Russian Psychological Issues
JournalsTopicsAuthorsEditor's Choice Manuscript SubmissionAbout PsyJournals.ruContact Us
Social Psychology and Society - №2 / 2022 | Перейти к описанию
Web of Science СС

  Previous issue (2022. Vol. 13, no. 1)

Included in Scopus

Included in Scopus

Journal Quartiles 2021
Details on

Social Psychology and Society

Publisher: Moscow State University of Psychology and Education

ISSN (printed version): 2221-1527

ISSN (online): 2311-7052


License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published since 2010

Published quarterly

Free of fees
Open Access Journal


Forgiveness and home environment as aspects of interpersonal interaction 551


Nartova-Bochaver S.K.
Doctor of Psychology, Professor of the School of Psychology, National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia

Adamyan A.A.
Postgraduate Student, School of Psychology, National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia

Objectives. Investigate the individual’s ability to forgive concerning the characteristics of a friendly home environment. Background. The article continues the series of works devoted to the role of the home environment in the interpersonal interaction. Everyday communication involves the distribution of different resources; this process requires personal qualities that ensure a tolerant attitude to violations of justice. Study design. At the first stage of the study, psychometric examination of the Russian-language Heartland Forgiveness Scale was carried out; at the second stage, a correlation study established the relationship between the qualities of a friendly home and the ability of the inhabitants to forgive. Participants. Five hundred ninety students (M=18,7, SD=1,1, 477 females, and 113 males). Measurements. Multi-scale questionnaires: Home Environment Functionality, Home Environment Relevance, and Home Attachment. Results. The Russian version of Heartland Forgiveness Scale includes two sub-scales Readiness to forgive and Lack of ruminations and has good reliability. The results of the main study were gender-sensitive. In females, the characteristics of a friendly home are positively related to the ability to forgive, while in males, they are negatively related. The highest number of connections is formed by functionality of home; in males — also by the home attachment. Conclusions. Against males, home implements amplifying function, and concerning girls — is ennobling; to develop the ability to forgive the young men need separation from home. The contribution of the home environment to the development of the ability to forgive is determined by the context of human development: both forgiveness and non-forgiveness are adaptive phenomena that are important for solving social problems, the content of which is set by the respondents’ gender.

Keywords: forgiveness, home environment, interpersonal relations, youth

Column: Non-thematic articles


Funding. The participation of S.K. Nartova-Bochaver was supported by RSF, project number 14-18-02163.

Acknowledgements. The authors are very grateful to Prof. Laura Thompson and Dr. Lesa Hoffmann for their kind permission to use the Heartland Forgiveness Scale as well as for their help in its adaptation.

