The Relationship of the Intention of
Revenge and the Tendency to
Forgive with Mental Health of
Employees in Organizations
Mahmut Akın - Mahmut Özdevecioğlu - Onur
Ünlü
*
**
***
Abstract: The main purpose of this research is to identify the relationship between the tendency to forgive, the intention of revenge
and mental health, and the effects of forgiveness tendency and revenge intention on mental health of employees. This research was
conducted in Kayseri and Yalova with 290 participants from various
government and private organizations. The results pointed to a significant and positive relationship between forgiving other people
and situations with mental health. Additionally, there was a significant negative relationship between revenge intention and mental
health. The results of regression analysis indicated that revenge intention had a significant negative effect on mental health, while the
relationship of forgiveness tendency positively and significantly affected mental health. Employee’s mental health was found to be
better than managers. The employee’s revenge intention was lower
than managers. Forgiveness tendency of married people was higher
than singles, while the mental health of singles was better than
married people.
Key Words: tendency to forgive, intention of revenge, mental
health, organizations.
INTRODUCTION
The intention of revenge and the tendency to forgive are not
among the subjects that are frequently studied in the organiza* Assis. Prof., Bozok University , FEAS, Department of Business Administration.
** Prof. Dr., Erciyes University , FEAS, Department of Business Administration.
*** Research Fellow., Yalova University, FEAS, Department of Business Administration.
TODAİE’s Review of Public Administration, Volume 6 No1 March 2012, p.101 -127.
102
TODAİE’s Review of Public Administration
tional behavior literature. Nevertheless, both the intention of revenge and tendency to forgive are commonly seen in various
organizational levels. Does getting revenge make individuals
psychologically feel good, or is the intention of revenge is a
psychologically disturbing feeling? Similarly, how does tendency to forgive affect the psychology of individuals? These questions form the basis of this study. Individuals’ perception of victimization in organizations is expected to affect their perceptions, attitudes, or behavior. The victims choose either revenge
or forgiveness. Undoubtedly, the perceived victimization may
lead to different attitudes or behavior as well. Nevertheless, this
study focuses only these two responses. The study has three
basic purposes: 1. To find out the relationships among forgiveness, revenge, and mental health. 2. To determine the effects of the tendency to forgive and the intention of revenge on
employees individually. 3. To identify the differences in the tendency to forgive, the intention of revenge and mental health by
certain personal traits.
If the study produces these results, it will be investigated
whether the tendency to forgive, the intention of revenge and
mental health are interrelated and affect one another, and
whether these elements differ by gender, manager gender,
marital status, level of education and the workplace status. This
information might contribute to better understanding of organizational life.
The study is expected to find a negative relationship between the tendency to forgive and the intention of revenge; a
positive relationship between the tendency to forgive and mental health; a negative relationship between the intention of revenge and mental health. As revenge and forgiveness involve
different patterns of behavior, it is naturally expected to find a
negative relationship between them. The reason for the expectation for a negative relationship between the tendency to forgive and the intention of revenge is the belief that resentment
and hostility that appear to be strong motivators of revenge
(Nelson et al., 2007: 247; Bies et al., 2007: 20; Cameron - Caza, 2002: 40) might have negative effects on mental health.
The Relationship of the Intention of Revenge and the Tendency to Forgive with 103
Mental Health of Employees in Organizations
Forgiveness, as the opposite of revenge is predicted to have
positive effects on mental health. In the literature, there are researches finding that an individual’s positive emotions favorably
contribute to his/her physical and mental health positive (Yperen, 2003: 1875). It cannot be predicted that individuals’ tendency to forgive, the intention of revenge, and their mental
health differ by their demographic characteristics. In the literature review, no study could be found to shed light on such prediction. Therefore, if the analyses to be conducted on demographic characteristics produce significant results, such findings might contribute to the literature.
THE LITERATURE REVIEW
The Intention of Revenge and the Tendency to Forgive
Organizational revenge and forgiveness are subjects that
have the potential to produce important results. Yet, there is
not enough study in this field especially in Turkey. Revenge is
defined as the infliction of harm in return for perceived wrong
(Aquino - Bradfield, 1999: 608). Revenge is an approach seeking to restore the perceived injustice to eliminate the perceived
inequality. The individual believes that when he or she gets revenge from the offender or the organization, he or she will ensure justice, and reestablish equality.
The feelings are very important in the revenge process. Particularly feelings like anger and hostility are the source of the intention of revenge (Nelson et al., 2007: 247; Bies et al., 2007:
20; Cameron - Caza, 2002: 40). The revenge behavior may be
displayed towards an individual or the organization (Aquino Bradfield, 1999: 608). The studies made so far reveal that revenge is the main source of most of the negative behaviors in
organizations. Significant relationships have been found between the intention of revenge and suicide, theft, neglect of duty, sabotage, and aggressive behavior (Sommers - Vodanovich,
2000: 114). These data point out that revenge behavior has extremely adverse effects for organizations and that its prevention
is essential.
104
TODAİE’s Review of Public Administration
Organizations, in order to avoid damages arising from revenge behavior, have to be careful particularly about justice
that constitutes the source of the intention of revenge. Individuals need to see their workplaces as fair, and therefore when
they perceive acts of unfairness, they need to see justice restored. They believe that justice will be restored by the offender
or organizational authorities, the victim does not have to get revenge. If they believe it will not be restored any other way, they
will seek to restore justice themselves––by their own hands.
The implication for organizations is clear: if they want peace,
they must ensure justice (Jones, 2004: 6; Madsen et al., 2009:
255; Bies et al., 2007: 12).
