The discussion follows earlier research that used longitudinal data from a national panel in New Zealand to model hypothetical “forgiveness shift” scenarios. In that work, the researchers estimated how multidimensional well-being might change if people’s levels of forgivingness were different. Such scenarios are not clinical trials and do not show that a society can simply increase forgiveness by a predetermined amount. Instead, they are epidemiological thought experiments: statistical models designed to ask what population health might look like under a specified change in a psychosocial exposure. The new article argues that these estimates can stimulate useful public-health questions, but only if researchers are precise about what forgiveness means and cautious about translating modelled effects into policy.

At the heart of the debate is a deceptively difficult question: what counts as forgiveness? Many people understand it as an internal shift in which resentment, anger or ill-will toward an offender is replaced by benevolence or goodwill. Others see it as inseparable from social processes, including acknowledgement of harm, accountability, apology, restitution, reconciliation and repair. The authors accept that forgiveness is often socially embedded, but argue that it should not be defined so narrowly that it becomes impossible when an offender refuses to apologize, cannot be contacted or has died. A victim may recognize the injury and decide to relinquish hostility even when the person responsible never acknowledges what happened. In this view, relationships and social conditions can shape, enable or obstruct forgiveness without being mandatory components of the act itself.

That distinction is clinically and ethically important. Forgiveness is not the same as excusing wrongdoing, minimizing harm, restoring trust or ending boundaries. A person can forgive while still recognizing that an offense was serious, maintaining distance from an unsafe individual or seeking legal and social accountability. Conversely, reconciliation generally requires participation from more than one person, while forgiveness can occur unilaterally. The authors point to established approaches such as the REACH Forgiveness model, whose first step is to recall the hurt rather than deny it. Confronting the injury is intended to prevent forgiveness from becoming emotional suppression or a demand to pretend that nothing happened. A sincere apology can help the process, but the analysis warns against making an offender’s response a universal prerequisite.

Measuring forgiveness across entire populations creates another scientific problem. Quantitative researchers typically rely on questionnaires, sometimes containing only a few items, to estimate a complex psychological disposition. A brief scale cannot capture every fluctuation in resentment, empathy, moral reasoning, spirituality, perceived injustice or relationship dynamics. Forgiveness may unfold over months or years, with feelings changing as people reinterpret an event or encounter new information. A single survey response therefore functions as an indicator, not a complete representation of lived experience. The researchers compare this challenge with the measurement of other “thick” psychosocial concepts, such as love, hope and gratitude: each can be studied numerically, but no instrument fully contains the phenomenon it attempts to describe.

That does not make population research useless. Short measures can reveal how forgivingness is distributed across demographic groups, how it changes over time and whether it is associated with outcomes such as psychological well-being. They can also help identify groups that might benefit from voluntary resources. In the New Zealand Attitudes and Values Study, the authors argue, a three-item measure appears to track a broad process of replacing ill-will with goodwill across different transgressions. Yet such findings should be interpreted as approximations. Stronger conclusions require triangulation, in which survey results are examined alongside randomized trials, longitudinal studies, qualitative interviews and implementation research. Combining methods can show not only whether forgiveness is associated with better outcomes, but also how people understand it and which forms of support are acceptable in different communities.

The analysis also addresses the mechanisms through which forgiveness interventions might work. Unlike a drug with a defined dose and molecular target, a forgiveness program may contain several overlapping ingredients: recalling the offense, reducing rumination, developing empathy, changing interpretations of the offender, deciding to behave differently and engaging in religious or philosophical reflection. Previous intervention research suggests that different programs often share core elements and can produce broadly comparable effects, raising the possibility of common psychological pathways. But the same program may work through different routes for different people. One participant may benefit mainly from processing resentment, another from empathy, and another from a deliberate decision to wish the offender well. This heterogeneity does not necessarily undermine causal effects; it reflects the fact that complex psychosocial interventions can generate change through multiple interacting processes.

