ,WHPV 0HDQV 6WDQGDUG 'HYLDWLRQ $OSKD (), 7RWDO 6FRUH (), $IIHFW (), %HKDYLRU (), &RJQLWLRQ $QJHULQ $QJHURXW +RVWLOLW\ 7KH (), PHDQ VFRUH RI LV FRQVLGHUDEO\ KLJKHU WKDQ WKH PHDQ VFRUH RI UHSRUWHG LQ 6XENRYLDN HW DO f 6DULQRSRXORV f DQG IDU JUHDWHU WKDQ WKH UHSRUWHG LQ D PRUH FOLQLFDO VDPSOH RI &R\OH DQG (QULJKW f 0RVW QRWDEOH ZDV WKH UHODWLYHO\ ORZ VWDQGDUG GHYLDWLRQ RI DV FRPSDUHG ZLWK WKH IRXQG LQ 6DULQRSRXORVfV UHVHDUFK 6XSSUHVVHG DQG ([SUHVVHG $QJHU PHDQV DUH FRPSDUDEOH WR QDWLRQDO QRUPV UHSRUWHG LQ 6SLHOEHUJHU f 7KH PHDQ VFRUH RI IRU KRVWLOLW\ LV VOLJKWO\ ORZHU FRPSDUHG WR QDWLRQDO QRUPV RI %DUHIRRW HW DO f 'HVFULSWLYH GDWD IRU WKH KHDOWK RXWFRPHV DUH SUHVHQWHG LQ 7DEOH 0HDQ VFRUHV IRU WKH 3K\VLFDO 6\PSWRPV &KHFNOLVW DQG WKH +HDOWK 3UREOHPV 6FDOH PHDVXUHV ZHUH VOLJKWO\ ORZHU WKDQ WKRVH UHSRUWHG LQ WKH OLWHUDWXUH 9DQGHUYRRUW 9DQGHUYRRUW /XLV t +DPLOWRQ f 7KH UDWH RI KHDUW GLVHDVH DQG K\SHUWHQVLRQ ZHUH FRPSDUDEOH WR WKRVH UHSRUWHG LQ WKH $ODPHGD &RXQW\ 6WXG\ .DSODQ &RKQ &RKHQ t *XUDOQLN f 'HVFULSWLYH GDWD IRU VHOHFWHG ULVN YDULDEOH RXWFRPHV DUH SUHVHQWHG LQ 7DEOH 2QH RI WKH PHDVXUHV LV WKH ERG\ PDVV LQGH[ %0,f ZKLFK LQGLFDWHV KRZ PXFK ZHLJKW FRPHV IURP PXVFOH YHUVHV IDW $ %0, VFRUH KLJKHU WKDQ LV FRQVLGHUHG WR EH D UHDVRQ IRU FRQFHUQ 2XU VDPSOH DSSHDUV ERUGHUOLQH RYHUZHLJKW EXW HTXDO WR D PLGGOHDJH VDPSOH

PAGE 148

6DULQRSRXORV f 7KH DOFRKRO DQG FDIIHLQH LQWDNH LV TXLWH PRGHUDWH ZKLOH H[HUFLVH LV FRPSDUDEOH WR D \RXWKIXO FROOHJH DJH VDPSOH 6DULQRSRXORV f 7DEOH 'HVFULSWLYH 6WDWLVWLFV IRU 3K\VLFDO +HDOWK 0HDVXUHV RI ,WHPV 0HDQV 6WDQGDUG 'HYLDWLRQ 36& 5HFHQW )36& 5HFHQW 36& &KURQLF )36& &KURQLF +36 +\SHUWHQVLRQ+HDUW 'LDJQRVLV +HDUW 'LVHDVH5HODWHG 6\PSWRQV n1XPEHU RI SK\VLFDO V\PSWRPV IIHTXHQF\ RI SK\VLFDO V\PSWRPV nQXPEHU RI FKURQLF SK\VLFDO V\PSWRPV ffIUHTXHQF\ RI FKURQLF SK\VLFDO V\PSWRPV n+HDOWK 3UREOHPV 6FDOH K\SHUWHQVLRQ RU RWKHU KHDOWK SUREOHP GLDJQRVHV QRZ RU LQ WKH SDVW FKHVW SDLQ WLJKWQHVV RU SUHVVXUH RU VKRUWQHVV RI EUHDWK ZKHQ O\LQJ GRZQ QRZ RU LQ WKH SDVW 7DEOH 'HVFULSWLYH 6WDWLVWLFV IRU 6HOHFWHG +HDOWK 5LVN 9DULDEOHV 0HDQV 6WDQGDUG 'HYLDWLRQ $JH %RG\ 0DVV ,QGH[ $OFRKRO GULQNVZHHNf ([HUFLVH KRXUVZHHNf &DIIHLQH GULQNVGD\f &RUUHODWLRQ DPRQJ SUHGLFWRU YDULDEOHV SUHVHQWHG LQ 7DEOH PRVW QRWDEO\ LQGLFDWHV QR VLJQLILFDQFH EHWZHHQ IRUJLYHQHVV DQG WKH SK\VLFDO KHDOWK V\PSWRPV 7KH () GLG KDYH DQ LQYHUVH FRUUHODWLRQ ZLWK KRVWLOLW\ 7KH PRVW QRWDEOH REVHUYDWLRQ ZDV WKH FRUUHODWLRQ EHWZHHQ DQJHULQ DQG WKH QXPEHU RI SK\VLFDO V\PSWRPV FKURQLF DQG UHFHQW $QJHULQ VKRZHG D VLJQLILFDQW FRUUHODWLRQ ZLWK KHDUW GLVHDVHUHODWHG V\PSWRPV %RWK

PAGE 149

DQJHULQ DQG KRVWLOLW\ KDG D VLJQLILFDQW FRUUHODWLRQ ZLWK ERG\ PDVV LQGH[ 6XSSUHVVHG DQJHULQf DQG H[SUHVVHG DQJHURXWf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nV KHDOWK ([SUHVVHG DQJHU GLG LQGLFDWH D VOLJKW SRVLWLYH FRUUHODWLRQ WR QXPEHU RI UHFHQW SK\VLFDO V\PSWRPV DQG WR KHDUW GLVHDVHUHODWHG V\PSWRPV 7KH PRVW QRWDEOH FRUUHODWLRQ ZDV ZLWK VXSSUHVVHG DQJHU DV LW ZDV SRVLWLYHO\ FRUUHODWHG ZLWK WKH QXPEHU RI UHFHQW SK\VLFDO V\PSWRPV IUHTXHQF\ RI WKHVH V\PSWRPV HJ KHDGDFKH VRUH WKURDW KHDUWEXUQ IHYHU VLQ UDVK DQG ORZHU EDFN SDLQf FKURQLF SK\VLFDO V\PSWRPV DQG WKH IUHTXHQF\ RI WKHVH V\PSWRPV RI WKH VDPH W\SH HJ KHDGDFKH VRUH WKURDW KHDUWEXUQ IHYHU VNLQ UDVK DQG ORZHU EDFN SDLQf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

PAGE 150

EDFN SDLQf VHOIUHSRUWHG GLDJQRVHV RI KHDOWK SUREOHP RU FKURQLF FRQGLWLRQV HJ GLDEHWHV DVWKPD XOFHU DQG FKURQLF EURQFKLWLVf GLDJQRVHV RI KHDUW GLVHDVHDQG K\SHUWHQVLRQ DQG KHDUW GLVHDVHUHODWHG V\PSWRPV HJ FKHVW SDLQ RU VKRUWQHVV RI EUHDWKf@ 7DEOH &RUUHODWLRQV %HWZHHQ 3UHGLFWRU 9DULDEOHV +HDOWK 5LVN )DFWRUV DQG 3K\VLFDO +HDOWK 0HDVXUHV (), 7RWDO 6FRUH $QJHULQ $QJHURXW +RVWLOLW\ (), 7RWDO 6FRUH QV QV rrr $QJHULQ rrr rrr $QJHURXW rrr 36& 5HFHQW QV rrr r QV )36& 5HFHQW QV rrr QV QV 36& &KURQLF QV rrr QV QV )36& &KURQLF QV rrr QV QV +36 QV QV QV QV +\SHUWHQVLRQ+HDUW 'LDJQRVLV QV QV QV r +HDUW 'LVHDVH5HODWHG 6\PSWRPV QV rr r QV 6PRNLQJ QV QV QV QV 6H[ QV QV QV QV 6DOW QV QV QV QV $JH QV QV QV QV %RG\ 0DVV ,QGH[ QV r QV rr $OFRKRO QV QV QV QV ([HUFLVH QV QV QV QV &DIIHLQH QV QV QV QV rc rrc! rrr J 'DWD LQ 7DEOH SHUWDLQ WR +\SRWKHVLV WKDW IRUJLYHQHVV ZLOO UHPDLQ VLJQLILFDQWO\ UHODWHG WR SK\VLFDO KHDOWK DIWHU FRQWUROOLQJ IRU DQJHU DQG KRVWLOLW\ 7R DVVHVV ZKHWKHU IRUJLYHQHVV ZRXOG PDLQWDLQ LWV UHODWLRQVKLS ZLWK SK\VLFDO KHDOWK VWDWXV ZKHQ FRQWUROOLQJ IRU H[SUHVVHG DQG VXSSUHVVHG DQJHU DQG KRVWLOLW\ SDUWLDO FRUUHODWLRQ DQDO\VLV ZHUH FRQGXFWHG $V FDQ EH VHHQ WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ IRUJLYHQHVV DQG Df WKH QXPEHU RI UHFHQW DQG FKURQLF SK\VLFDO V\PSWRPV Ef IUHTXHQF\ RI UHFHQW DQG FKURQLF SK\VLFDO

PAGE 151

V\PSWRPV Ff GLDJQRVHV RI PDMRU KHDOWK SUREOHPV Gf GLDJQRVHV RI KHDUW GLVHDVHDQG K\SHUWHQVLRQ DQG Hf KHDUW GLVHDVHUHODWHG V\PSWRPV ZHUH QRW VLJQLILFDQW 7DEOH 0XOWLSOH 5HJUHVVLRQ $QDO\VHV 3UHGLFWRU 9DULDEOHV DQG 3K\VLFDO +HDOWK (), 7RWDO 6FRUH $QJHULQ $QJHURXW +RVWLOLW\ 36& 5HFHQW QV rr 5 QV QV )36& 5HFHQW QV rrr 5 QV QV 36& &KURQLF QV rrr 5 QV QV )36& &KURQLF QV rrr 5 QV QV +36 QV QV QV QV +\SHUWHQVLRQ+HDUW 'LDJQRVLV QV QV QV QV +HDUW GLVHDVH5HODWHG 6\PSWRPV QV rr 5 QV QV rS rrS rrr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f $V FDQ EH VHHQ IURP 7DEOH WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ IRUJLYHQHVV DQG Df WKH