Individuals, who perceive injustice in the organization, response in different ways (Stillwell et al., 2008: 259). While some
make every effort to “revenge”, the others may choose “forgiveness” or “reconciliation” (Aquino - Bradfield, 1999: 608). In
some cases, these behaviors may manifest themselves as private confrontation, revenge fantasies, or social withdrawal (Vodanovich et al., 2002: 208). Aside from these, there are other
situations like the offender’s regret or the organization’s punishment. It is easier to forgive or attempt reconciliation with
people who already have been punished for their offenses (Bies
et al., 2007: 26).
However, the coping response the victim chooses also is
moderated by many other factors, such as opportunity for revenge, closeness of relationship between victim and offender,
power, organizational norms, personality traits, and gender.
The more power the victim has relative to the offender, the
more means the victim has for getting even; and, the more
means one has, the more likely one will use one of those
means (Bies et al., 2007: 14). When harmed by a superior, a
victim is likely to be inhibited from seeking revenge because
the offender is well positioned for counter-revenge. People who
have been harmed by someone with lower status have less fear
of serious counter-revenge (Aquino et al., 2006: 654). In this
process, it is seen that before adopting the behavior of revenge,
people, in order to protect themselves from counter-retaliation,
The Relationship of the Intention of Revenge and the Tendency to Forgive with 105
Mental Health of Employees in Organizations
think over the other’s likely counter-revenge and thus, act accordingly.
Another important feature of the offense is how severe it is.
While perceived severity and perceived unfairness are likely correlated––because the greater the injustice then the greater the
moral outrage (Aquino - Bradfield, 1999: 625; Bies et al., 2007:
17). Several other studies on workplace conflict also have
found evidence of covariation between traits and aggression––
especially that people who are high in negative affectivity are
more likely to seek revenge for a perceived wrong (Bies et al.,
2007: 11). It is an expected situation that individuals have different tendencies as regards revenge due to their different personal traits.
If a person, who is victimized, chooses revenge, he or she
seeks to reestablish equality and to ensure justice. This is a
natural response in one’s own point of view. The individual has
the right to revenge. However, it is observed that those, who
are the target of revenge, do not have the same viewpoint and
are not inclined to revenge, though they harmed the relevant
person. It is often seen that revenge fails to establish equality,
because the offenders, who are taken revenge, think they have
been humiliated and victimized. This belief leads the individual
towards a new behavior of revenge (Aquino - Bradfield, 1999:
609). This chain of revenge may continue for weeks, months,
years or even for generations. It is known that the reason for
feuds and vendettas that continue for years stem from differences in perceptions between the two parties that make it difficult to resolve the matter in a way that both will see the outcome as fair (Stillwell et al., 2008: 253). The existence of such
revengeful people in organizations poses a serious threat to the
organization. The individual, who acts with powerful negative
feelings accompanied by the intention of revenge, cannot focus
on his job, as he or she spends his or her all effort and energy
in pursuit of revenge; thus, his or her effectiveness and efficiency decrease. This situation results in the decrease in the performance of the organization.
106
TODAİE’s Review of Public Administration
Although there are views that revenge can restore a person’s
damaged status, and may even improve job performance, revenge is generally criticized as being harmful to the victim, the
offender, and their relationship (Aquino - Bradfield, 1999: 609).
Forgiveness is a complex of affective, cognitive, and behavioral phenomena in which negative affect and judgment toward
the offender are diminished, not by denying one’s right to such
affect and judgment, but by viewing the offender with compassion, benevolence, and love (Cosgrove - Konstam, 2008: 1;
Aquino - Bradfield, 1999: 610). Forgiveness occurs when an
offended party chooses to abandon resentment, negative
judgment, bitterness, and indifferent behavior in response to an
offense. Those negative emotions and attitudes are replaced by
positive emotions, affirmative motivations, and prosocial behavior toward the offender (Cameron - Caza, 2002: 37). It is also possible for the forgiver to make an effort at reconciliation.
Although it seems difficult for an offended and victimized person not only to forget the things happened, but also to view the
offender with compassion, benevolence, and love, the studies
indicate that this is possible. A study found that conditional
forgiveness was a strong preference of crime victims. Based on
interviews with 140 victims, the researchers found that 41% of
the subjects reported that rehabilitating the offender would be
the “fairest thing to happen” in situations in which the subjects
had been the victims of a crime. In contrast, only 29% wanted
“retribution” (Aquino - Bradfield,1999: 610).
Forgiveness is generally discussed in three sub-dimensions:
forgiveness of self, others and some situations, which nobody
is responsible for (Thompson et al., 2005: 350). Selfforgiveness in individuals refers giving up to blame himself or
herself for a mistake, which he or she did knowingly or unknowingly. Forgiveness of others is individual’s ability to forgive
a person, who hurt him or her. In forgiving the situations that
are beyond one’s control, the individual gets hurt from an incident and suffers; he or she does not know the person, who
caused his or her suffering, and forgives this situation.
The Relationship of the Intention of Revenge and the Tendency to Forgive with 107
Mental Health of Employees in Organizations
The philosophical origin of forgiveness is religious beliefs.
Forgiveness is a construct that has its roots in religion. Some
construct of forgiveness can be found in all of the world’s major
religions (Madsen et al., 2009: 247; Nussbaum, 2007: 418;
Butler - Mullis, 2001: 262). All of the world's major religious
traditions–Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism–
consider forgiveness a virtue to which human beings should
aspire (Cameron - Caza, 2002: 37). The studies indicate that
people with high religious involvement are less inclined to the
intention of revenge and more inclined to forgiveness (Lesley et
al., 2005: 37).
Both theoreticians and practitioners attach great importance
to forgiveness, because in organizations, the tendency to forgive plays a major role in restoring the relations between employees. Unforgiving individuals within an organization and/or
an unforgiving organizational culture in general can result in
lower levels of performance at all levels (Madsen et al., 2009:
246).
