Showing papers by "Michael E. McCullough published in 1994"
TL;DR: Forgiving is hypothesized to yield cognitive, emotional, and interpersonal benefits to individuals who forgive others of significant interpersonal offenses, though little evidence supports these claims as discussed by the authors, and the literature addressing forgiving and its use as a counseling technique is reviewed.
Abstract: The literature addressing forgiving and its use as a counseling technique is reviewed. Forgiving is hypothesized to yield cognitive, emotional, and interpersonal benefits to individuals who forgive others of significant interpersonal offenses, though little evidence supports these claims. Religious counselors and clients value forgiveness and its implementation in counseling, and forgiveness is frequently encouraged in religious counseling. However, forgiveness receives little attention from many non-religious professionals and remains to be investigated critically. In light of the potential benefits associated with forgiving, researchers and practitioners are encouraged to consider forgiveness as a therapeutic technique and to investigate its effects scientifically.
144 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors evaluate the current state of model building concerning interpersonal forgiveness and offer suggestions for directing future conceptual work, and present a review of models of interpersonal forgiveness for counseling.
Abstract: Models of interpersonal forgiveness and their applications to counseling were reviewed. Although many models of the psychology of forgiveness exist, their impact on empirical research and practice has been minimal. The authors evaluate the current state of model building concerning interpersonal forgiveness and offer suggestions for directing future conceptual work.
100 citations
TL;DR: This paper argued that the results obtained from Snyder and Rice's suggested methodologies are neither appreciably different from the original results nor significantly different from their original results. But they also argued that their suggested methods emphasize a different research question that our original question, we investigated productivity of authous and institutions, not im-pact of scholars on the fiels of marital therapy.
Abstract: Snhyder and Rice (1994) comment that Shortz, Worthington, McCullough, DeVries, and Morrow (1994) failed to use sophisticated methods in their identification of prolific authors, institutions, and journals within the field of mari-tal therapy. This article is a response to Snyder and rice. We argue that Snyder and Rice's suggested methods emphasize a different research question that ouroriginal question, We investigated productivity of authous and institutions, not im-pact of scholars on the fiels of marital therapy. furthermore, we demonstrate that the results obtained from Snyder and Rice's suggested methodologies are nor appreciably different from our original results.
7 citations