This flexibility may make forgiveness interventions adaptable, but it also complicates the idea of scaling them up. Workbooks, online programs, classroom lessons, public campaigns and manualized psychotherapies can reach many people at relatively low cost. Yet reach is not the same as moral or character formation. The authors respond that psychologically informed interventions need not be shallow: models developed around forgiveness as a moral virtue can serve as structured entry points for sustained reflection and practice. The self-directed REACH workbook, for example, includes self-examination, empathy-building, repeated practice and an “altruistic gift of forgiveness” exercise intended to encourage willing the good of an offender. A brief intervention may therefore be a starting point for a longer process rather than a promise of instant emotional relief.

Community delivery could be crucial to making such efforts meaningful rather than culturally imposed. A forgiveness campaign in a Colombian university invited participants to engage through journaling, videos, webinars, experiential exercises and a self-directed workbook, allowing people to choose among several forms of participation. The authors envision similar programs working with trusted educators, mental-health professionals, faith leaders and community organizations. These “force multipliers” could adapt materials to local traditions and recognize when a particular exercise is inappropriate. Rather than replacing existing religious, moral, educational or restorative practices, external resources could supplement them. A pluralistic strategy might combine backward-looking support for unresolved interpersonal injuries with forward-looking education designed to cultivate empathy, emotional regulation and forgiving dispositions.

The strongest warning in the article concerns situations involving power imbalances, coercion, abuse or ongoing danger. Encouraging a survivor to forgive prematurely can shift responsibility away from an offender, weaken protective boundaries or imply that healing requires reconciliation. In such settings, agency, safety, justice and restitution must come first. The authors therefore describe forgiveness resources as voluntary and context-sensitive, not as universal interventions to be imposed by governments, clinicians, institutions or religious communities. They also emphasize that forgiveness is only one possible response to wrongdoing. Public-health strategies should leave room for accountability, repair, redemption, reconciliation and justified non-reconciliation. The broader promise of forgiveness research, they conclude, lies not in making everyone forgive, but in expanding informed access to diverse resources that people can choose—or decline—in ways consistent with their values, circumstances and safety.

The research team, led by Professor Lydia Woodyatt from the College of Education, Psychology and Social Work at Flinders University, embarked on an exploratory qualitative study aimed at understanding why some people manage to forgive themselves fully while others remain mired in feelings of unrelenting guilt. The participants shared deeply personal stories, revealing variations in how individuals perceive and process past wrongdoings. Significantly, the analysis identified that those struggling with self-forgiveness often described their memories as vivid and ever-present, suggesting that the passage of time does not necessarily mitigate the emotional burden associated with these events.

A striking finding involves the repetitive mental replaying of the incident, which appears to anchor individuals in the past and exacerbate feelings of shame, regret, guilt, and self-blame. For many, these emotional responses are not transient but persistent and intense, underscoring the deep psychological impact of certain life experiences. Contrastingly, those who achieved self-forgiveness reported that, while memories and emotions did resurface occasionally, they were less overwhelming and no longer directed the course of their lives. This distinction points to the nuanced nature of forgiveness, which extends beyond simply “letting go” to a dynamic and ongoing cognitive and emotional process.

Professor Woodyatt emphasizes that self-forgiveness should not be simplistically equated with forgetting or suppressing painful memories. Instead, it involves an active engagement with one’s emotions and an acceptance of human fallibility. People who successfully navigate this process tend to consciously direct their focus toward future goals, acknowledge the limitations of their knowledge or control at the time of the event, and reconnect with their core values. This future-oriented mindset underpins the gradual rebuilding of moral identity and psychological agency, enabling individuals to regain a sense of autonomy and dignity despite past mistakes.