According to the studies, forgiveness has significant benefits
employees and thus, for organization. Forgiveness has favorable effects on physical and mental health such as greater life
satisfaction, empowerment, self-esteem, faster healing of diseases, and allows for achieving social and emotional balance.
Moreover, it was found that organizational forgiveness was associated with higher morale, satisfaction and productivity, and
downsized concerns, depressive feelings, and voluntary employment turnover. Hence, forgiveness protects interpersonal
relationships within organization, and creates more humane
and trustworthy environment (Cameron - Caza, 2002: 40;
Aquino - Bradfield, 1999: 610; Madsen et al., 2009: 250; Butler
- Mullis, 2001: 262). The use of forgiveness as a means of
therapy by the therapists might also give a clue about its benefits (Barber et al., 2005: 254.
Forgiveness may also be used as a conflict management in
organizations, and may have important benefits. In some organizations, “forgiveness” is encouraged as a method of “conflict” management (Butler - Mullis, 2001: 84). Establishing a
108
TODAİE’s Review of Public Administration
culture of forgiveness in the organization that encourages reconciliation among employees may be helpful in reducing conflicts and creating an atmosphere of peace within the organization. The manager should get involved quickly before the victim
has time to avenge: The manager as mediator should get the
offender to initiate relationship repair with the victim by encouraging the offender to apologize and give restitution (Bies et
al., 2007: 31). The use of understanding of forgiveness as a
means supporting the existing conflict management methods
in settling organizational conflicts might have significant benefits.
Due to all these benefits of forgiveness listed above, some
organizations attempt to increase their employees’ tendency to
forgive via different methods. The first and the most important
step in establishing a forgiving culture in an organization is, first
of all, to be able to ensure self-forgiveness. If one acknowledges that he or she is not perfect, it becomes easier to tolerate
other people’s mistakes. Every person from time to time may
do “foolish” things and thus, may experience failures. Not being haunted by such mistakes and forgiving one’s self can be
regarded as an important step to forgive others (Grant, 2008:
15). Holding on to an angry memory is an important part of
not being able to forgive oneself. Similarly, thoughts of revenge
are dominant when they do not want to forgive others. Identifying and understanding the part that angry memories and
thoughts of revenge play in relation to the failure to forgive is
useful for the further development of forgiveness interventions
(Barber et al., 2005: 259).
It is possible to strengthen employees’ tendency to forgive
through forgiveness training programs as well. Particularly,
empathy-building programs are found to strengthen employees’ tendency to forgive (Madsen et al., 2009: 256). The studies
have found that there is a significant positive relationship between being extrovert, ability to empathy, positive emotionality
and forgiveness (Lesley et al., 2005: 37).
Forgiveness, despite its being developable and all its benefits, may not always be a virtue, if forgiveness is offered without
The Relationship of the Intention of Revenge and the Tendency to Forgive with 109
Mental Health of Employees in Organizations
the offended individual’s acknowledgment of the moral injustice and injury, it may lead to self-deprecation. (Aquino - Bradfield, 1999: 611). If the offender won’t repent and apologize, or
if the offense is so severe or of the wrong type that no apology
would be sufficient, or if the offender has a history of offenses
followed by empty apologies, then forgiveness will not be a an
appropriate approach (Bies et al., 2007: 29).
Mental Health
Another subject of this study is mental health. Mental health
is more than merely the absences of mind, mental disorder or
illness or other problems (Paulus, 2009: 289). The World
Health Organization defines mental health as “a state of wellbeing in which every individual realizes his or her own potential,
can cope with the normal stresses of life, can work productively
and fruitfully, and is able to make a contribution to her or his
community” (Erginöz, 2008: 32). According to the World
Health Report (who.int, 1998), mental disorders lead to loss of
labor force more than physical disorders. A study conducted in
Turkey found that the rate of mental disorders seen in patients,
who applied to community health centers for primary health
care services, was between 20% and 30% (Kelleci et al., 2003:
1). These figures indicate that mental disorders are quite
common, and therefore have to be taken seriously.
A person’s sickness is not merely the problem of that person. This problem is in an interaction with the society he or she
lives in, primarily his or her family, and the organization he or
she works for (Erginöz, 2008: 31). Therefore, taking measures
at the societal and organization level assumes great importance
to enable individuals to maintain their mental health.
The maintenance of mental health necessitates knowing the
factors affecting it. There are numerous factors that affect
mental health (Özdevecioğlu et al., 2009: 2). Genetic factors,
living circumstances, workplace conditions, economic conditions, and climate conditions are among these factors. It is reported that employees’ tendency to forgive is among of the factors affecting mental health in the organizational environment.
110
TODAİE’s Review of Public Administration
Forgiveness improves mental health, whereas non-forgiveness
weakens mental health (Nelson et al., 2007: 247; Madsen et al.,
2009: 249; Maltby et al., 2004: 1630).
Not only organizational environment affects employees’
mental health positively or negatively, but also the organization
is positively or negatively affected by employees’ mental health.
Mental health issues of employees pose a serious threat to the
organizational performance (Leka et al., 2004: 184). It is reported that employee depression and similar mental disorders
may have their greatest impact on productivity losses, including
increased absenteeism and short-term disability, low performance, workplace accidents, higher turnover, and suboptimal
performance at work, thus exerting a significant cost burden for
employers (Goetzel et al., 2002: 320; Alan- Kahn., 2005: 1099;
Wayne et al., 2008: 78; Parker et al., 2009: 1137; Trotter et al.,
2009: 739). Moreover, employee mental health has a direct
impact on job satisfaction; the rate of health expenses caused
by employees with mental disorders is 70% more than caused
by others (Dunnagan et al., 2001: 1073). These findings point
to the size of cost of employees with non-mental employees to
the organizations. The studies have found that the expenses
made for the maintenance and treatment of employee mental
health in organizations are rapidly recovered thanks to the decreased absenteeism and productivity (Wayne et al., 2008: 90).