PAGE 152

QXPEHU RI UHFHQW DQG FKURQLF V\PSWRPV Ef IUHTXHQF\ RI UHFHQW DQG FKURQLF V\PSWRPV Ff GLDJQRVLV RI PDMRU KHDOWK SUREOHPV Gf GLDJQRVLV RI KHDUW FRQGLWLRQ DQG K\SHUWHQVLRQ DQG Hf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rrr )36& 5HFHQW rrr 36& &KURQLF rr )36& &KURQLF rrr +36 QV +\SHUWHQVLRQ+HDUW 'LDJQRVLV QV 1RWH &RQWURO YDULDEOHV LQ WKH DQDO\VHV ZHUH (), WRWDO VFRUH $QJHURXW +RVWLOLW\ DQG 6PRNLQJ rrS rrrS

PAGE 153

7DEOH *HQGHU 'LIIHUHQFHV LQ 3UHGLFWRUV 0DOHV 0HDQ 6W 'HYf )HPDOHV 0HDQ 6W 'HYf WYDOXH 'I 6LJ (), 7RWDO 6FRUH QV $QJHULQ f f QV $QJHURXW f f QV +RVWLOLW\ f f QV f f 7DEOH *HQGHU 'LIIHUHQFHV LQ 3K\VLFDO +HDOWK 9DULDEOHV 0DOHV 0HDQ 6W 'HYf )HPDOHV 0HDQ 6W 'HYf WYDOXH 'I 6LJ 36& 5HFHQW QV f f )36& 5HFHQW QV f f 36& &KURQLF QV f f )36& &KURQLF r 6LJ f f +36 QV f f +\SHUWHQVLRQ+HDUW rr 6LJ 'LDJQRVLV f f +HDUW 'LVHDVH5HODWHG 6\PSWRPV f f QV rS rrS 7R H[SORUH WKH SRVVLELOLW\ RI DQ\ UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ KHDOWK DQG IRUJLYHQHVV H[DPLQHG WKHVH YDULDEOHV IURP WKH SHUVSHFWLYH RI WKH WLPH RI WKH KXUW (VWDEOLVKLQJ WKH PHGLDQ GLYLGHG WKH GDWD LQWR WZR JURXSV \HDUV DQG HDUOLHU Q f DQG \HDUV RU PRUH Q f $V FDQ EH VHHQ LQ 7DEOH IRU WKH JURXS \HDUV RU OHVV IRUJLYHQHVV GLG

PAGE 154

VKRZ D VLJQLILFDQW FRUUHODWLRQ ZLWK RQO\ RQH KHDOWK PHDVXUH K\SHUWHQVLRQKHDUW GLDJQRVLV EXW GLG QRW \LHOG DQ\ VLJQLILFDQFH IRU WKH JURXS \HDUV RU PRUH 7KLV ORQH VLJQLILFDQW FRUUHODWLRQ FDQ OLNHO\ EH DWWULEXWHG WR D 7\SH HUURU 7DEOH &RUUHODWLRQV %HWZHHQ 3UHGLFWRU 9DULDEOHV +HDOWK 5LVN )DFWRUV DQG 3K\VLFDO +HDOWK 0HDVXUHV 3DUWLFLSDQW ZLWK \HDUV RU OHVV Q f (), 7RWDO 6FRUH $QJHU,Q $QJHU2XW +RVWLOLW\ (), 7RWDO 6FRUH $QJHU,Q $QJHU2XW QV QV rrr r rr rrr 36& 5HFHQW QV rrr r QV )36& 5HFHQW QV rrr rr QV 36& &KURQLF QV rrr rr QV )36& &KURQLF QV rrr rr QV +36 QV QV QV QV +\SHUWHQVLRQ+HDUW 'LDJQRVLV rr rr r rr +HDUW 'LVHDVH5HODWHG QV rr r QV 6\PSWRPV 6PRNLQJ QV QV QV QV 6H[PDOH IHPDOHf QV QV r rr 6DOW QV QV QV QV $JH QV QV QV r %RG\ 0DVV ,QGH[ QV r QV rr $OFRKRO QV QV QV QV ([HUFLVH QV QV QV QV &DIIHLQH QV QV QV QV r S rr S rrr S $V ZHOO VWXGLHG WKH UHODWLRQVKLS RI KHDOWK ZLWK IRUJLYHQHVV LQ ORQJWHUP KXUW RI \HDUV RU PRUH Q f 1R VLJQLILFDQW UHODWLRQVKLS ZDV IRXQG )LQDOO\ LQYHVWLJDWHG WKH UHODWLRQVKLS RI IRUJLYHQHVV ZLWK KHDOWK WKURXJK WKH SHUVSHFWLYH RI WKH W\SH RI KXUW LQILGHOLW\ ODFN RI FDUH ODFN RI SUDLVHf 2QFH DJDLQ QR VLJQLILFDQFH ZDV XQFRYHUHG 7KLV VWXG\ XQOLNH SUHYLRXV VWXGLHV 6DULQRSRXORV (QULJKW t &R\OH f IDLOHG WR VKRZ WKDW IRUJLYHQHVV KDV DQ\ SUHGLFWRU YDOXH IRU DQ LQGLYLGXDOfV KHDOWK $QJHU WKRXJK QRW WKH SULPDU\ VWXG\ RI WKLV UHVHDUFK RIIHUHG WKH VWURQJHVW FRUUHODWLRQ WR KHDOWK

PAGE 155

0RVW VXUSULVLQJ GHVSLWH SUHYLRXV UHVHDUFK IRUJLYHQHVV H[FHSW LQ RQH FDVH IDLOHG WR VKRZ DQ\ FRUUHODWLRQ WR SK\VLFDO KHDOWK )LJXUHV WKURXJK YLYLGO\ VKRZ WKH PDLQ HIIHFWV RI DQJHU RQ KHDOWK )LJXUH 0DLQ (IIHFW RQ 1XPEHU RI 5HFHQW 3K\VLFDO 6\PSWRPV RQ $QJHULQ )UHTXHQF\ RI 5HFHQW 3K\VLFDO 6\PSWRP )LJXUH 0DLQ (IIHFW RI )UHTXHQF\ RI 5HFHQW 3K\VLFDO V\PSWRPV RQ $QJHULQ

PAGE 156

RI &KURQLF 3K\VLFDO 6\PSWRP )LJXUH 0DLQ (IIHFW RI 1XPEHU RI &KURQLF 3K\VLFDO 6\PSWRPV RQ $QJHULQ )UHTXHQF\ RI &KURQLF 3K\VLFDO 6\PSWRP )LJXUH 0DLQ (IIHFW RI )UHTXHQF\ RI &KURQLF 3K\VLFDO 6\PSWRPV RQ $QJHULQ

PAGE 157

+HDUW 'LVHDVH5HODWHG 6\PSWRP )LJXUH 0DLQ (IIHFW RI +HDUW 'LVHDVHUHODWHG 6\PSWRPV RQ $QJHULQ

PAGE 158

&+$37(5 ',6&866,21 7KH UHVHDUFK ILQGLQJV RI WKLV VWXG\ ZLOO EH SUHVHQWHG LQGLYLGXDOO\ LH WKH K\SRWKHVHV ZLOO EH SUHVHQWHG IROORZHG E\ DQ H[SODQDWLRQ DQG GLVFXVVLRQ RI ILQGLQJV 7KLV ZLOO EH IROORZHG E\ D GLVFXVVLRQ RI WKH LPSOLFDWLRQV RI ILQGLQJV IRU WKH VWXG\ DQG FRQFOXGH ZLWK OLPLWDWLRQV RI ILQGLQJV 7KH PRVW QRWDEOH ILQGLQJ ZDV WKDW IRUJLYHQHVV XQOLNH LQ VLPLODU VWXGLHV +XDQJ 6DULQRSRORXV &R\OH t (QULJKW f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n VWXG\ f ZKHUH IRUJLYHQHVV ZDV QRW RQO\ VLJQLILFDQW EXW ZDV WKH VWURQJHVW SUHGLFWRU RI DQ LQGLYLGXDOnV KHDOWK HYHQ PRUH WKDQ KRVWLOLW\ 7KLV ILQGLQJ LV VRPHZKDW VXUSULVLQJ DV WKH SUHYLRXV OLWHUDWXUH LQGLFDWHG WKH FRQWUDU\ 6DULQRSXORV /XVNLQ HW DO :LWYOLHW f $ GLVWLQJXLVKLQJ IDFWRU RI WKLV VWXG\ ZDV WKH DJH RI WKH FRKRUW 7KLV VWXG\ IRFXVHG RQ VHQLRU FLWL]HQV PDQ\ RI ZKRP DUH LQ WKHLU ODWH VHYHQWLHV :KHQ RQH UHDFKHV DQ DGYDQFHG DJH JHQHWLFV DQG WKH WROO RI OLIH SOD\ DQ LPPHQVH UROH RQ WKH FRQGLWLRQ RI RQHfV KHDOWK 7KHUH PD\ FRPH D SRLQW ZKHUH WKH HIIHFWV RI DJH ZLOO SUHYDLO GHVSLWH D KHDOWK\ OLIHVW\OH DQG GLVSRVLWLRQ

PAGE 159

7KH SRSXODWLRQ VFRUHG TXLWH KLJK RQ WKH (QULJKW )RUJLYHQHVV ,QYHQWRU\ ,W FOHDUO\ RXWGLVWDQFHG SUHYLRXV VFRUHV 6DULQRSRXORVnV f &R\OHnV DQG (QULJKWnV f DQG 6XENRYLDN DQG FROOHDJXHnV f 'RHV WKLV LQGLFDWH WKDW WKH HOGHUO\ DUH EHWWHU IRUJLYHUV" 3HUKDSV PRUH LPSRUWDQWO\ ZDV WKH UHODWLYHO\ ORZ VWDQGDUG GHYLDWLRQ VFRUH RI DV FRPSDUHG ZLWK 6DULQRSRXORVfV :KHWKHU WKH\ ZHUH LQ VWURQJ RU SRRU KHDOWK WKH VDPSOH VHHPLQJO\ ZHUH TXLWH HIILFLHQW DW IRUJLYLQJ $V WKH ROGHU SRSXODWLRQ IDFHV LQFUHDVLQJ SK\VLFDO DLOPHQWV DQG GLVDELOLWLHV DQG XQFHUWDLQW\ DERXW WKH IXWXUH WKH\ H[SHULHQFH D QHHG WR SXW WKLQJV LQ RUGHU .RHQLJ /DUVRQ t 0DWWKHZV f 7KLV LV SDUW RI WKH OLIH UHYLHZ SURFHVV ZKHUHE\ LQWHJULW\ EHFRPHV D SULPDU\ JRDO FRUUHVSRQGLQJ WR (ULNVRQnV f LQWHJULW\ YHUVXV GHVSDLU WKH ODVW VWDJH RI KLV HLJKW SV\FKRVRFLDO VWDJHV IRU HJR GHYHORSPHQW *UXGJHV UHVHQWPHQWV DQG SDVW KXUWV DUH VXUUHQGHUHG RU UHVROYHG .RHQLJ /DUVRQ t 0DWWKHZV f 3HUKDSV WKLV SRSXODWLRQ GHVLULQJ UHVROXWLRQ EHOLHYHG WKH\ KDG WUXO\ IRUJLYHQ WKRVH ZKR KDG KXUW WKHP EXW PD\ KDYH IDLOHG WR GR VR $QJHU SDUWLFXODUO\ VXSSUHVVHG DQJHU ZDV VKRZQ WR EH VLJQLILFDQW ZKLFK PD\ VLJQLI\ XQUHVROYHG IRUJLYHQHVV LVVXHV $FFRUGLQJ WR WKH (QULJKW DQG WKH +XPDQ 'HYHORSPHQW 6WXG\ *URXS f IRUJLYHQHVV LV DQ RYHUFRPLQJ RI QHJDWLYH IHHOLQJV DQG FRJQLWLRQV WRZDUG WKH RQH ZKR KDV KXUW XV )RUJLYHQHVV RIIHUV RQH WKH LPSURYHG FDSDELOLW\ WR GHIODWH DQJHU +XDQJ &R\OH t (QULJKW f )RUJLYHQHVV KHOSV GHFUHDVH WKH OHYHO RI DQJHU DQG KRVWLOLW\ 0HGDOLH t *ROGERXUW 6HHPDQ t 6\PH 6KDSLUR f DQG WKH IHHOLQJV RI DQJHU KDWUHG DQG KRVWLOLW\ DUH JLYHQ XS 5LFKDUGV f 7KLV VXSSUHVVHG DQJHU PD\ LQGLFDWH WKDW WKLV KDV QRW EHHQ GRQH DGHTXDWHO\ DQG WKDW WKH IRUJLYHQHVV LV LQFRPSOHWH 7KH LQVWUXPHQWV DQG VHWWLQJ PD\ KDYH EHHQ D VRXUFH RI GLVFRPIRUW IRU WKLV ROGHU SRSXODWLRQ $V LW ZDV FRPSOHWHG LQ D FKXUFK VHWWLQJ DQG GHDOW ZLWK WRSLFV WKDW UHIOHFW WKH