Importantly, the study reveals that self-forgiveness is especially complicated for those who feel they have failed significant others—such as children, partners, or close friends—or who themselves have been victims of harm. These contexts complicate emotional resolution because feelings of responsibility and relational betrayal are deeply intertwined with personal identity and moral self-concept. Professor Woodyatt’s work challenges the conventional assumption that self-forgiveness is solely reserved for those who have clearly committed transgressions; instead, she argues that moral injury and self-condemnation can arise even when individuals are victims or when outcomes were beyond their control.

From a neuropsychological perspective, the researchers interpret emotions like shame, guilt, and self-blame as indicators of moral injury—a core disturbance in anticipated psychological needs such as agency and belonging. The brain appears to signal these injuries by generating negative affective states, which serve as targets for psychological repair. Healing, therefore, necessitates more than cognitive reframing; it requires addressing the underlying disruptions to a person’s sense of choice, autonomy, and social connectedness.

The study also highlights that self-forgiveness is not a single epiphanic moment but rather a gradual process unfolding over time. This process often involves reflection, emotional regulation, and, critically, support from others such as therapists, counselors, or trusted confidants. Mental health professionals working with clients facing entrenched guilt and shame must look beyond surface affirmations and assist individuals to explore the origins of their self-condemnation. Facilitating moral repair involves reaffirming an individual’s moral values and identity, thereby restoring their capacity for agency and self-acceptance.

Adding an important interdisciplinary dimension, criminologist and psychologist Dr. Melissa de Vel-Palumbo of the College of Business, Government and Law at Flinders University points out the study’s relevance to criminology and offender rehabilitation. Understanding how people process guilt and responsibility offers valuable insights into patterns of offending behavior and rehabilitation trajectories. The firsthand narratives gathered, encompassing experiences spanning decades, provide a rare and detailed view of how guilt and related emotions evolve, persist, or resolve over time.

Technically, this research utilized qualitative survey methods, involving participants who shared rich personal reflections rather than quantitative metrics alone. Such an approach allowed the disciplinary team to capture the lived experience and subjective nuances essential for comprehending the multifaceted nature of self-forgiveness. The article titled “What makes self-forgiveness so difficult (for some)? Understanding the lived experience of those stuck in self-condemnation” articulates these findings in detail and offers a significant contribution to the psychological literature on forgiveness, moral injury, and identity repair.

The implications of this research extend beyond academic circles, resonating with anyone grappling with self-directed negative emotions. It challenges cultural narratives that simplistically frame forgiveness as a binary choice and instead reveals a layered process demanding patience, self-compassion, and psychological insight. By unraveling the complexity embedded in self-forgiveness, the study opens pathways for tailored therapeutic interventions and a deeper public understanding of why truly forgiving oneself is often one of the most difficult, yet transformative, psychological challenges an individual can face.

In sum, the Flinders University study underscores the importance of acknowledging the persistence of emotional pain and the slow, reflective journey toward self-forgiveness. It confirms that this process entails a renegotiation of self-identity, a recommitment to personal values, and a restoration of agency and belonging. Through these mechanisms, individuals move from being prisoners of their past toward renewed moral and psychological wellbeing.

Subject of Research: People

Article Title: What makes self-forgiveness so difficult (for some)? Understanding the lived experience of those stuck in self-condemnation

News Publication Date: 3-Jun-2025

Web References:

• https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2025.2513878
• https://www.flinders.edu.au/people/lydia.woodyatt
• https://www.flinders.edu.au/people/melissa.devel-palumbo

References:
Woodyatt, L., de Vel-Palumbo, M., Barron, A., Harous, C., Wenzel, M., & de Silva, S. (2025). What makes self-forgiveness so difficult (for some)? Understanding the lived experience of those stuck in self-condemnation. Self and Identity. DOI:10.1080/15298868.2025.2513878

Image Credits: Flinders University

Keywords: self-forgiveness, guilt, shame, moral injury, psychological agency, identity repair, mental health, emotional processing, moral values, rehabilitation, qualitative research, psychological wellbeing