All these findings from studies indicate that worker health influences worker productivity, and that productivity has a positive impact on organizational performance and competitiveness
(Goetzel et al., 2002: 321). Therefore, conscious managers are
expected care about the factors that might affect the employee
mental health in organizational environment and to take necessary measures.
THE SURVEY METHOD
Universe and Sample
The universe of the survey was composed of public and private sector employees in Kayseri and Yalova. The number of
The Relationship of the Intention of Revenge and the Tendency to Forgive with 111
Mental Health of Employees in Organizations
active insured employees in Kayseri was 143.093. 13.138 respondents were employed in government institutions and
129.955 were from the private sector (kayseri.gov.tr, 06.
06.2011). In Yalova, the number of active insured employees
was 46.299. Thus, the universe of the survey was comprised of
total 189.392 employees (yalova.gov.tr, 06.06.2011.). The size
of the sample to be chosen within 5% confidence interval was
322 (Kurtuluş, 1998: 236). This survey was conducted by the
method of convenience sampling (Nakip, 2003: 184) in a university, banks, and hospitals as public organizations, and in a
furniture manufacturing enterprise, a private hospital, banks,
and a logistic company as private organizations. Total 598
questionnaire forms were distributed in the scope of the survey;
only 290 questionnaire forms were returned. The questionnaire
return rate was nearly 50%. The sample was supposed to represent the universe, despite a small constraint. The reason for
not conducting the survey in a specific sector was to catch the
perception differences. Certain common characteristics that
might be shared by different sectors necessitated the conduct
of the survey in different sectors.
The demographic characteristics of 290 respondents participated in the survey were as follows: 91% (264) were workers
and 9% (26) at various levels of management; 50.2% were men
(146) and 49.8% women (144); 66.5% married (193) and
33.5% single (97); 38% with primary education (110), 33% with
high school education (96, 29% with university education (84).
Besides, the manager of 75.9% were male (220) and of 24.1%
were female (70).
Data Collection Tools
The data of the survey were gathered through a questionnaire
form. The questionnaire form consisted of four sections. The
first section contained Heartland Forgiveness Scale (Thompson
et al., 2005: 350). The scale was composed of three six-item
subscales: Forgiveness of self, forgiveness of others and forgiveness of situations and incidents. It was a 5-point scale; 1Never and 5-Always. The reliability of the forgiveness of self
112
TODAİE’s Review of Public Administration
sub-scale was found 0.79, that of the forgiveness of others subscale as 0.8 and that of forgiveness of situations as 0.82. The
scale was translated into Turkish by the authors (Annex-1).
The second section measured mental health of the participants. The data pertaining to mental health were collected by
using The Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale developed at Warwick and Edinburgh Universities (hpns.nhs.uk,
2006). The scale contained 14 items. It was a 5-point scale; 1Never and 5-Always. The scale was translated into Turkish by
the authors. The reliability of the scale was calculated as 0.86
(Annex-3).
The revenge scale comprised the third section of the questionnaire form. The scale was developed by Wade (Wade,
1989: 59), and consisted of five statements. It was a 5-point
scale; 1- Never and 5-Always. The reliability of the scale was
found as 0.86. The scale was translated into Turkish by the authors. The last section of the questionnaire form contained the
items aiming to determine the demographic characteristics of
the respondents (Annex-2).
Findings
The Means of the Survey Variables and Their Correlations
The means of the survey variables and their Correlations are
shown in Table 1.
The Relationship of the Intention of Revenge and the Tendency to Forgive with 113
Mental Health of Employees in Organizations
Table 1. The Means of the Survey Variables and Their
Correlations
1. Forgiving
X
SS
1
2
3
4
3.47
1.01
1.00
2.87
1.00
0.16**
1.00
3.28
1.24
0.33**
0.16**
1.00
2.01
0.95
0.02
-
-0.09
1.00
0.16**
-
5
oneself
2. Forgiving
others
3. Forgiving
the situation
4. Intention of
revenge
5. Mental
0.26**
4.01
0.99
0.07
0.17**
health
6. Forgiving in
1.00
0.28**
3,19
0,08
0.71**
0.67**
0.81**
-0.14*
0.15**
general
**p<0.01 *p<0.05
Table 1 shows that the intention of revenge was relatively
low; the tendency to forgive was relatively high and mental
health was relatively high.
There were significant positive relationship between forgiveness of self and forgiveness of others and situations. It can
be said based on this finding that a person has to tend to forgive oneself first, in order to strengthen his or her tendency to
forgive others and situations.
However, no significant relationships were found between
forgiveness of self and the intention of revenge and between
forgiveness of self and mental health. On the other hand, forgiveness of others had a negative relationship with the intention of revenge, and a positive relationship with mental health.
That is to say, the individual’s forgiveness of others weakens
the intention of revenge and improves mental health. Alterna-
114
TODAİE’s Review of Public Administration
tively, the more mental health improves, the weaker the intention of revenge is, while the tendency to forgive others increases. There was not a significant relationship between some situations (3), which the individual never forgave, and the intention
of revenge. However, a significant positive relationship was
found between forgiveness of situations and mental health. Another relationship in the table points to the correlation between
the intention of revenge and mental health. There was a negative relationship between these two variables. In other words, as
the individual’s intention of revenge increases, his or her mental
health gets worse. Reversely, as mental health gets worse, the
intention of revenge increases. Lastly, the table indicates that
the tendency to forgive in general had a significant negative relationship with the intention of revenge, and a significant positive relationship with mental health.
