Forgiveness and the appraisal-coping process in response to relationship conflicts: Implications for depressive symptoms
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present investigation assessed the mediating role of appraisal-coping processes in the relation between forgiveness and depressive symptoms associated with intimate relationship conflicts. Study 1 assessed the role of forgiveness in the context of a severe relationship stressor, namely women experiencing dating abuse, along with the appraisal-coping responses and depressive symptoms associated with such a stressor. Study 2 evaluated the function served by forgiveness among men and women in response to non-abusive relationship stressors, including the dissolution of the relationship, and also assessed the relations among forgiveness, appraisal-coping processes, and depressive symptoms. Women who encountered dating abuse were less likely to forgive their partners, and this was linked to higher levels of depressive symptoms. The relation between forgiveness and lower depressive symptoms was partially mediated by lower threat appraisals, secondary appraisals of the effectiveness of emotion-focused coping, and the reduced endorsements of this coping strategy (Study 1). Appraisal-coping processes similarly mediated the relation between forgiveness and depressive symptoms among men and women reporting conflict in an ongoing (non-abusive) relationship or a relationship break-up (Study 2). It is suggested that the relation between forgiveness and diminished distress operates primarily by guiding individuals' appraisals of the conflict and by diminishing the reliance on emotion-focused coping.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it