PAGE 160

SUDFWLFH RI RQHnV IDLWK SHUKDSV VRPH IRXQG LW GLIILFXOW ZKHWKHU FRQVFLRXVO\ RU VXEFRQVFLRXVO\ WR DQVZHU KRQHVWO\ WKH TXHVWLRQV SHUWDLQLQJ WR IRUJLYHQHVV 7KRXJK SURPLVHG FRPSOHWH DQRQ\PLW\ VRPH PD\ KDYH IHOW XQFHUWDLQ DERXW SURWHFWLRQ RI WKHLU SULYDF\ ,I WKH\ KDG VWUXJJOHG ZLWK IRUJLYHQHVV WKH\ PD\ QRW KDYH ZDQWHG WR DGPLW VXFK D VHHPLQJO\ PRUDO ZHDNQHVV 2OGHU SHUVRQV UDUHO\ IHHO FRPIRUWDEOH LQ GLVFXVVLQJ VXFK SHUVRQDO DQG SULYDWH PDWWHUV VXFK DV IRUJLYHQHVV .RHQLJ /DUVRQ t 0DWWKHZV f 2OGHU SHUVRQV DUH UHOLJLRXVO\ DFWLYH 2UJDQL]HG UHOLJLRXV DFWLYLW\ LV FOHDUO\ WKH PRVW FRPPRQ IRUP RI YROXQWDU\ VRFLDO SDUWLFLSDWLRQ E\ ROGHU DGXOWV LQ WKLV FRXQWU\ 7KH SHUVRQDO GLPHQVLRQ RI UHOLJLRXV LQYROYHPHQW LQGLFDWHG E\ VWUHQJWK RI EHOLHI LPSRUWDQFH RI UHOLJLRQ DQG LQWULQVLF UHOLJLRVLW\ LV DOVR ZLGHVSUHDG DPRQJ WKH HOGHUO\ ZLWK RYHU b RI SHUVRQV DJH RU ROGHU LQGLFDWLQJ WKDW UHOLJLRQ LV YHU\ LPSRUWDQW WR WKHP 3ULQFHWRQ 5HOLJLRQ 5HVHDUFK &HQWHU f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b WR b RI ROGHU DGXOWV VSRQWDQHRXVO\ RIIHU UHOLJLRXV UHVSRQVHV HVSHFLDOO\ ZRPHQ DQG PLQRULW\ HOGHUV 5RVHQ .RHQLJ .RHQLJ HW DO f 7KH VSRQWDQHRXV UHVSRQVH FRXOG KDYH ZHOO EHHQ WKHLU LPPHGLDWH UHSO\ WR WKH TXHVWLRQV ZKHQ LQTXLULQJ DERXW WKHLU OHYHO RI IRUJLYHQHVV

PAGE 161

+\SRWKHVLV VWDWHG WKDW KRVWLOLW\ DQG ERWK VXSSUHVVHG DQG H[SUHVVHG DQJHU ZLOO EH QHJDWLYHO\ UHODWHG WR SK\VLFDO KHDOWK +LJK VFRUHUV RQ DQJHU DQG KRVWLOLW\ ZLOO KDYH PRUH SK\VLFDO KHDOWK SUREOHPV DQG YLFH YHUVD )XUWKHUPRUH +\SRWKHVLV VWDWHV WKDW LW ZLOO UHPDLQ VLJQLILFDQW DIWHU FRQWUROOLQJ IRU DJH VH[ VPRNLQJ OLTXRU FDIIHLQH ERG\ PDVV H[HUFLVH DQG VDOW 2I WKH WKUHH VXSSUHVVHG DQJHU KDG WKH VWURQJHVW FRUUHODWLRQ ,W ZDV ERWK VLJQLILFDQW ZLWK UHFHQW DQG FKURQLF SK\VLFDO V\PSWRPV DQG WKH IUHTXHQF\ RI WKHVH V\PSWRPV DV ZHOO ,W DOVR SURYHG WR EH VLJQLILFDQW ZLWK KHDUW GLVHDVH UHODWHG V\PSWRPV 7KHVH UHVXOWV PDWFKHG IDYRUDEO\ ZLWK WKRVH RI WKH PLGGOHDJH FRKRUW LQ 6DULQRSRXORVn VWXG\ f ,W DOVR FRPSDUHV ZHOO ZLWK WKH UHFHQW UHVHDUFK $UHQD %UXQR 5R]DQWLQH DQG 0HDGRU f IRXQG WKDW WHQVLRQ KHDGDFKH VXIIHUHUV KDG VLJQLILFDQWO\ PRUH VXSSUHVVHG DQJHU FRPSDUHG WR QRQSDLQ FRQWUROV 9DQGHUYRRUW 5DJODQG DQG 6\PH f QRWHG WKDW VXSSUHVVHG DQG H[SUHVVHG DQJHU DUH UHODWHG WR KHDOWK SUREOHPV UDQJLQJ IURP JDVWURLQWHVWLQDO WR PXVFXORVNHOHWDO KHDOWK FRPSODLQWV 7KHUH LV DGGLWLRQDO HYLGHQFH WKDW DQJHU LV UHODWHG WR LPSDLUHG LPPXQH V\VWHP IXQFWLRQLQJ (VWHUOLQJ HW DO .LHFROW *ODVHU HW DO 0LOOV t 'LPVGDOH 3HQQHEDNHU HW DO f ([SUHVVHG DQJHU GLG QRW SURYH WR EH DV VWURQJ RI D SUHGLFWRU DV VXSSUHVVHG DQJHU ,W GLG VKDUH ZLWK VXSSUHVVHG DQJHU WKRXJK D VLJQLILFDQW UHODWLRQVKLS ZLWK KHDUW GLVHDVHUHODWHG V\PSWRPV +D\QHV HW DO f LQ D ORQJLWXGLQDO VWXG\ GLG ILQG WKDW DQJHU ZDV UHODWHG WR FRURQDU\ KHDUW GLVHDVH LQFLGHQFH .DZDFKL HW DO f IRXQG D UHODWLYH ULVN RI IRU WKH HIIHFW RI DQJHU RQ FRURQDU\ KHDUW GLVHDVH $QJHU KDV EHHQ IRXQG WR FRUUHODWH ZLWK SODWHOHW DJJUHJDWLRQ :HQQHEHUJ HW DO f DQG ZLWK D GHFUHDVH LQ GLDPHWHU LQ QDUURZHG DUWHULHV %ROWZRRG HW DO f

PAGE 162

+RVWLOLW\ VKRZHG D VOLJKW FRUUHODWLRQ ZLWK K\SHUWHQVLRQKHDUW GLVHDVH +RVWLOLW\ LV ZLGHO\ UHJDUGHG DV WKH WR[LF FRPSRQHQW RI 7\SH $ SHUVRQDOLW\ ,W KDV EHHQ IRXQG WR EH D JRRG SUHGLFWRU RI KHDUW GLVHDVH LQ WKH UHVHDUFK OLWHUDWXUH %DUHIRRW HW DO 'HPEURVNL t &RVWD )ULHGPDQ t %RRW.HZOH\ 0LOOHU HW DO 6KHNHOOH HW DO :LOOLDPV f 5HVHDUFK ,PSOLFDWLRQV 7KLV UHVHDUFK VWXG\ LQWHQGHG WR H[SORUH WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ IRUJLYHQHVV DQG SK\VLFDO KHDOWK LQ VHQLRU FLWL]HQV (DUOLHU UHVHDUFK LQYHVWLJDWLQJ WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ IRUJLYHQHVV DQG KHDOWK LQ \RXQJHU DJH FRKRUWV 6DULQRSRXORV /XVNLQ t 7KRUHVHQ f LQGLFDWHG D VLJQLILFDQW FRUUHODWLRQ 7KLV VWXG\ IDLOHG WR VKRZ DQ\ UHODWLRQVKLS ,W LV XQNQRZQ ZKHWKHU WKH GLVSDULW\ EHWZHHQ DJH JURXSV LV D GHYHORSPHQWDO RU D FRKRUW SKHQRPHQRQ 3HUKDSV VHQLRU FLWL]HQV ZKHQ WKH\ ZHUH \RXQJHU ZRXOG KDYH EHHQ VLPLODU WR WKH PLGGOHDJHG SRSXODWLRQ RI 6DULQRSRXORVn f UHVHDUFK ,V WKHUH VRPHWKLQJ DERXW WKH VHQLRU \HDUV WKDW GLPLQLVKHV WKH HIILFDF\ RI IRUJLYHQHVV" 3HUKDSV LI WKHUH LV D SRVLWLYH UHVROXWLRQ RI (ULNVRQnV HLJKWK VWDJH LQ SV\FKRVRFLDO GHYHORSPHQW LQWHJULW\ YHUVXV GHVSDLU RWKHU IDFWRUV DORQJ ZLWK RU DERYH IRUJLYHQHVV KHOS GLPLQLVK WKH SDLQ RI XQGHVHUYHG KXUWV 9DULRXV H[SODQDWLRQV QHHG WR EH H[SORUHG ,V LW SRVVLEOH WKDW WKHUH LV DQ XQNQRZQ SURWHFWLYH IDFWRU IRU ROGHU DGXOWV ZKR GR QRW IRUJLYH" $V WKH\ VHHN LQWHJULW\ GR ROGHU DGXOWV VXEFRQVFLRXVO\ OHW JR RI SDVW KXUWV LQ RUGHU WR DFKLHYH SHDFH RI PLQG" 7KHUH PD\ EH D G\QDPLF WKDW WDNHV SODFH WKDW LV \HW WR EH GLVFRYHUHG ,W PD\ ZHOO EH WKDW HYHQ LI WKH\ GR QRW IHHO JRRG ZKLFK PD\ EH DWWULEXWHG WR DGYDQFHG DJH WKH\ DUH VWLOO DEOH WR IRUJLYH ,Q WKLV FDVH KHDOWK DQG IRUJLYHQHVV ZRXOG KDYH QR UHODWLRQVKLS ZLWK HDFK RWKHU 3RVVLEO\