The Effect of the Tendency to Forgive on Mental Health
Here, the effect of tendency to forgive in general on the individual’s mental health was analyzed. The results of the regression analysis are given in Table 2.
Table 2. The Regression Analysis on the Effect of the
Tendency to Forgive on Mental Health
R
R2
Adjusted R2
F
Level of
Significance
0.153
Tendency to
0.023
0.020
6.904
Standardized Beta
T
0.153
2.628
0.009
0.009
forgive
Dependent variable: Mental health. Independent variable: Tendency to forgive
The table above shows that the tendency to forgive had a
significant positive effect on mental health (Beta: 0.15, Significance: 0.009). The tendency to for-give explained 0.002 of the
variance of individual’s mental health.
The Relationship of the Intention of Revenge and the Tendency to Forgive with 115
Mental Health of Employees in Organizations
The Effect of Sub-Dimensions of the Tendency to
Forgive on Mental Health
The tendency to forgive consists of three sub-dimensions:
forgiveness of self, forgiveness of others and forgiveness of situations. In this study, the effects of each of the sub-dimensions
on mental health were investigated by regression analysis. The
absence of relationship between forgiveness of self and mental
health made the causality analysis unnecessary. Table 3 shows
the results of re-egression analysis for the effects of forgiveness
of others on mental health.
Table 3. The Regression Analysis on the Effect of Forgiving
Others on Mental Health
R
R2
Adjusted R2
F
Level of
Significance
0.172
0.030
0.026
8.783
Standardized
t
0.003
Beta
Forgiving others
0.172
2.964
0.003
Dependent variable: Mental health. Independent variable: Forgiving others
The results of the analysis indicated that forgiveness of others had a significant positive effect on mental health (Beta:
0.026, Significance: 0.003). Forgiveness of others explained
0.026 of the variance of mental health.
The results of regression analysis for the effects of forgiveness of situations on mental health are shown in Table 4.
116
TODAİE’s Review of Public Administration
Table 4. The Regression Analysis on the Effect of Forgiving
Various Situations on Mental Health
R2
R
Adjusted R2
F
Level of
Significance
0.164
0.027
0.024
7.998
Standardized Be-
T
0.005
ta
Forgiving the situation
0.64
2.828
0.005
Dependent variable: Mental health. Independent variable: Forgiving the situation
Forgiveness of situations was found to have a significant
positive effect on mental health (Beta: 0.64, Significance:
0.005). Forgiveness of situations explained 0.024 of the variance of mental health.
The Effect of the Intention of Revenge on Mental Health
The effect of the intention of revenge on mental health was
investigated by regression analysis. The results of the analysis
are given in the following table.
Table 5. The Regression Analysis on the Effect of the
Intention of Revenge on Mental Health
R2
R
Adjusted R2
F
Level of
Significance
0.281
0.079
0.076
24.679
Standardized
t
0.000
Beta
Intention of
-0.281
-4.968
0.000
revenge
Dependent variable: Mental health. Independent variable: Intention of revenge
The Relationship of the Intention of Revenge and the Tendency to Forgive with 117
Mental Health of Employees in Organizations
The results of the analysis indicated that the intention of revenge had a significant effect on mental (Beta: -0.28, Significance: 0.000). The intention of revenge explained 0.076 of the
variance of mental health.
As the purpose of the study was to determine the effect of
the intention of revenge as a single variable on mental health,
multiple regression analysis by also including demographic variables was not conducted.
The Differences in the Respondents’ Tendency to Forgive, the Intention of Revenge and Mental Health by Demographic Variables
The third purpose of the study was stated as identifying the
differences in tendency to forgive, the intention of revenge and
mental health by demographic Variables. For this purpose, difference analyses were administered. The analyses found no
significant difference by gender in terms of the tendency to forgive, the intention of revenge and mental health.
The difference analyses made for managers or workers indicated that man-ager had higher tendency to revenge than
workers, while workers’ mental health was better than of managers. The results are provided in Table 6 below. As the number of managers and workers was not equal, the reliability of
the results obtained is not high (Nakip, 2003: 351). Nevertheless, Table 6 might give an opinion.
Table 6. The Differences in Tendency to Forgive, Intention
of Revenge and Mental Health by Job Position
Worker
Manager
t
Level of
Significance
Intention of revenge
1.92
2.37
-1.985*
0.048
Mental Health
4.05
3.51
3.359**
0.001
*p<0.05, **p<0.001
As for marital status, married respondents had higher tendency to forgive than singles, whereas singles had better men-
118
TODAİE’s Review of Public Administration
tal health. This analysis was found to significant at 90% confidence internal. The results are given in Table 7 below.
Table 7. The Differences in Tendency to Forgive, Intention
of Revenge and Mental Health by Marital Status
Married
Single
t
Level of
Significance
Tendency to
3.26
3.09
1.718*
0.077
3.93
4.07
-
0.075
forgive
Mental health
1.759*
*p<0.10
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
This study was conducted to investigate identify the relationship between the tendency to forgive, the intention of revenge and mental health, and the effects of forgiveness tendency and revenge intention on mental health of employees by
demographic characteristics. The study results pointed to significant relationships between the survey variables, statistical
causality, and significant differences. The study found a significant relationship between forgiveness of self, forgiveness of
others and forgiveness of situations and mental health. Thus, it
can be said that forgiveness of others and situations may contribute to mental disorders. There was not a significant relationship between forgiveness of self and mental health. Therefore, forgiveness of situations may not improve an individual’s
mental health. On the other hand, forgiveness of others and
situations has a favorable impact on mental health. The finding
that he tendency to forgive had a significant positive effect on
mental health is consistent with the literature (Cameron - Caza,
2002: 40; Aquino - Bradfield, 1999: 610; Madsen et al., 2009:
250; Butler - Mullis, 2001: 262). The available studies have investigated the relationship between general tendency to forgive
and mental health, but no analysis was conducted on the sub-
The Relationship of the Intention of Revenge and the Tendency to Forgive with 119
Mental Health of Employees in Organizations
dimensions of forgiveness. Therefore, the findings of this study
on the individual effects of the sub-dimensions of forgiveness
assume great importance.