For Reference



  1. Adamyan A.A., Nartova-Bochaver S.K., Shmitt M. Oprosnik «Chuvstvitel’nost’ k spravedlivosti»: validizatsiya na rossiiskoi vyborke [The “Justice Sensitivity Questionnaire”: validation in a Russian sample]. Psikhologicheskii zhurnal [Psychological Journal], 2018, no. 4 (39), pp. 120—132.
  2. Bol’shunova N.Ya., Ustinova O.A. Psikhologicheskie i sotsiokul’turnye smysly proshcheniya i razvitie sposobnosti k nemu [Psychological and Sociocultural meanings of the modern person]. In M.I. Volovikovoi, A.L. Zhuravleva, A.V. Yurevicha (ed.) Dukhovno-nravstvennye problemy sovremennoi lichnosti [Spiritual and moral problems of the modern person]. Moscow: «Institut psikhologii RAN», 2018. pp. 204—225.
  3. Gilligan C. Inym golosom: psikhologicheskaya teoriya i razvitie zhenshchin [In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development]. Eticheskaya mysl’: Nauchno-publitsisticheskie chteniya [Ethical thought: Scientific journalistic readings]. Moscow: Respublika, 1991. 446 p.
  4. Kononova A.P., Pugovkina O.D. The Validation of Tendency to Forgive and Attitudes Toward Forgiveness Scale on the Russian-Speaking Sample. Konsul’tativnaya psikhologiya i psikhoterapiya [Counseling Psychology and Psychotherapy], 2018. Vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 27—45. doi:10.17759/cpp.2018260403. (In Russ., аbstr. in Engl.)
  5. Krivcova S.V. Phenomenological approach in study of noodynamic experiences. Konsul’tativnaya psikhologiya i psikhoterapiya [Counseling Psychology and Psychotherapy], 2010. Vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 48—67. (In Russ., аbstr. in Engl.)
  6. Moskovchenko E.N. Domashnyaya sreda kak istochnik preventsii neblagopriyatnykh kachestv lichnosti (na primere temnoi triady) [The home environment as a source of prevention of the unfavorable personality traits (on the example of the dark triad)]. God ekologii v Rossii: pedagogika i psikhologiya v interesakh ustoichivogo razvitiya: sbornik statei nauchno-prakticheskoi konferentsii [Year of Ecology in Russia: pedagogy and psychology in the interests of sustainable development]. Moscow: Publ. «Pero», 2017. pp. 381—383.
  7. Nartova-Bochaver S.K., Astanina N.B. ‘Degradedness and Insultedness’ as Personality Trait: A Phenomenological Analysis of Victim Position. Sotsial’naya psikhologiya i obshchestvo [Social Psychology and Society], 2014. Vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 13—26. (In Russ., аbstr. in Engl.)
  8. Nartova-Bochaver S.K., Bochaver A.A., Reznichenko S.I., Khachaturova M.R. Dom i ego obitateli: psikhologicheskoe issledovanie [The house and its inhabitants: a psychological study.]. Moscow: Pamyatniki istoricheskoi mysli, 2018. 293 p.
  9. Reznichenko S.I., Nartova-Bochaver S.K., Kuznetsova V.B. Metod otsenki privyazannosti k domu [The Instrument for Assessment of Home Attachment]. Psikhologiya. Zhurnal Vysshei shkoly ekonomiki [Psychology. Journal of the Higher School of Economics], 2016. Vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 498—518.
  10. Tomil’tseva D.A. Opyt proshcheniya: sotsial’no-filosofskii analiz. Avtoref. diss. kand. philos.. nauk. [The experience of forgiveness: socio-philosophical analysis. Ph.D. (Philosophy) Thesis]. Ekaterinburg, 2010. 21 p.
  11. Chukova A.S. Sotsial’no-psikhologicheskie kharakteristiki proshcheniya kak fenomena mezhlichnostnogo obshcheniya. Avtoref. diss. kand. psikhol. nauk. [Socio-psychological characteristics of forgiveness as a phenomenon of interpersonal communication. PhD (Psychology) Thesis]. Saratov, 2011. 22 p.
  12. APA dictionary of psychology. In Gary R. Van den Bos (Ed.) Second Edition. York: Maple Press, 2015. 1204 p.
  13. Awang Z. Structural equation modeling using AMOS graphic. Penerbit Universiti Teknologi MARA, 2012. 167 p.
  14. Bartholomaeus J., Strelan P. Just world beliefs and forgiveness: The mediating role of implicit theories of relationships. Personality and Individual Differences, 2016. Vol. 96, pp. 106—110.
  15. Boszormenyi-Nagy I., Krasner B.R. Between give and take: A clinical guide to contextual therapy. New York, NY: Brunner/Mazel, 1986. 432 p. doi:10.2307/583562.
  16. Brown T. A. Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guilford Publications, 2014. 462 p.