PAGE 163

IRU VRPH HYHQ LI WKH\ DUH LQ JRRG KHDOWK WKH\ VWLOO PD\ FKRRVH WR EH XQIRUJLYLQJ ZLWK QR DSSDUHQW FRQVHTXHQFH RQ WKHLU KHDOWK 3UDFWLFDO ,PSOLFDWLRQV $Q REMHFWLYH RI WKLV VWXG\ ZDV WR H[SORUH WKH HIILFDF\ RI IRUJLYHQHVV LQ LPSURYLQJ RU PDLQWDLQLQJ RQHn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nV KHDOWK )RUJLYHQHVV HYHQ WKRXJK QR UHODWLRQVKLS ZLWK KHDOWK ZDV IRXQG LQ WKLV VWXG\ ZRXOG VWLOO EH D ZRUWK\ WRRO WR XVH WR DVVLVW LQ EULQJLQJ KHDOLQJ WR FOLHQWV )RUJLYHQHVV KDV GHPRQVWUDWHG WKH DELOLW\ WR GHIODWH DQJHU &R\OH t (QULJKW +XDQJ 6DULQRSRXORV f ,I IRUJLYHQHVV LV VXFFHVVIXO LQ GLPLQLVKLQJ DQJHU WKHQ LW ZLOO LQGLUHFWO\ EH EHQHILFLDO WR DQ LQGLYLGXDOnV KHDOWK ,W VWLOO FDQ EH UHFRPPHQGHG ZLWK D FHUWDLQ FRQILGHQFH DV D PHDQV WR DFKLHYH EDODQFH DQG ZKROHQHVV /LPLWDWLRQV 7KLV VWXG\ ZDV OLPLWHG E\ WKH H[FOXVLYH SRROLQJ RI YROXQWHHUV IURP WZR &DWKROLF FKXUFKHV 7KH SRSXODWLRQ IRU WKH PRVW SDUW ZDV KRPRJHQRXV QRW RQO\ LQ UHOLJLRQ EXW UDFH DQG VRFLRHFRQRPLF OHYHO 7KHUH ZDV D JODULQJ XQGHUUHSUHVHQWDWLRQ QLOf RI DQ\ PLQRULW\ JURXS $ EURDGHU UDQJH RI SDUWLFLSDQWV RIIHULQJ D JUHDWHU GLYHUVLW\ PD\ KDYH RIIHUHG

PAGE 164

GLIIHUHQW LQVLJKWV DQG ILQGLQJV $ IODJUDQW RYHUVLJKW ZDV WKDW WKHUH ZDV QR TXHVWLRQ WDNLQJ LQWR DFFRXQW WKH LQGLYLGXDOn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

PAGE 165

$ IRXUWK OLPLWDWLRQ ZDV WUHDWLQJ DOO KXUWV DV HTXLYDOHQW 7KH SDUWLFLSDQWV ZHUH DVNHG WR UHIOHFW RQ DQ XQIDLU XQMXVW SDLQIXO LQFLGHQFH DQG WKH\ UDQJHG IURP LQILGHOLW\ WR QRW EHLQJ LQYLWHG WR EUHDNIDVW 6HHPLQJO\ WKH JUDYLW\ RI WKH KXUW ZRXOG KDYH D JUHDWHU HIIHFW RQ DQ LQGLYLGXDO
PAGE 166

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

PAGE 167

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fV KHDOWK 1RWHG LQ WKH UHVXOWV ZDV WKDW DQJHU SDUWLFXODUO\ VXSSUHVVHG DQJHU ZDV VWURQJO\ UHODWHG WR KHDOWK $ YDOXDEOH VWXG\ ZRXOG EH WR UHVHDUFK WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ IRUJLYHQHVV DQG DQJHU ,I IRUJLYHQHVV FDQ EH VKRZQ WR UHGXFH DQJHU LW ZRXOG VXEVHTXHQWO\ LPSURYH WKH LQGLYLGXDOfV KHDOWK )RUJLYHQHVV PD\ YHU\ ZHOO EH TXLWH LPSRUWDQW DV D PHDQV WR LPSURYH RQHfV KHDOWK 7KHVH DUH MXVW VRPH RI WKH DUHDV ZKHUH EHOLHYH UHVHDUFK VKRXOG VHW LWV FRXUVH )RUJLYHQHVV LV VWLOO D UHODWLYHO\ XQNQRZQ HQWLW\ ZLWK EURDG SDUDPHWHUV ,W MXVW PLJKW EH DQ HIILFLHQW UHPHG\ IRU WKH SDLQV IURP LQMXVWLFH DQG LQHTXLW\ WKDW DIIOLFWV WKH PLQG ERG\ VRXO DQG VSLULW

PAGE 168

$33(1',; $ 92/817((5 ,19,7$7,21 /(77(5 $1' &(,85&+ %8//(7,1 127,&( 0\ 'HDU )ULHQG +RZ ZRXOG OLNH WR EH SDUW RI D JURXQGEUHDNLQJ VWXG\ WKDW ZLOO KHOS FRQQHFW DQG IRVWHU D UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ KHDOWK DQG VSLULWXDOLW\ LQ VHQLRU FLWL]HQV DJHV \HDUV DQG ROGHUf"
PAGE 169

7KH IROORZLQJ QRWLFH DSSHDUHG LQ WKH FKXUFK EXOOHWLQ RQ -XO\ 6,;7< 025( 3(23/( 1(('(' )25 6859(< $1' )5(( )22' &RPH EH SDUW RI D JURXQGEUHDNLQJ VWXG\ WKDW ZLOO KHOS FRQQHFW DQG IRVWHU D UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ KHDOWK DQG VSLULWXDOLW\ LQ VHQLRU FLWL]HQV DJHV DQG ROGHUf -RLQ XV 7XH -XO\ DP 3DULV +DOOKHOS XV E\ FRPSOHWLQJ D TXHVWLRQQDLUH IROORZHG E\ D GHOLFLRXV IUHH PHDO

PAGE 170

$33(1',; % ,1)250(' &216(17 DVN \RXU DVVLVWDQFH ZLWK WKLV UHVHDUFK SURMHFW 7KH SURMHFW VKRXOG IXOILOO WZR REMHFWLYHV )LUVW WKLV ZRUN IXOILOOV LQ SDUW WKH UHTXLUHPHQWV IRU P\ GLVVHUWDWLRQ 0RUH LPSRUWDQWO\ KRSH WKDW WKH UHVXOWV RI WKLV HIIRUW ZLOO EHQHILW UHVHDUFK LQ WKH ILHOG RI KHDOWK SV\FKRORJ\ ,I \RX DJUHH WR SDUWLFLSDWH SOHDVH FRPSOHWH WKH DWWDFKHG TXHVWLRQQDLUHV 7KHUH DUH TXHVWLRQQDLUHV VRPH RI WKHP DUH YHU\ VKRUWf ZKLFK VKRXOG WDNH \RX D WRWDO RI WR PLQXWHV WR FRPSOHWH 7KH TXHVWLRQQDLUHV ZLOO FHQWHU RQ KHDOWK DQG UHODWLRQVKLS LVVXHV
PAGE 171

$33(1',; & %$6,& ,1)250$7,21 48(67,211$,5( 3OHDVH ILOO RXW WKH LQIRUPDWLRQ f $JH f *HQGHU 0 ) f +LJKHVW HGXFDWLRQ OHYHO DWWDLQHG FKHFN RQHf (OHPHQWDU\ VFKRRO B 6RPH KLJK VFKRRO B +LJK VFKRRO JUDGXDWH B 6RPH FROOHJH &ROOHJH JUDGXDWH B 6RPH JUDGXDWH VFKRRO B 0DVWHUfV GHJUHH B 3K' GHJUHH B f 2FFXSDWLRQ ,I VWXGHQW SOHDVH VD\ VRf %HIRUH 5HWLUHPHQW +RXVHZLIH B &OHULFDO B 6WXGHQW B %XVLQHVV )DFWRU\ B 0DQDJHU B 7HDFKHU B 'RFWRUODZ\HU B f $YHUDJH QXPEHU RI KRXUV ZRUNHG SHU ZHHN f 0DULWDO VWDWXV 6LQJOH c 6HSDUDWHG 0DUULHG 5HPDUULHG 'LYRUFHG :LGRZHG f +HLJKW f :HLJKW f,QFRPH WR WR WR WR WR WR WR RU PRUH

PAGE 172

f $UH \RX D PHPEHU RI D UHOLJLRXV JURXS"
PAGE 173

$33(1',; $&7,9,7,(6 $1' +$%,76 48(67,211$,5( +RZ PDQ\ EORFNV RU DQ HTXDO GLVWDQFHf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f 5HJXODU FRIIHH ZLWK FDIHHLQHf RI FXSV D GD\ Ef 6RIW GULQNV ZLWK FDIIHLQH RI GULQNV RU FDQV D GD\ VXFK DV &RNH 7DE 'U 3HSSHUf ,Q DQ DYHUDJH ZHHN KRZ PXFK RI WKH IROORZLQJ GR \RX GULQN" LI QRQH PDUN f Df :LQH RI JODVVHV D ZHHN Ef %HHU RI FDQV RU ERWWOHVZHHN Ff +DUG OLTXRU JLQ YRGND HWFf RI JODVVHV D ZHHN

PAGE 174

+DYH \RX HYHU VPRNHG FLJDUV RU SLSHV UHJXODUO\"
PAGE 175

5()(5(1&(6 $FKWHUEHUJ 6 0DWWKHZV 6 t 6LPRQWRQ 2 & f 3V\FKRORJ\ RI WKH H[FHSWLRQDO FDQFHU SDWLHQW $ GHVFULSWLRQ RI SDWLHQWV DQG RXWOLYHG SUHGLFWHG H[SHFWDQFLHV 3V\FKRWKHUDS\ 7KHRU\ DQG 5HVHDUFK DQG 3UDFWLFH $FNHUPDQ 5 f /HW JR DQG JURZ 5HFRYHU\ IRU DGXOW FKLOGUHQ 3RPSDQR %HDFK )/ +HDOWK &RPPXQLFDWLRQV $IIOHFN 7HQQHQ + &URRJ 6 t /HYLQH 6 f &DVXDO DWWULEXWLRQ SHUFHLYHG EHQHILWV DQG PRUELGLW\ DIWHU KHDUW DWWDFN $Q \HDU VWXG\ -RXUQDO RI &RQVXOWLQJ DQG &OLQLFDO 3V\FKRORJ\ $OERP 0 f 7XHVGD\V ZLWK 0RUULH 1HZ
PAGE 176