According to the results of the study, general tendency to
forgive, regardless of sub-dimensions, ensures mental relaxation in individuals. Forgiving others by not addressing unfair
treatments, messing with the offenders, or making no effort to
revenge does not occupy individuals. Thus, they feel relaxed
psychologically. Undoubtedly, the mental health of the forgiver
should also be investigated in other studies. While the forgiver
relaxes, does the forgiven get relaxed? This should be investigated in a separate study.
The relationship of the sub-dimensions of forgiveness was
also investigated in the study. As the sub-dimension of forgiveness of self had not relationship with mental health, there
was no causality. The analyses revealed that forgiveness of others contributed to mental health. Forgiveness of others had a
significant positive effect on mental health. Forgiving spouse,
relatives, friends, or anybody might improve mental health.
Forgiveness of situations or incidents beyond control was also
found to contribute mental health. Forgiveness of situations
had a significant positive effect on mental health.
Another finding of the study was that the intention of revenge had a negative effect on mental health. Although the individuals, who got revenge, might be supposed to get relaxed,
the results indicate quite the opposite. Having the intention of
revenge, being in pursuit of revenge might case the individual
focus on negativities, and thus the individual cannot help to
think negatively. Therefore, mental health might be adversely
affected by this situation, and the individual might feel bad.
Therefore, if the individuals, who feel victimized, try to restore
their victimization by victimizing others, their mental health may
deteriorate. The reason is that waiting for an opportunity to get
even is an irritating situation for individuals. The prolongation
of the intention of revenge not being turned into revenge may
cause deeper mental disorders in individuals. As there are very
few studies on the effects of the intention of revenge on mental
120
TODAİE’s Review of Public Administration
health, the results achieved in this study may contribute to the
literature.
Besides, a negative relationship was found between the tendency to forgive and the intention of revenge. The more employees’ tendency to forgive, the less their intention to revenge
was. It was already an expected result. As for the subdimensions of forgiveness, it was found that only forgiveness of
others caused less intention of revenge. There was not any relationship between forgiveness of self or situations/incidents
beyond control and the intention of revenge. This was also an
expected result. In forgiveness of self, the individual does not
think of getting or not getting revenge from himself or herself.
As for forgiveness of situations, the individual does not know
from whom he or she will get revenge anyway. In this respect,
the results were found to be non-correlated.
Significant positive relationship is found between forgiveness
of self and forgiveness of others and some negative incidents
or situations. This finding is consistent with the literature
(Grant, 2008: 15; Barber et al., 2005: 259). One‘s increased
tolerance to other people or forgiveness of others firstly necessitates self-tolerance and forgiveness of self mistakes.
A general evaluation of the survey results reveal that the
tendency to forgive, being peaceful or tolerant have favorable
effects on mental health. On the contrary, intending and pursuing revenge adversely affect mental health.
In the study, it was also investigated whether there were significant differences in individuals’ intention of revenge, tendency to revenge and mental health by demographic characteristics. The analyses found no significant differences in the intention of revenge, tendency to revenge and mental disorders by
gender, gender of manager and the level of education. These
findings could not be compared with other relevant studies due
to the limited number of studies that have approached to these
subjects collectively.
The results indicated that managers had significantly higher
tendency to revenge than of workers. Its reason might be the
The Relationship of the Intention of Revenge and the Tendency to Forgive with 121
Mental Health of Employees in Organizations
increase in supervisory responsibilities brought by the higher
level of job position. As the responsibilities necessitate the follow-up of certain negativities or mistakes, it might have been
aggravated the intention of revenge. Managers’ power might
have caused their higher tendency to revenge, as this power
prevents employees from pursuing counter-revenge. This situation is an expected finding, which is consistent with the literature. (Bies et al., 2007: 14; Aquino et al., 2006: 654).
The workers’ mental health was found significantly better
than that of managers. This finding might also be associated
with the factors of powers and duties, decision-making, the exercise of initiative and risk-taking. High responsibilities of managers, their obligation to constantly make decisions and taking
risks might have adverse effects on their mental health. The
managers’ higher tendency to revenge, as can be seen in Table
7, can be asserted to be a factor deteriorating their mental
health.
It was found that married respondents had significantly
higher tendency to forgive than that of singles. The reason
might be the responsibilities, tolerance, sharing, and loyalty
brought by family life.
Married respondents’ mental health was found worse than
those of singles. Family responsibilities, the difficulties of life,
concern for the future and role conflicts might have been influential in this result. As the literature does not contain any finding about how demographic differences reflect on the intention
of revenge and the tendency to forgive, the results obtained
from this study may guide future studies.
Future studies that will focus on the forgiver and the forgiven may be helpful in achieving significant results. The consideration of sectoral differences, professional differences, and different demographic characteristics may deepen studies. Why
mental health gets better or worse may be explained by using
different variables. In future studies, the use of multiple regression analysis by including demographic differences might produce interesting results.
122
TODAİE’s Review of Public Administration
It is believed that studies to be conducted on how organizational injustice, exhaustion, organizational support, social support, work-family conflict, workaholism, turnover intention,
conflict, discrimination, psychological terrorization, and victimization affect employee mental health may produce significant
results.
