Impact of Forgiveness on Marital Trust: Mediating Role of Emotional Reconciliation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to examine the effect of forgiveness on marital trust with emotional reconciliation as a mediating variable among married individuals in Hong Kong. A descriptive correlational design was employed using a sample of 381 married participants, selected based on Krejcie and Morgan's sample size table for large populations. Data were collected using standardized self-report questionnaires measuring forgiveness, emotional reconciliation, and marital trust. Descriptive statistics, Pearson correlation analysis, and Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) were conducted using SPSS-27 and AMOS-21 software. Assumptions for normality, linearity, multicollinearity, and homoscedasticity were tested and confirmed prior to the analysis. Pearson correlations revealed significant positive associations between forgiveness and emotional reconciliation (r = .62, p < .01), forgiveness and marital trust (r = .58, p < .01), and emotional reconciliation and marital trust (r = .55, p < .01). The SEM analysis demonstrated a good model fit (χ²/df = 2.14, CFI = 0.97, RMSEA = 0.045, TLI = 0.96). Forgiveness had a significant direct effect on emotional reconciliation (β = 0.62) and marital trust (β = 0.34), while emotional reconciliation significantly predicted marital trust (β = 0.37). The indirect effect of forgiveness on marital trust through emotional reconciliation was also significant (β = 0.23), indicating a partial mediating role. The total effect of forgiveness on marital trust was substantial (β = 0.57, p < .001). The findings suggest that forgiveness enhances marital trust both directly and indirectly through emotional reconciliation. These results underscore the importance of promoting emotional repair strategies in marital relationships to rebuild trust following interpersonal conflicts.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".