$PHULFDQ +HDUW $VVRFLDWLRQ Ff 1DWLRQDO +HDOWK DQG 1XWULWLRQ ([DPLQDWLRQ 6XUYH\ ,,, 1+$1(6 ,,,f &'&1&+6 DQG $PHULFDQ +HDUW $VVRFLDWLRQ KHDUW DQG VWURNH VWDWLVWLFDO XSGDWH 'DOODV $XWKRU 5HWULHYHG 'HFHPEHU IURP KWWSZZZDPHULFDQKHDUWRUJ $PHULFDQ 3V\FKLDWULF $VVRFLDWLRQ f 'LDJQRVWLF DQG VWDWLVWLFDO PDQXDO RI PHQWDO GLVRUGHUV WK HG UHYf :DVKLQJWRQ '& $XWKRU $QGHUVRQ 2 $OPJUHQ $ t 3HUVVRQ % f +\SHUWHQVLYH PHQ KDYH VKRUWHQHG OLIH VSDQV GHVSLWH WUHDWPHQW *HULDWULFV $QGUHZV 6FKRQHOO 0 t7HQQDQW & f 7KH UHODWLRQ EHWZHHQ SK\VLFDO SV\FKRORJLFDO DQG VRFLDO PRUELGLW\ LQ D VXEXUE FRPPXQLW\ $PHULFDQ -RXUQDO RI (SLGHPLRORJ\ $UHQD %UXQR 0 5R]DQWLQH 6 t 0HDGRU f $ FRPSDULVRQ RI WHQVLRQ KHDGDFKH VXIIHUHUV DQG QRQ SDLQ FRQWUROV RQ WKH 6WDWHWUDLW $QJHU ([SUHVVLRQ ,QYHQWRU\ $Q H[SORUDWRU\ VWXG\ ZLWK LPSOLFDWLRQV IRU DSSOLHG SV\FKRSK\VLRORJLVWV $SSOLHG 3V\FKRSK\VLRORJ\ DQG %LRIHHGEDFN $UHQGW + f 7KH KXPDQ FRQGLWLRQ &KLFDJR 8QLYHUVLW\ RI &KLFDJR 3UHVV $UQROG 5 f 6HYHQW\ WLPHV VHYHQ )DUPLQJWRQ 3$ 3ORXJK $VDG 0 f 7KH PHVVDJH RI WKH 2XUfDP *LEUDOWHU 'DU $O$QGDOXV $VKOHPDQ $ f )RUJLYHQHVV DV D UHVLOLHQF\ IDFWRU LQ GLYRUFHG RU SHUPDQHQWO\ VHSDUDWHG IDPLOLHV 8QSXEOLVKHG PDVWHUfV WKHVLV 8QLYHUVLW\ RI :LVFRQVLQ 0DGLVRQ $XJVEXUJHU f &DULQJ HQRXJK WR IRUJLYH 7UXH IRUJLYHQHVV &KLFDJR 0RRG\ $XJVEXUJHU f 7KH IUHHGRP RI IRUJLYHQHVV &KLFDJR 0RRG\ $XJXVWLQH f 7KH FRQIHVVLRQV RI 6W $XJXVWLQH 5 :DUUHQ 7UDQV 1HZ
PAGE 177

%DUHIRRW & f 7KH &RRN0HGOH\ +RVWLOLW\ 6FDOH 'XUKDP 1& 'XNH 8QLYHUVLW\ 0HGLFDO &HQWHU %DUHIRRW & 'DKOVWURP : t :LOOLDPV 5 % -U f +RVWLOLW\ &+' LQFLGHQFH DQG WRWDO PRUWDOLW\ $ \HDU IROORZXS VWXG\ RI SK\VLFLDQV 3V\FKRVRPDWLF 0HGLFLQH %DUHIRRW & 'RGJH $ 3HWHUVRQ % / 'DKOVWURP 1 t :LOOLDPV 5 % f 7KH &RRN0HGOH\ KRVWLOLW\ VFDOH ,WHP FRQWHQW DQG DELOLW\ WR SUHGLFW VXUYLYDO 3V\FKRVRPDWLF 0HGLFLQH %DUHIRRW & /DUVHQ / 9RQ GHU /LHWK / 6FKUROO 0 f +RVWLOLW\ LQFLGHQFH RI DFXWH P\RFDUGLDO LQIDUFWLRQ DQG PRUWDOLW\ LQ D VDPSOH RI ROGHU 'DQLVK PHQ DQG ZRPHQ $PHULFDQ -RXUQDO RI (SLGHPLRORJ\ %DUHIRRW & 3DWWHUVRQ & +DQH\ 7 / &D\WRQ 7 +LFNPDQ 5 t :LOOLDPV 5 % f +RVWLOLW\ LQ DV\PSWRPDWLF PDQ ZLWK DQJLRJUDSKLFDOO\ FRQILUPHG FRURQDU\ DUWHU\ GLVHDVH $PHULFDQ -RXUQDO RI &DUGLRORJY %DVV ( t 'DYLV / f 7KH FRXUDJH WR KHDO 1HZ
PAGE 178

%HUJLQ $ ( f 3V\FKRWKHUDS\ DQG UHOLJLRXV YDOXHV -RXUQDO RI &RQVXOWLQJ DQG &OLQLFDO 3V\FKRORJ\ %HUJLQ $ ( f 3V\FKRWKHUDS\ DQG UHOLJLRXV IDFWRUV $ UHYLHZ RI 5 /RYLQJHUfV f:RUNLQJ ZLWK UHOLJLRXV LVVXHV LQ WKHUDS\f DQG 0 + 6SHURfV f3V\FKRWKHUDS\ RI WKH UHOLJLRXV SDWLHQWf &RQWHPSRUDU\ 3V\FKRORJ\ %HUJLQ $ ( f 7KUHH FRQWULEXWLRQV RI D VSLULWXDO SHUVSHFWLYH WR FRXQVHOLQJ SV\FKRWKHUDS\ DQG EHKDYLRUDO FKDQJH &RXQVHOLQJ DQG 9DOXHV %ROWZRRG 0 7D\ORU & % %XUNH 0 % *URJHQ + t *LDFRPLQL 5 f $QJHU UHSRUW SUHGLFWV FRURQDU\ DUWHU\ YDVFRPRWRU UHVSRQVH WR PHQWDO VWUHVV $PHULFDQ -RXUQDO RI &DUGLRORJ\ %RRQ 6 3 t 6XOVN\ / 0 f $WWULEXWLRQV RI EODPH DQG IRUJLYHQHVV LQ URPDQWLF UHODWLRQVKLSV $ SROLF\FDSWXULQJ VWXG\ -RXUQDO RI 6RFLDO %HKDYLRU DQG 3HUVRQDOLW\ %RU\VHQNR $ f *XLOW LV WKH WHDFKHU ORYH LV WKH OHVVRQ $ ERRN WR KHDO \RX KHDUW DQG VRXO 1HZ
PAGE 179

&DVDLMLDQ 5 f )RUJLYHQHVV $ EROG FKRLFH IRU D SHDFHIXO KHDUW 1HZ
PAGE 180

&RRN : t 0HGOH\ f 3URSRVHG KRVWLOLW\ DQG SKDULVDLFYLUWXH VFDOHV IRU WKH 003, -RXUQDO RI $SSOLHG 3V\FKRORJ\ &RUWLV % f +HDUW DQG VRXO $ SV\FKRORJLFDO DQG VSLULWXDO JXLGH WR SUHYHQWLQJ DQG KHDOLQJ KHDUW GLVHDVH 1HZ
PAGE 181

'L%ODVLR )$ t 3URFWRU + f 7KHUDSLVWV DQG WKH FOLQLFDO XVH RI IRUJLYHQHVV $PHULFDQ -RXUQDO RI )DPLO\ 7KHUDS\ 'RPDU $ t 'UHKHU + f +HDOLQJ PLQGV KHDOLQJ ZRPDQ 8VLQJ WKH PLQGERGY FRQQHFWLRQ WR PDQDJH VWUHVV DQG WDNH FRQWURO RI YRXU OLIH 1HZ
PAGE 182

(OGHU : f $QJHU DQG WKH KHDOLQJ SRZHU RI IRUJLYHQHVV $ SV\FKLDWULVWfV YLHZ ,Q 5 (QULJKW t 1RUWK (GVf ([SORULQJ IRUJLYHQHVV SS f 0DGLVRQ 8QLYHUVLW\ RI :LVFRQVLQ (OLDV t .HWFKDP f )HPLQLQH KHDOLQJ $ ZRPDQfV JXLGH WR KHDOWK\ ERG\ PLQG DQG VSLULW 1HZ
PAGE 183

(QULJKW 5 *DVVHQ ( $ t :X & f )RUJLYHQHVV D GHYHORSPHQW YLHZ -RXUQDO RI 0RUDO (GXFDWLRQ (QULJKW 5 t )OHEO + f )RUJLYHQHVV DV D SV\FKRWKHUDSHXWLF JRDO ZLWK HOGHUO\ IHPDOHV 3V\FKRWKHUDS\ (QULJKW 5 t 7KH +XPDQ 'HYHORSPHQW 6WXG\ *URXS Df 7KH PRUDO GHYHORSPHQW RI IRUJLYHQHVV ,Q : .XUWLQHV t *HZLUW] (GVf +DQGERRN RI PRUDO EHKDYLRU DQG GHYHORSPHQW 9RO +LOOVGDOH 1(UEDXP (QULJKW 5 t 7KH +XPDQ 'HYHORSPHQW 6WXG\ *URXS Ef )LYH SRLQWV RQ WKH FRQVWUXFW RI IRUJLYHQHVV ZLWKLQ SV\FKRWKHUDS\ 3V\FKRWKHUDS\ (QULJKW 5 t 7KH +XPDQ 'HYHORSPHQW 6WXG\ *URXS f 3LDJHW RQ WKH PRUDO GHYHORSPHQW RI IRUJLYHQHVV +XPDQ 'HYHORSPHQW (QULJKW 5 t 7KH +XPDQ 'HYHORSPHQW 6WXG\ *URXS f &RXQVHOLQJ ZLWKLQ WKH IRUJLYHQHVV WULDG 2Q IRUJLYLQJ UHFHLYLQJ IRUJLYHQHVV DQG VHOIIRUJLYHQHVV &RXQVHOLQJ t 9DOXHV (QULJKW 5 t 1RUWK f 7KH ,GHDO RI )RUJLYHQHVV $ 3KLORVRSKHUfV ([SORUDWLRQ ,Q 5 (QULJKW t 1RUWK (GVf ([SORULQJ IRUJLYHQHVV SS f 0DGLVRQ 8QLYHUVLW\ RI :LVFRQVLQ (QULJKW 5 5LTXH &R\OH & 7 f 7KH (QULJKW )RUJLYHQHVV ,QYHQWRU\ XVHUfV PDQXDO 0DGLVRQ :, ,QWHUQDWLRQDO )RUJLYHQHVV ,QVWLWXWH (QULJKW 5 6DQWRV 0 t $O0DEXN 5 f 7KH DGROHVFHQW DV IRUJLYHU -RXUQDO RI $GROHVFHQFH (ULNVRQ ( + f &KLOGKRRG DQG VRFLHW\ QG HGO 1HZ
PAGE 184