This study has some limitations. It was conducted in public
and private organizations located in Yalova and Kayseri. Timeline and resources did not allow for a more comprehensive
study. Moreover, despite all efforts, only half of 598 questionnaire forms were returned. This narrowed the scope of the survey. Even though some relationships were found significant in
the correlation analysis, the results should be carefully evaluated due to the weakness of the relation.
REFERENCES
Aquino, Karl - Bradfield, Murray (1999), “The Effects of Blame Attributions and Offender Likableness on Forgiveness and Revenge in
the Workplace”, Journal of Management, Vol. 25, No: 5, p. 607631.
Aquino, Karl - Bies, Robert - Tripp, Thomas (2006), “Getting Even or
Moving on? Power, Procedural Justice, and Types of Offense as
Predictors of Revenge, Forgiveness, Reconciliation, and Avoidance
in Organizations”, The Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 91,
No: 3, May, p. 653-668.
Alan, Langlieb - Kahn, Jeffrey (2005), “How Much Does Quality Mental Health Care Profit Employers?” Journal of Occupational & Environmental Medicine, Vol. 47, No: 11, November, p. 1099-1109.
Barber, Louise - Maltby, John - Macaskill, Ann (2005), “Angry Memories and Thoughts of Revenge: The Relationship Between Forgiveness and Anger Rumination”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 39, No: 2, July, p. 253-262.
Bies, Robert - Aquino, Karl- Tripp, Thomas (2007), “Vigilante Model
of Justice: Revenge, Reconciliation, Forgiveness, and Avoidance”,
Social Justice Research, Vol. 20, No: 1, March, p. 10-34.
Butler, Deborah - Mullis, Fran (2001), “Forgiveness: A Conflict Resolution Strategy in the Workplace”, Journal of Individual Psychology, Vol. 57, No: 3, Fall, p. 259-273.
The Relationship of the Intention of Revenge and the Tendency to Forgive with 123
Mental Health of Employees in Organizations
Cameron, Kim - Caza, Arran (2002), “Organizational and Leadership
Virtues and the Role of Forgiveness”, Journal of Leadership &
Organizational Studies, Vol. 9, No: 1, Summer, p. 33-48.
Cosgrove, Lisa - Konstam, Varda (2008), “Forgiveness and Forgetting: Clinical Đmplications for Mental Health Counselors”, Journal
of Mental Health Counseling, Vol. 30, No: 1, January, p. 1-13.
Dunnagan, Timothy - Peterson, Michael - Haynes, George (2001),
“Mental Health Đssues in the Workplace: A Case for a New Managerial Approach”, Journal of Occupational & Environmental
Medicine, Vol. 43, No: 12, December, p. 1073-1080.
Erginöz, Ethem (2008), “Halk Sağlığı ve Mental Hastalıklar”, Türkiye’de Sık Karşılaşılan Psikiyatrik Hastalıklar Sempozyumu, 62,
s. 31-40
Goetzel, Ron - Ozminkowski, Ronald.- Sederer, Lloyd - Mark, Tami
(2002), “The Business Case for Quality Mental Health Services:
Why Employers Should Care about the Mental Health and WellBeing of Their Employees”, Journal of Occupational & Environmental Medicine, Vol. 44, No: 4, Fall-Winter, p. 320-330.
Grant, Kevin (2008), “Imperfect people Leading Đmperfect People:
Creating Environments of Forgiveness”, Interbeing, Vol. 2, No: 2,
Fall-Winter, p. 11-17.
Jones, D. (2004), “Counterproductive Work Behavior Toward Supervisors & Organizations: Injustice, Revenge, & Context”, Academy
of Management Proceedings, Vol.1, No: 6, p. 1-6.
Kelleci, M. - Aştı, N. - Küçük L. (2003), “Bir Sağlık Ocağına Başvuran
Kadınların Genel Sağlık Anketine Göre Ruhsal Durumları”, 37.
Ulusal Psikiyatri Kongresi, Đstanbul.
Kurtuluş, Kemal (1998), Pazarlama Araştırmaları, 6. Baskı, Avcıol
Basım-Yayın, Đstanbul.
Leka, S. - Cox T. - Ivanov, I. - Kortum, E. (2004), “Work, Employment
and Mental Health in Europe”, Work & Stress, Vol. 18, No: 2,
April, p. 179-185.
Lesley, A. - Brose, M. - Catherine, L. - Scott R. (2005), “Forgiveness
and Personality traits”, Personality and Individual Differences,
Vol. 39, No: 1, July, p. 35-46.
Madsen, S. - Gygi, J. - Hammond, S. - Plowman, S. (2009), “Forgiveness as a Workplace Intervention: The Literature and a Proposed Framework”, Journal of Behavioral & Applied Management, Vol. 10, No: 2, January, p. 246-262.
124
TODAİE’s Review of Public Administration
Maltby, J. - Day, L. - Louise, B. (2004), “Forgiveness and Mental
Health Variables: Interpreting the Relationship Using an Adaptational-Continuum Model of Personality and Coping”, Personality
and Individual Differences, Vol. 37, No: 8, December, p. 16291641.
Nelson, D. - Little, L. - Simmons, B. (2007), “Health Among Leaders:
Positive and Negative Effect, Engagement and Burnout, Forgiveness and Revenge”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 44,
No: 2, March, p. 243-260.
Nussbaum, G. (2007), “Counseling: Establishing a Culture of Forgiveness”, AORN Journal, Vol. 86, No: 3, September, p. 415-422.
Özdevecioğlu, M. - Çelik, C. - Akın, M. - Đnce F. (2009), “Çalışanların
Ruhsal ve Fiziksel Sağlıkları ve Yöneticilerin Cinsiyeti: Bankacılık
Örneği”, 17. Ulusal Yönetim ve Organizasyon Kongresi Bildirisi,
Osmangazi Üniversitesi, Eskişehir.