  17. Case D. Contributions of journeys away to the definition of home: An empirical study of a dialectical process. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 1996, no. 16, pp. 1—15. doi:10.1006/jevp.1996.0001
  18. Di Masso A., Williams D.R., Raymond C.M., Buchecker M., Degenhardt B., Devine- Wright P., Stedman R. Between fixities and flows: Navigating place attachments in an increasingly mobile world. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2019. Vol. 61, pp. 125— 133. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.01.006
  19. Fincham F.D. Forgiveness: Integral to a science of close relationships. In: M. Mikulincer, Ph.R. Shaver (Eds.) Prosocial motives, emotions, and behavior: The better angels of our nature. NY: American Psychological Association (APA), 2009. pp. 347—365.
  20. Fitness J., Peterson J. Punishment and forgiveness in close relationships: An evolutionary, social-psychological perspective. Social relationships: Cognitive, affective, and motivational perspectives, 2008. pp. 255—69.
  21. Gilbert P., Mc Ewan K., Matos M., Rivis A. Fears of compassion: Development of three self-report measures. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, research and practice, 2011, no. 84(3), pp. 239—255.
  22. Girard M., Mullet É. Propensity to forgive in adolescents, young adults, older adults, and elderly people. Journal of Adult Development, 1997, no. 4, pp. 209—220.
  23. Heidegger M. Building, dwelling, thinking. In Poetry, language and thought. NY: Colophon Book, 1971. pp. 145—161.
  24. Holeman V.T., Dean J.B., De Shea L., Duba J.D. The multidimensional nature of the quest construct forgiveness, spiritual perception, and differentiation of self. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 2011. 39(1), pp. 31—43.
  25. Johansson L.-O. Preferences for equity and equality in scarcity and abundance. 15th Biennial Conference of the International Society for Justice Research June 19—22, 2014. NY: University Press, 2014. p. 102.
  26. Kalayjian A., Paloutzian R. F. Forgiveness and reconciliation. NY: Springer, 2009. 310 p.
  27. Kohlberg L. The claim to moral adequacy of a highest stage of moral judgment. Journal of Philosophy, 1973. Vol. 70, no. 18, pp. 630—646. doi:10.2307/2025030. JSTOR 2025030.
  28. Malcolm W.M., Greenberg L.S. 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. NY: Guilford, 2000. pp. 179—202.
  29. McCullough M.E., Witvliet C.V. The psychology of forgiveness. In: C.R. Snyder, S.J. Lopez (Eds.) Handbook of positive psychology. NY: Oxford, 2002. pp. 446—455.
  30. McCullough M.E., Worthington Jr.E.L., Rachal K.C. Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships. Journal of personality and social psychology, 1997. 73(2), pp. 321—336.
  31. Morgan P. Towards a developmental theory of place attachment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2010. Vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 11—22. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.07.001
  32. Thompson L.Y., Snyder C.R., Hoffman L., Michael S.T., Rasmussen H.N., Billings L.S., Heinze L., Neufeld J.E., Shorey H.S., Roberts J.C., Roberts D.E. Dispositional forgiveness of self, other, and situations. Journal of Personality, 2005. Vol. 73, pp. 313—359.
  33. Thoresen C. E. Forgiveness interventions: What is known and what needs knowing. CE Thoresen (Chair), Forgiveness and health-The Stanford forgiveness project symposium. Symposium conducted at the annual convention of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, 2001. pp. 93—101.
  34. Wade N. G., Worthington Jr E. L. Overcoming interpersonal offenses: Is forgiveness the only way to deal with unforgiveness? Journal of Counseling & Development, 2003. Vol. 81, no. 3, pp. 343—353.
  35. Wenzel M., Okimoto T.G. The varying meaning of forgiveness: Relationship closeness moderates how forgiveness affects feelings of justice. European Journal of Social Psychology, 2012, no. 42 (4), pp. 420—431.



© 2007–2022 Portal of Russian Psychological Publications. All rights reserved in Russian

Publisher: Moscow State University of Psychology and Education

Catalogue of academic journals in psychology & education MSUPE

Creative Commons License Open Access Repository     Webometrics Ranking of Repositories

RSS Psyjournals at Youtube ??????.???????