([OLQH t %DXPHLVWHU 5 ) f ([SUHVVLQJ IRUJLYHQHVV DQG UHSHQWDQFH %HQHILWV DQG EDUULHUV ,Q 0 ( 0F&XOORXJK 3DUJDPHQW t & ( 7KRUHVHQ HGVf )RUJLYHQHVV 7KHRU\ UHVHDUFK DQG SUDFWLFH GGf 1HZ
PAGE 185

)UDVXUH6PLWK 1 /HVSHUDQFH ) t 7DODMLF 0 f 'HSUHVVLRQ DQG Q PRQWK SURJQRVLV DIWHU P\RFDUGLDO LQIDUFWLRQ &LUFXODWLRQ )UHHGPDQ 6 5 t (QULJKW 5 f )RUJLYHQHVV DV DQ LQWHUYHQWLRQ JRDO ZLWK LQFHVW VXUYLYRUV -RXUQDO RI &RQVXOWLQJ DQG &OLQLFDO 3V\FKRORJ\ )UHXG 6 f &ROOHFWHG 3DFHUV 1HZ
PAGE 186

*HQWLORQH ) t 5HJLGRU 7 5 $SULOf 7KH SROLWLFDO GLPHQVLRQ RI UHFRQFLOLDWLRQ $ UHFHQW ,WDOLDQ H[SHULHQFH ,Q & )ORULVWDQ t & 'XTXRF (GVf )RUJLYHQHVV SS f (GLQEXUJK 7 t 7 &ODUN *HQWU\ : ( f 5HODWLRQVKLSV RI DQJHUFRSLQJ VW\OHV DQG EORRG SUHVVXUH DPRQJ EODFN $PHULFDQV ,Q 0$ &KHVQH\ t 5+ 5RVHQPDQ (GVf $QJHU DQG KRVWLOLW\ LQ FDUGLRYDVFXODU DQG EHKDYLRUDO GLVRUGHUV 1HZ
PAGE 187

+DJJORI % %ORP / 'DKOTXLVW /RQQEHUJ t 6DEOLQ % f 7KH 6ZHGLVK FKLOGKRRG GLDEHWHV VWXG\ ,QGLFDWLRQV RI VHYHUH SV\FKRORJLFDO VWUHVV DV D ULVN IDFWRU IRU 7\SH LQVXOLQGHSHQGHQWf GLDEHWHV PHOOLWXV LQ FKLOGKRRG 'LDEHWRORHLFD +DPPHUVWHLQ ) &DWKH\ & : 5HGPRQG 5 ) t :ROI 6 6 f 6HUXP FKROHVWHURO GLHW DQG VWUHVV LQ SDWLHQWV ZLWK FRURQDU\ GLVHDVH -RXUQDO RI &OLQLFDO ,QYHVWLJDWLRQ +DUEXUJ ( %ODNHORFN ( + t 5RHSHU 3 f 5HVHQWIXO DQG UHIOHFWLYH FRSLQJ ZLWK DUELWUDU\ DXWKRULW\ DQG EORRG SUHVVXUH 'HWURLW 3V\FKRVRPDWLF 0HGLFLQH +DUEXUJ ( (UIXUW & +DYHQVWHLQ / 6 &KDSH & 6FKXOO : t 6FKRUN 0$ f 6RFLR(FRORJLFDO VWUHVV VXSSUHVVHG KRVWLOLW\ VNLQ FRORU DQG EODFNZKLWH PDOH EORRG SUHVVXUH 'HWURLW 3V\FKRVRPDWLF 0HGLFLQH +DUG\ t 6PLWK / f &\QLFDO KRVWLOLW\ DQG YXOQHUDELOLW\ WR GLVHDVH 6RFLDO VXSSRUW OLIH VWUHVV DQG SK\VLRORJLFDO UHVSRQVHV WR FRQIOLFW +HDOWK 3V\FKRORJ\ +DUJUDYH 7 f )DPLOLHV DQG IRUJLYHQHVV 1HZ
PAGE 188

+HUVKH\ 7 f %HJLQQLQJ DJDLQ /LIH DIWHU D UHODWLRQVKLS HQGV /DJXQD +LOOV &$ 0HULW +RIIPDQ 0 f 7KH GHYHORSPHQW RI HPSDWK\ ,Q 3 5XVKWRQ t 5 0 6RUUHQWLQR (GVf $OWUXLVP DQG KHOSLQJ EHKDYLRU 6RFLDO SHUVRQDOLW\ DQG GHYHORSPHQW SHUVSHFWLYHV ISW! +LOOVGDOH 1(UEDXP +RIIPDQ 0 f (PSDWK\ DQG MXVWLFH PRWLYDWLRQ 0RWLYDWLRQ DQG (PRWLRQ +RIIPDQ 0 / f (PSDWK\ DQG PRUDO GHYHORSPHQW ,PSOLFDWLRQV IRU FDULQJ DQG MXVWLFH 1HZ
PAGE 189

,GOHU ( / f 5HOLJLRXV LQYROYHPHQW DQG WKH KHDOWK RI WKH HOGHUO\ 6RFLDO )RUFHV ,GOHU ( / t .DVO 69 f 5HOLJLRQ GLVDELOLW\ GHSUHVVLRQ DQG WKH WLPLQJ RI GHDWK $PHULFDQ -RXUQDO RI 6RFLRORJ\ -DFRE 5 .UDPHU + & t $JUDV : 6 f 5HOD[DWLRQ WKHUDS\ LQ WKH WUHDWPHQW RI K\SHUWHQVLRQ $UFKLYHV RI *HQHUDO 3V\FKRORJ\ -DPSROVN\ * f *RRGE\H WR JXLOW 1HZ
PAGE 190

.DQW f *URXQGZRUN RI WKH PHWDSK\VLFV RI PRUDOV + 3DWQ 7UDQV < 1HZ
PAGE 191

.RHQLJ + &RKHQ + -f %OD]HU *f .XGOHU + 6 .ULVKQDQ 5 5 t 6LEHUW 7 ( f &RJQLWLYH V\PSWRPV RI GHSUHVVLRQ DQG UHOLJLRXV FRSLQJ LQ HOGHUO\ PHGLFDO SDWLHQWV 3VYFKRVRPDWLFV .RHQLJ + &RKHQ + -f %OD]HU 3LHSHU & 0HDGRU 6KHOS ) *ROL 9 t 'L3DVTXDOH 5 f 5HOLJLRXV FRSLQJ DQG GHSUHVVLRQ LQ HOGHUO\ KRVSLWDOL]HG PHGLFDOO\ LOO PHQ $PHULFDQ -RXUQDO RI 3V\FKLDWU\ .RHQLJ + /DUVRQ % t 0DWWKHZV $ 0DUFK f :LVGRP DQG VSLULWXDOLW\ 7KHLU VSHFLDO LPSRUWDQFH LQ FOLQLFDO ZRUN ZLWK ROGHU DGXOWV $ SDSHU SUHVHQWHG DW WKH 6FLHQWLILF 0HHWLQJ RI WKH %RVWRQ 6RFLHW\ IRU *HURQWRORJLF 3V\FKLDWU\ ,QF %RVWRQ 0$ .RHQLJ + 0F&XOORXJK 0 ( t /DUVRQ % f +DQGERRN RI UHOLJLRQ DQG KHDOWK 2[IRUG 8. 8QLYHUVLW\ 3UHVV .RKOEHUJ / f 6WDJH DQG VHTXHQFH 7KH FRJQLWLYHGHYHORSPHQWDO DSSURDFK WR VRFLDOL]DWLRQ ,Q $ *RVOLQ (Gf +DQGERRN RI VRFLDOL]DWLRQ WKHRU\ DQG UHVHDUFK SS f &KLFDJR ,/ 5DQG 0F1DOO\ .RKOEHUJ / f 6WDJHV DQG DJLQJ LQ PRUDO GHYHORSPHQWf§6RPH VSHFXODWLRQV 7KH *HURQWRORJLVW .RKOEHUJ / f 0RUDO VWDJHV DQG PRUDOL]DWLRQ 7KH FRJQLWLYHGHYHORSPHQWDO DSSURDFK ,Q 7 /LFNRQD (Gf 0RUDO GHYHORSPHQW DQG EHKDYLRU 7KHRU\ UHVHDUFK DQG VRFLDO LVVXHV SS f 1HZ
PAGE 192

/DPEHUW & f 7KH KXPDQ DFWLRQ RI IRUJLYHQHVV 1HZ
PAGE 193

/HYLQH 6 f :KR GLHV" $Q LQYHVWLJDWLRQ RI FRQVFLRXV OLYLQJ DQG FRQVFLRXV G\LQJ *DUGHQ &LW\ 1$QFKRU /HY\ 6 0 /HH %DJOH\ & t /LSSPDQ 0 f 6XUYLYDO KD]DUGV DQDO\VLV LQ ILUVW UHFXUUHQW EUHDVW FDQFHU SDWLHQWV 6HYHQ\HDU IROORZ XS 3V\FKRVRPDWLF 0HGLFLQH /LQGHQ : t )HXHUVWHLQ 0 0DUFKf (VVHQWLDO K\SHUWHQVLRQ DQG VRFLDO FRSLQJ EHKDYLRU -RXUQDO RI +XPDQ 6WUHVV /LQQ 0 t /LQQ f +HDOLQJ OLIHfV KXUWV +HDOLQJ PHPRULHV WKURXJK ILYH VWDJHV RI IRUJLYHQHVV 1HZ
PAGE 194

0DWDUD]]R t /HFNOLWHU 1 f %HKDYLRUDO KHDOWK 7KH UROH RI JRRG DQG EDG KDELWV LQ KHDOWK DQG LOOQHVV ,Q 6 0DHV & 6SLHOEHUJHU 3 % 'HIDUHV t 6DUDQVRQ (GVf 7RSLFV LQ KHDOWK SV\FKRORJ\ SS f 1HZ
PAGE 195