Parker, K. - Vandenberg, R. - Wilson, M. - DeJoy, D. - Orpinas, P.
(2009), “Association of Comorbid Mental Health Symptoms and
Physical Health Conditions with Employee Productivity”, Journal
of Occupational & Environmental Medicine, Vol. 51, No: 10, October, p. 1137-1144.
Paulus, P. (2009), “Mental health – backbone of the soul”, Health
Education, Vol. 109, No: 4, p. 289 - 298.
Stillwell, A. - Baumeister, R. - Regan, E. (2008), “We're all victims
here: Toward a psychology of revenge”, Basic & Applied Social
Psychology, Vol. 30, No: 3, July-September, p. 253-263.
Thompson, L. Y. - Snyder, C. R. - Hoffman, L. - Michael, S. T. - Rasmussen, H. N. - Billings, L. S., (2005), “Dispositional Forgiveness
of Self, Others, and Situations”, Journal of Personality, Vol.73, p.
313-359.
Trotter, V. - Lambert, M. - Burlingame, G. - Rees, F. - Carpenter, B. Steffen, P. - Jackson, A. - Eggett, D. (2009), “Measuring Work
Productivity With a Mental Health Self-Report Measure”, Journal
of Occupational & Environmental Medicine. Vol. 51, No: 6, June,
p. 739-746.
Vodanovich, S. - Sommers, J. - Schell, T. (2002), “Developing a
Measure of Đndividual Differences in Organizational Revenge”,
Journal of Business & Psychology, Vol. 17, No: 2, Winter, p. 207222.
The Relationship of the Intention of Revenge and the Tendency to Forgive with 125
Mental Health of Employees in Organizations
Wade, S. H. (1989), “The Development of a Scale to Measure Forgiveness”, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Fuller Theological
Seminary: California.
Wayne, N. B. - Schultz A. - Chen C.Y. - Edington, D.W. (2008), “The
Association of Worker Productivity and Mental Health: A review of
the Literature”, International Journal of Workplace Health Management, Vol. 1, No: 2, p. 78-90.
Yperen, Nico. (2003). “On The Link Between Different Combinations
of Negative Affectivity and Positive Affectivity and Job Performance”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol 35, p. 18731881.
http://www.hpns.nhs.uk/pdfs/go5/WEMWBS%20Scale.pdf,
30.11.2010
http://www.who.int/whr/1998/en/whr98_en.pdf, 30.11.2010
http://www.kayseri.gov.tr/icerix.asp?catxid=9&ekrantip=true&ayrica=
listegetir&menu=genelbilgi&fx=icerik&dbx=icerik&tx=posix&asx=
T.C.%20Kayseri%20
Valili%F0i%20&basx=Sa%F0l%FDk,%20Sosyal%20Yard%FDm%2
0ve%20Sosyal%20G%FCvenlik%20Hizmetleri, 06.06.2011.
http://www.yalova.gov.tr/default_B0.aspx?content=416, 06.06.2011.
126
TODAİE’s Review of Public Administration
1.
2.
Although I feel bad at first when I mess up, over time I can give
myself some slack.
I hold grudges against myself for negative things I’ve done.
3.
Learning from bad things that I’ve done helps me get over
them.
4.
Learning from bad things that I’ve done helps me get over
them.
5.
With time I am understanding of myself for mistakes I’ve made.
6.
I don’t stop criticizing myself for negative things I’ve felt,
thought, said, or done.
I continue to punish a person who has done something that I
think is wrong.
With time I am understanding of others for the mistakes
7.
8.
they’ve made.
9.
I continue to be hard on others who have hurt me.
10. Although others have hurt me in the past, I have eventually
been able to see them as good people.
11. If others mistreat me, I continue to think badly of them.
12. When someone disappoints me, I can eventually move past it.
13. When things go wrong for reasons that can’t be controlled, I
get stuck in negative thoughts about it.
14. With time I can be understanding of bad circumstances in my
life.
15. If I am disappointed by uncontrollable circumstances in my life,
I continue to think negatively about them.
16. I eventually make peace with bad situations in my life.
17. It’s really hard for me to accept negative situations that aren’t
anybody’s fault.
18. Eventually I let go of negative thoughts about bad circumstances that are beyond anyone’s control.
Always
Very Often
Sometimes
Please select the statement that best matches to you.
For example, if the statement totally describes your experience, select
“Always”; if the statement does not matches you, select “Never”.
Never
Rarely
Annex 1: Forgiveness Scale
The Relationship of the Intention of Revenge and the Tendency to Forgive with 127
Mental Health of Employees in Organizations
Very Often
Always
Sometimes
Please select how often you felt or thought a certain way.
Never
Rarely
Annex 2: Revenge Intention Scale
1. I’ll make him/her pay.
2. I wish that something bad would happen to him/her.
3. I want him/her to get what he/she deserves.
4. I’m going to get even.
5. I want to see him/her hurt and miserable.
Here are some statements about feelings and thoughts.
Please select the answer that best describes your experience
of each over the last 2 weeks.
For example, if the statement totally describes your experience,
select
“Always”; if the statement does not matches you, select
“Never”.
I’ve been feeling optimistic about the future.
I’ve been feeling useful.
I’ve been feeling relaxed.
I’ve been feeling interested in other people.
I’ve had energy to spare.
I’ve been dealing with problems well.
I’ve been thinking clearly.
I’ve been feeling good about myself.
I’ve been feeling close to other people.
I’ve been feeling confident.
I’ve been able to make up my own mind about things.
I’ve been feeling loved.
I’ve been interested in new things.
I’ve been feeling cheerful.
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Very Often
Always
Annex 3: Mental Health Survey