0F&XOORXJK 0 ( t :RUWKLQJWRQ ( / -U Df (QFRXUDJLQJ FOLHQWV WR IRUJLYH SHRSOH ZKR KDYH KXUW WKHP 5HYLHZ FULWLTXH DQG UHVHDUFK SURVSHFWXV -RXUQDO RI 3V\FKRORJ\ DQG 7KHRORJ\ 0F&XOORXJK 0 ( t :RUWKLQJWRQ ( / -U Ef 0RGHOV RI LQWHUSHUVRQDO IRUJLYHQHVV DQG WKHLU DSSOLFDWLRQV WR FRXQVHOLQJ 5HYLHZ DQG FULWLTXH &RXQVHOLQJ DQG 9DOXHV 0F&XOORXJK 0 ( t :RUWKLQJWRQ ( / f 5HOLJLRQ DQG WKH IRUJLYLQJ SHUVRQDOLW\ -RXUQDO RI 3HUVRQDOLW\ 0F&XOORXJK 0 ( :RUWKLQJWRQ ( / -U t 5DFKDO & f ,QWHUSHUVRQDO IRUJLYLQJ LQ FORVH UHODWLRQVKLSV -RXUQDO RI 3HUVRQDOLW\ DQG 6RFLDO 3V\FKRORJ\ 0F'RZHOO f )RUJLYHQHVV 7DSH UHFRUGLQJ RI WDON JLYHQ DW 7RUUH\ &RQIHUHQFH %LROD 8QLYHUVLW\ /D 0LUDGD 0F(ZHQ % 6 f 3URWHFWLYH DQG GDPDJLQJ HIIHFWV RI VWUHVV PHGLDWRUV 1HZ (QJODQG -RXUQDO RI 0HGLFLQH 0F(ZHQ % 6 t 6WHOODU ( f 6WUHVV DQG WKH LQGLYLGXDO 0HFKDQLVPV OHDGLQJ WR GLVHDVH $UFKLYHV RI ,QWHUQDO 0HGLFLQH 0F*DU\ + f )RUJLYHQHVV $PHULFDQ 3KLORVRSKLFDO 4XDUWHUO\ 0F0LQQ 0 5 f 5HOLJLRXV YDOXHV DQG FOLHQWFRXQVHORU PDWFKLQJ RQ SV\FKR WKHUDS\ -RXUQDO RI 3V\FKRORJ\ DQG 7KHRORJ\ 0HDQV 5 :LOVRQ / 6WXUP & t %LURQ ( f +XPLOLW\ DV SV\FKRWKHUDSHXWLF IRUPXODWLRQ &RXQVHOLQJ 3V\FKRORJ\ 4XDUWHUO\ 0HGDOLH + t *ROGERXUW 8 f $QJLQD SHFWRUHV DPRQJ PHQ ,, 3V\FKRORJLFDO DQG RWKHU ULVN IDFWRUV DV HYLGHQFHG E\ D PXOWLYDULDWH DQDO\VLV RI D ILYH \HDU LQFLGHQFH VWXG\ $PHULFDQ -RXUQDO RI 0HGLFLQH 0HGDOLH + 6WUDQJH & =\]DQRNL 6 t *ROGERXUW 8 f 7KH LPSRUWDQFH RI ELRSK\VLRORJLFDO IDFWRUV LQ WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI GXRGHQWDO XOFHU LQ D FRKRUW RI PLGGOHDJHG PHQ $PHULFDQ -RXUQDO RI (SLGHPLORJ\ 0HOW]HU : t +RFKVWLP 5 f 5HOLDELOLW\ DQG YDOLGLW\ RI VXUYH\ GDWD RQ SK\VLFDO KHDOWK 3XEOLF +HDOWK 5HSRUWV 0LGGOHWRQ0R] t 'ZLQHOO / f $IWHU WKH WHDUV 5HFODLPLQJ WKH SHUVRQDO ORVVHV RI FKLOGKRRG 1HZ
PAGE 196

0LOOHU : t 7KRUHQVHQ & ( LQ SUHVVf 6SLULWXDOLW\ DQG KHDOWK ,Q : 0LOOHU (Gf ,QWHJUDWLQJ VSLULWXDOLW\ LQWR WUHDWPHQW :DVKLQJWRQ '& $PHULFDQ 3V\FKRORJLFDO $VVRFLDWLRQ 0LOOHU 7 4 6PLWK 7 : 7XUQHU & : *XLMDUUR 0 t +DOOHW $ f $ PHWDDQDO\WLF UHYLHZ RI WKH UHVHDUFK RQ KRVWLOLW\ DQG SK\VLFDO KHDOWK 3V\FKRORJLFDO %XOOHWLQ 0LOOV 3 t 'LPVGDOH ( f $QJHU VXSSUHVVLRQ ,WV UHODWLRQVKLS WR EHWD DGUHQHUJLF UHFHSWRU VHQVLWLYLW\ DQG VWUHVVf§,QGXFHG FKDQJHV LQ EORRG SUHVVXUH 3V\FKRORJLFDO PHGLFLQH 0LOOV 3 6FKQHLGHU 5 + t 'LPVGDOH ( f $QJHU DVVHVVPHQW DQG UHDFWLYLW\ WR VWUHVV -RXUQDO RI 3V\FKRVRPDWLF 5HVHDUFK 0RQERXUTXHWWH f &RPPHQW QDUGRQQHU 3DULV 1RYDOLV HW OHV (GLWLRQV GX &HQWXULRQ 0RRV 5 + f 6RFLDOHFRORJLFDO SHUVSHFWLYH RQ KHDOWK ,Q & 6WRQH &RKHQ t 1 ( $GOHU (GVf +HDOWK SV\FKRORJ\ $ KDQGERRN SS f 6DQ )UDQFLVFR -RVVH\%DVV 0RRUH % f 7KH RULJLQV DQG GHYHORSPHQW RI HPSDWK\ 0RWLYDWLRQ DQG (PRWLRQ 0RUURZ / -DQXDU\ f f, VSRNH DV D EURWKHUf 7LPH 0RVVH\ 0 t 6KDSLUR ( f 6HOIUDWHG KHDOWK $ SUHGLFWRU RI PRUWDOLW\ DPRQJ WKH HOGHUO\ $PHULFDQ MRXUQDO RI 3XEOLF +HDOWK 0XUDQDND 0 0RQRX + 6X]XNL /DQH $QGHUVRQ 1 % .XKQ & 0 6FKDQEHUJ 6 0 0F&RZQ 1 t :LOOLDPV 5 % f 3K\VLRORJLFDO UHVSRQVHV WR FDWHFKRODPLQH LQIXVLRQV LQ W\SH $ DQG W\SH % PHQ +HDOWK 3V\FKRORJ\ 0XUDVNR 0 :HLQHU 3 t .D\H f $VVRFLDWLRQ RI ODFN RI PLWRJHQ LQGXFHG O\PSKRF\WH SUROLIHUDWLRQ ZLWK LQFUHDVHG PRUWDOLW\ LQ WKH HOGHUO\ $JLQJ /O 0XUSK\ f )RUJLYHQHVV DQG UHVHQWPHQW 0LGZHVW 6WXGLHV LQ 3KLORVRSK\ 0XUSK\ t +DPSWRQ f )RUJLYHQHVV DQG PHUF\ &DPEULGJH 8. &DPEULGJH 8QLYHUVLW\ 3UHVV

PAGE 197

1DWLRQDO &HQWHU IRU +HDOWK 6WDWLVWLFV f &XUUHQW HVWLPDWHV IURP WKH 1DWLRQDO ,QWHUYLHZ 6XUYH\ '++6 6HULHV 1R 3+6 f :DVKLQJWRQ '& *RYHUQPHQW 3ULQWLQJ 2IILFH 1HEOHWW : 5 f )RUJLYHQHVV DQG ,GHDOV 0LQG 1HOVRQ 0 f $ QHZ WKHRU\ RI IRUJLYHQHVV 'HWDFKHG )RUJLYHQHVV OLPLWHG IRUJLYHQHVV IXOO IRUJLYHQHVV 'RFWRUDO GLVVHUWDWLRQ 3XUGXH 8QLYHUVLW\ f 'LVVHUWDWLRQ $EVWUDFWV ,QWHUQDWLRQDO % 1HXVQHU f 5HSHQWDQFH LQ -XGDLVP ,Q $ (W]LRQL t ( &DUQH\ (GVf 5HSHQWDQFH $ FRPSDUDWLYH SHUVSHFWLYH SS f 1HZ 6SHFLDO LVVXH@ 6SLULWXDOLW\ DQG +HDOWK -RXUQDO RI +HDOWK 3V\FKRORJ\ 2UQLVK f /RYH DQG VXUYLYDO 7KH VFLHQWLILF EDVLV IRU WKH KHDOLQJ SRZHU RI LQWLPDF\ 1HZ
PAGE 198

3DUJDPHQW % % f 7KH SV\FKRORJ\ RI UHOLJLRQ DQG FRQLQJ 7KHRU\ UHVHDUFK DQG SUDFWLFH 1HZ
PAGE 199

3RZHOO 7 f )UHH \RXUVHOI IURP KDUPIXO VWUHVV &KHVKDP 8. '. 3XEOLVKLQJ 3UHVVPDQ 3 /\RQV 6 /DUVRQ % t 6WUDLQ f 5HOLJLRXV EHOLHI GHSUHVVLRQ DQG DPEXODWLRQ VWDWXV LQ HOGHUO\ ZRPHQ ZLWK EURNHQ KLSV $PHULFDQ -RXUQDO RI 3V\FKLDWU\ 3ULQFHWRQ 5HOLJLRXV 5HVHDUFK &HQWHU f 5HOLJLRQ LQ $PHULFD 3ULQFHWRQ *DOOXS 3ROO 5HGILHOG 5 f )RUJLYHQHVV DQG ELRQVYFKRVRFLDO ZHOOEHLQJ LQ SHUVRQV OLYLQJ ZLWK +9$,'6 5HWULHYHG 2FWREHU IURP KWWSZZZIRUJLYLQJRUJ 5LFKDUGV 1 f )RUJLYHQHVV (WKLFV 5LFKDUGV 3 6 t %HUJHU $ ( f $ VSLULWXDO DQDORJ\ IRU FRXQVHOLQJ DQG SV\FKRWKHUDS\ :DVKLQJWRQ '& $PHULFDQ 3V\FKRORJLFDO $VVRFLDWLRQ 5REHUWV 5 & f 7DNLQJ WKH ZRUG WR KHDUW 6HOI DQG RWKHU LQ DQ DJH RI WKHUDSLHV *UDQG 5DSLGV 0, (HUGPDQV 5REHUWV 5 & f )RUJLYHQHVV $PHULFDQ 3KLORVRSKLFDO 4XDUWHUO\ 5RGGHQ f 'LPHQVLRQV RI IRUJLYHQHVV 9LWDO 6SHHFKHV RI WKH 'D\ 5RPLJ & $ t 9HHQVWUD f )RUJLYHQHVV DQG SV\FKRVRFLDO GHYHORSPHQW ,PSOLFDWLRQV IRU FOLQLFDO SUDFWLFH &RXQVHOLQJ DQG 9DOXHV 5RRVH 6 3 'HYDQDQG t 6XWKHUV f 'HSUHVVLRQ 7UHDWLQJ WKH SDWLHQW ZLWK FRPRUELG FDUGLDF GLVHDVH *HULDWULFV 5RVHQ & & f (WKQLF GLIIHUHQFHV DPRQJ LPSRYHULVKHG UXUDO HOGHUO\ LQ XVH RI UHOLJLRQ DV D FRSLQJ PHFKDQLVP -RXUQDO RI 5XUDO &RPPXQLW\ 3V\FKRORJ\ 5RVHQDN & 0 t +DPGHQ 0 f )RUJLYHQHVV LQ WKH SV\FKRWKHUDSHXWLF SURFHVV &OLQLFDO DSSOLFDWLRQV -RXUQDO RI 3V\FKRORJ\ DQG &KULVWLDQLW\ 5RVHQPDQ 5 + %UDQG 5 -HQNLQV & )ULHGPDQ 0 6WUDXVV 5 t :XUP 0 f &RURQDU\ KHDUW GLVHDVH LQ WKH ZHVWHUQ FROODERUDWLYH JURXS VWXG\ )LQDO IROORZXS H[SHULHQFH RI \HDUV -RXUQDO RI WKH $PHULFDQ 0HGLFDO $VVRFLDWLRQ 5RZH 2 +DLOLQJ 6 'DYLHV ( /HLIHU 0 3RZHUV t 9RQ %URQNKRUVW f ([SORULQJ WKH EUHDGWK RI KXPDQ H[SHULHQFH ,Q 5 6 9DOOH t 6 +DLOLQJ (GVf ([LVWHQWLDO SKHQRPHQRORJLFDO SHUVSHFWLYHV LQ SV\FKRORJ\ SS f 1HZ
PAGE 200

5RZH t /HLWHU 0 f 7KH IRUJLYHQHVV RI IRUJLYLQJ 7DSH UHFRUGLQJ RI SDSHU JLYHQ DW &$36:HVW &RQYHQWLRQ 6HDWWOH 5XELQ 7 f 7KH DQJU\ ERRN 1HZ
PAGE 201

6FRJLQ ) 6KDFNHOIRUG 5RKHQ 1 6WXPS )OR\G 0 0F.HQGUHH 7 0 6PLWK 1 t -DPLVRQ & f 5HVLGXDO JHULDWULF GHSUHVVLRQ V\PSWRPV $ SODFH IRU SV\FKRWKHUDSK\ -RXUQDO RI &OLQLFDO *HURRVYFKRORJY 6HDPDQGV $ f +HDOLQJ IRU GDPDJHG HPRWLRQV :KHDWRQ ,/ 9LFWRU 6HHPDQ 7 t 6\PH 6 / f 6RFLDO QHWZRUNV DQG FRURQDU\ DUWHU\ GLVHDVH $ FRPSDULVRQ RI WKH VWUXFWXUH DQG IXQFWLRQ RI VRFLDO UHODWLRQV DV SUHGLFWRUV RI GLVHDVH 3V\FKRVRPDWLF 0HGLFLQH 6HJHUVWURP 6 & 7D\ORU 6 ( .HPHQ\ 0 ( t )DKH\ / f 2SWLPLVP LV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK PRRG FRSLQJ DQG LPPXQH FKDQJH LQ UHVSRQVH WR VWUHVV -RXUQDO RI 3HUVRQDOLW\ DQG 6RFLDO 3V\FKRORJ\ 6HOPDQ $ f 7KH JURZWK RI LQWHUSHUVRQDO XQGHUVWDQGLQJ 1HZ
PAGE 202

6PHGHV / % f )RUJLYH DQG IRUJHW +HDOLQJ WKH KXUWV ZH GRQfW GHVHUYH 6DQ )UDQFLVFR )ODUSHU t 5RZ 6PHGHV / $ f 7KH DUW RI IRUJLYLQJ 1DVKYLOOH 0RUULQJV 6PLWK 0 f 7KH SV\FKRORJ\ RI IRUJLYHQHVV 7KH 0RQWK 6PLWK 7 : f +RVWLOLW\ DQG KHDOWK &XUUHQW VWDWXV RI D SV\FKRVRPDWLF K\SRWKHVLV )OHDOWK 3V\FKRORJ\ 6PLWK 7 : $OOUHG 0RUULVRQ & $ t &DUOVRQ 6 f &DUGLRYDVFXODU UHDFWLYLW\ DQG LQWHUSHUVRQDO LQIOXHQFH $FWLYH FRSLQJ LQ D VRFLDO FRQWH[W -RXUQDO RI 3HUVRQDOLW\ DQG 6RFLDO 3V\FKRORJ\ 6RDUHV3UDEKX f $V ZH IRUJLYH ,QWHUKXPDQ IRUJLYHQHVV LQ WKH WHDFKLQJ RI -HVXV &RQFLOLXP 6REHO 6 t 2PVWHLQ 5 f 7KH KHDOWK\ PLQG KHDOWKOY ERG\ KDQGERRN 1HZ
PAGE 203

6WDSOHWRQ 5 & f 7KH H[SHULHQFH RI LQQHU KHDOLQJ :DFR 7; :DUG 6WUDXVV 0 f /HYHOLQJ FLYLOLW\ DQG YLROHQFH LQ WKH IDPLO\ -RXUQDO RI 0DUULDJH DQG WKH )DPLO\ 6WRQH & &RKHQ ) t $GOHU 1 ( (GVf f +HDOWK SV\FKRORJ\ $ KDQGERRN 6DQ )UDQFLVFR -RVVH\ %DVV 6WURQJ f $ FRQFLVH GLFWLRQDU\ RI WKH ZRUGV LQ WKH +HEUHZ %LEOH ZLWK WKHLU UHQGHULQJV LQ WKH DXWKRUL]HG YHUVLRQ ,Q 6WURQJ (Gf 7KH QHZ 6WURQJfV H[KDXVWLYH FRQFRUGDQFH RI WKH %LEOH SS f 1DVKYLOOH 1HOVRQ 6WXG]LQVNL 5 f 5HPHPEHU DQG IRUJLYH 3V\FKRORJLFDO GLPHQVLRQV RI IRUJLYHQHVV &RQFLOLXP 6XDUH] ( & t :LOOLDPV 5 % f 6LWXDWLRQDO GHWHUPLQDQWV RI FDUGLRYDVFXODU DQG HPRWLRQDO UHDFWLYLW\ LQ KLJK DQG ORZ KRVWLOH PHQ 3V\FKRVRPDWLF 0HGLFLQH 6XDUH] ( & :LOOLDPV 5 % .XKQ & 0 =LPPHUPDQ ( t 6FKDQEHUJ 6 0 f %LREHKDYLRUDO EDVHV RI FRURQDU\SURQH EHKDYLRUV LQ PLGGOH DJHG PHQ 3DUW ,, 6HUXP FKROHVWHURO WKH W\SH $ EHKDYLRU SDWWHUQ DQG KRVWLOLW\ DV LQWHUDFWLYH PRGXODWRUV RI SK\VLRORJLFDO UHDFWLYLW\ 3V\FKRVRPDWLF 0HGLFLQH 6XENRYLDN 0 (QULJKW 5 t :X & 5 f 0HDVXULQJ LQWHUSHUVRQDO IRUJLYHQHVV 3DSHU SUHVHQWHG DW WKH DQQXDO PHHWLQJ RI WKH 0LG:HVWHUQ (GXFDWLRQDO 5HVHDUFK $VVRFLDWLRQ &KLFDJR 6XENRYLDN 0 (QULJKW 5 :X & 5 *DVVLQ ( $ )UHHGPDQ 6 2OVRQ / 0 t 6DULQRSRXORV f 0HDVXULQJ LQWHUSHUVRQDO IRUJLYHQHVV LQ ODWH DGROHVFHQFH DQG PLGGOH DGXOWKRRG -RXUQDO RI $GROHVFHQFH 7DQJQH\ f 0RUDODIIHFW 7KH JRRG WKH EDG DQG WKH XJO\ -RXUQDO RI 3HUVRQDOLW\ DQG 6RFLDO 3V\FKRORJ\ 7DXE ( $ f 7KH ZHOOQHVV 5; 'U 7DXEfV GDY SURJUDP WR UDGLDQW KHDOWK HQHUJ\ (QJOHZRRG &OLIIV 13UHQWLFH +DOO 7DYULV & f $QJHU 7KH PLVXQGHUVWRRG HPRWLRQ 1HZ
PAGE 204

7HOIHU : f 7KH IRUJLYHQHVV RI VLQV $Q HVVD\ LQ WKH KLVWRU\ RI &KULVWLDQ GRFWULQH DQG SUDFWLFH 3KLODGHOSKLD 0XKOHQEHUJ 7HQQHQ + t $IIOHFN f %ODPLQJ RWKHUV IRU WKUHDWHQLQJ HYHQWV 3V\FKRORJLFDO %XOOHWLQ 7KRPDV 6 3 f :RPHQfV DQJHU 5HODWLRQVKLS RI VXSSUHVVLRQ WR EORRG SUHVVXUH 1XUVLQJ 5HVHDUFK 7KRPSVRQ 5 f 7KH :HVOH\DQ DQG WKH VWUXJJOH WR IRUJLYH :HVWHUQ 7KHRORJLFDO -RXUQDO 7KRUHVHQ & ( +DUULV $ + t /XVNLQ ) f )RUJLYHQHVV DQG KHDOWK $Q XQDQVZHUHG TXHVWLRQ ,Q 0 ( 0F&XOORXJK 3DUJDUPHQW t & ( 7KRUHVHQ (GVf )RUHJLYHQHVV 7KHRU\ UHVHDUFK DQG SUDFWLFH SS f 1HZ
PAGE 205

9DQ /HHXZHQ 0 6 f 7KH VRUFHUHUfV DSSUHQWLFH $ &KULVWLDQ ORRNV DW WKH FKDQJLQJ IDFH RI SV\FKRORJ\ 'RZQHUfV *URYH ,/ ,QWHU 9DUVLW\ 9HHQVWUD f 3V\FKRORJLFDO FRQFHSWV RI IRUJLYHQHVV -RXUQDO RI 3V\FKRORJ\ DQG &KULVWLDQLW\ 9LFNHUV 5 f 0HGLFDO DVSHFWV RI DJLQJ ,Q / /D]DUXV (GO (VVHQWLDOV RI JHULDWULF SV\FKLDWU\ SS f 1HZ
PAGE 206

:HLO $ f ZHHNV WR RSWLPXP KHDOWK 1HZ
PAGE 207

:LWXOLHW & 9 t 9UDQD 6 5 f (PRWLRQDO LPDJHU\ 7KH YLVXDO VWDUWOH DQG FRYDULDWLRQ ELDV $Q DIIHFWLYH PDWFKLQJ DFFRXQW %LRORJLFDO 3V\FKRORJ\ :ROEHUJ $ 5 f 7KH ERUGHUOLQH SDWLHQW 1HZ
PAGE 208

=XFNHUPDQ 0 .DVO 6 9 t 2VWIHOG $ 0 f 3V\FKRVRFLDO SUHGLFWRUV RI PRUWDOLW\ DPRQJ WKH HOGHUO\ SRRU 7KH UROH RI UHOLJLRQ ZHOOEHLQJ DQG VRFLDO FRQWDFWV $PHULFDQ -RXUQDO RI (SLGHPLRORJ\

PAGE 209

%,2*5$3+,&$/ 6.(7&+ )DWKHU 7KRPDV &RQQHU\ LV RQH RI VL[ FKLOGUHQ ERP DQG UDLVHG LQ 1HZ
PAGE 210

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

PAGE 211

7KLV GLVVHUWDWLRQ ZDV VXEPLWWHG WR WKH *UDGXDWH )DFXOW\ RI WKH &ROOHJH RI (GXFDWLRQ DQG WR WKH *UDGXDWH 6FKRRO DQG ZDV DFFHSWHG DV SDUWLDO IXOILOOPHQW RI WKH UHTXLUHPHQWV IRU WKH GHJUHH RI 'RFWRU RI 3KLORVRSK\ 0D\ 'HDQ *UDGXDWH 6FKRRO

PAGE 212

/' eLB & 6 81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID EZW32UXSH_S9V3L9 INGEST_TIME 2013-03-27T16:20:42Z PACKAGE AA00013628_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES