EFFECT OF THE ROLE IN INDIVIDUALISM AND MUTUAL ISM: Fatal Mistake and Closeness of Relationship in Forgiveness

1. EFFECT OF THE ROLE IN
INDIVIDUALISM AND
MUTUALISM: Fatal Mistake
and Closeness of Relationship
in Forgiveness
Presented By :
 Awan Gurun Gunarso ( M10717802)
 Devi Andriyani ( M10521828)

3. Background
1. Many people have not given much thought to what forgiveness
actually is.
2. Differences and how a work relevant attitude like trust is
developed, violated and repaired based on the trustor’s level of
fatalism.
3. Central role of closeness in forgiveness as found in Western
(Individualistic) and Indonesian (Collectivism).

4. Research Objectives
1. Understanding and Analyze whether Fatalism and Closeness of
Relationship influence the Forgivingness or not.
2. Analyze which factors that have most significant effect to forgivingness
3. Analyze the differences of result between Mutualism and Individualism
country.

5. Individualism–collectivism
dimension of culture
describes the relationships
individuals have in each
culture. In individualistic
societies, individuals look
after themselves and their
immediate family only
whereas in collectivistic
cultures, individuals belong
to groups that look after
them in exchange for
loyalty.
INTRODUCTION

7. Individual:
1. Independent—free, control
over one’s life
2. Goals—striving for one’s own
goals and achievements
3. Compete—personal competition
and
success
4. Unique—focus on one’s own
unique characteristics
5. Private self-knowledge—keeping
one’s thoughts private from
others
6. Direct communication—stating
clearly what one wants and needs
Collectivism:
1. Related—consider close others as
part of the self
2. Belong—enjoy belonging to groups
3. Duty—being willing to make
sacrifices as a group member
4. Harmony—concern for group
harmony
5. Advice—turning to close others for
help with decisions
6. Group—preference for working in
groups
CONTRASTING VALUES
Source:

8. In Germany people stress on
personal achievements and individual
rights. Germans expect from each
other to fulfil their own needs. Group
work is important, but everybody has
the right of his own opinion an is
expected to reflect those. In an
individual country like Germany
people tend to have more loose
relationships than countries where
there is a collectivism where people
have large extended families.
Source:

9. Indonesia is a Collectivist society. This means there is a high
preference for a strongly defined social framework in which
individuals are expected to conform to the ideals of the
society and the in-groups to which they belong. One place
this is visible clearly is in the aspect of the Family in the role
of relationships.
Source:

10. Fatalism
 Fatalism can very generally be described as the belief that
what happens, or has happened, in some way was
destined to occur (Solomon, 2003).
 Fatalism beliefs positively related to a variety of
behavioural outcomes such as risky health behaviours
(Henson, Carey, Carey, & Maisto, 2006), unwillingness to
seek social support (Goodwin et al., 2002), and failure to
prepare for unpredictable but controllable events
(McClure, Allen, & Walkey, 2001).

11. Closeness of Relationship
 Relationship closeness can be thought of as interdependence
(Berscheid, Snuder, & Omoto, 1989b; Kelley et al., 1983) or
interconnectedness (Aron, Aron,& Smollan,1992), and may
contain components of love, caring, and commitment
(Berscheid, Snuder, & Omoto, 1989a).
 Forgivingness should be an important tool in maintaining
closeness in relationship given the inevibility of interpersonal
conflict. (Fincham,2000).
 Additionally, restoring closeness toward an offender may be the
first step toward forgiving him or her (Harber & Wenberg, 2005).

12. Related Research
 People in individualistic cultures are focused to a relatively greater extent on a
fairly small number of close relationship partners (Schwartz, 1990) and may
therefore be more willing to forgive close as opposed to non-close partners.
Also, close others may become almost literally part of an individual’s self (Aron &
Smollan, 1992).
 This notion is reflected in the way closeness to a relationship partner has been
conceptualized and measured in terms of self-others overlap (Aron et al., 1992).
As close others are so tightly related to the self, forgiving close others, as
compared to forgiving non-close others, may be especially beneficial to the self.
 In line with this reasoning, research has demonstrated that, at least in Germany
and Indonesia the beneficial effects of forgiveness for the victim’s psychological
well-being are more pronounced if the offender is a close rather than a non-
close other (Bono et al., 2008; Karremans et al., 2003)

13. Research Questions
1. Does Fatalism and Closeness of Relationship influence the
Forgivingness?
2. Which factors that have most significant effect to
forgivingness?
3. Any differences of result between Mutualism and Individualism
Country?

14. Expected Results
 Researcher expect the result should be Fatal Mistake and
Closeness of Relationship may give significant effect to the
willingness of person to forgive.
 For the result of Mutualism and Individualism Country
should be different.

15. Research Method
50 Participants
25 Participants 25 Participants
INSTRUMENTS
- Literature Review
- Online Questioner
Relationship closeness can be thought of as
interdependence (Berscheid, Snuder, & Omoto,
1989b; Kelley et al., 1983) or interconnectedness
(Aron, Aron,& Smollan,1992), and may contain
components of love, caring, and commitment
(Berscheid, Snuder, & Omoto, 1989a).
Fatalism can very generally be described as the
belief that what happens, or has happened, in
some way was destined to occur (Solomon, 2003).

16. Questioner Structure
 There are 3 kinds of constructs that researcher want to be
examined, such as general closeness of relationship (close and
non-close relationship), and fatal mistake. Those elements would
be the main structure of the questioners.
Fatalism Closeness of Relationship
Same Mistake
Ruin Business/ Important Day
Betrayed
Immoral
Family
Lover
Close Friend
Co-worker
Boss/Senior

17. Data Collection & Analysis
Procedure : Google Form Link
15 Questions
Likert Scale 1-5 of Agreement
Tool : SPSS & ANOVA
The result of questionnaire is expected to reveal the 2 expected result of
researcher.

18. Research Results
ANOVA
Cluster
Sig.
Mean
Square
Same
Mistake
1.464 .081
Ruin Trust 1.233 .027
Ruin
Business
1.785 .073
Immoral 3.506 .006
Family 1.504 .001
Close Friend 4.056 .000
Co-worker 4.056 .000
Boss/Senior .629 .465
Lover 2.164 .002
Not Close 2.582 .000
•Indonesian
ANOVA
Cluster
Sig.
Mean
Square
Same
Mistake
6.804 .000
Ruin Trust 4.815 .000
Ruin
Business
.255 .842
Immoral 2.349 .047
Family 1.265 .293
Close Friend .674 .651
Co-worker .818 .240
Boss/Senior 1.404 .071
Lover 1.862 .068
Not Close 9.334 .000
Table 1. Indonesian
Table 2. Germany
Closeness of Relationship
Fatalism

19. The Factors that Have Most
Significant Effect on Forgivingness
 Based on the result of ANOVA test between Group A (Indonesian) and
Group B (Germany), it showed that not all the factors have significant
impact to forgivingness. Both of group shown different result. The result
can be seen in Table1 and Table 2.
 For the results above, there 6 factors (ruin trust, family, close friend,
coworker, lover and no close) that has significant value < 0.05, so that
factors have significant impact to forgivingness. Besides, based on Mean
Square values we can sort those factors from the biggest (has most
impact). So respectively, the order should be Close Friend, Co-worker, Not
Close, Lover, Family and Ruin Trust.
 While for table 2, only 4 factors (same mistake, ruin trust, immoral, and no
close) have Sig. value < 0.05 so that factors has significant impact to
forgivingness. Besides, based on Mean Square values we can sort those
factors from the biggest (has most impact). So respectively, the order
should be Not Close, Same Mistake, Ruin Trust and Immoral.

20. The Differences Factors-Oriented
between Indonesian and Germany
 Based on Table 1, we got the result of factors that has the most
significant impact for Indonesian’s forgivingness are Close Friend,
Co-worker, Not Close, Lover, Family and Ruin Trust. If we see from
that 6 factors, 5 of them (Close Friend, Co-worker, Not Close, Lover,
Family) refer to component of Closeness of Relationship while for
component of Fatalism only have one, Ruin Trust. So, based on that
case Indonesian is Closeness of Relationship oriented in
Forgivingness.
 Based on Table 2, we got the result of factors that has the most
significant impact for Indonesian’s forgivingness are Not Close,
Same Mistake, Ruin Trust and Immoral. If we see from that 4
factors, 3 of them (Same Mistake, Ruin Trust and Immoral) refer to
component of Fatalism while for component of Closeness of
Relationship only have one, Not Close. So, based on that case
Germany is Fatalism oriented in Forgivingness.

21. Discussions
 We have 2 findings that shown different result between Indonesian
and Germany in forgivingness. The result represent that Indonesian
is Closeness of Relationship oriented, while Germany is Fatalism
oriented in Forgivingness. It may happen because Indonesian is one
of Mutualism Country that have characteristic such as there is a high
preference for a strongly defined social framework in which
individuals are expected to conform to the ideals of the society and
the in-groups to which they belong. One place this is visible clearly is
in the aspect of the Family in the role of relationships.
 While for Germany that include in one of Individualism Country has
characteristic such as Group work is important, but everybody has
the right of his own opinion is expected to reflect those. In an
individual country like Germany people tend to have more loose
relationships. That is why they more focus on Fatalism in
Forgivingness rather than consider about the relationship.

22. Conclusion
 After doing analysis, not all of Fatalism Factors and Closeness
factors have impact in forgivingness. And the role of
mutualism and individualism in forgivingness have different
impact.
 For Indonesian, fatalism factors doesn’t have significant impact
in their forgivingness (all factors value> 0.05), while the most
significant impact come from closeness factors such as family,
close friend, coworker, lover and no close.
 For Germany case, eventhough there is one closeness factor
(no close) have significant impact to forgivingness but Fatalism
factors more dominate the number of factors influence
forgivingness (same mistake, ruin trust, and immoral).

23. THANK YOU

24. References
 Sandage, S.J., & Wiens, T.W. (2001). Contextualizing models of humanity and
forgiveness: A reply to Gassin. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 29, 201-211
 Sandage, S.J., & Williamson, I. (2005). Forgiveness in cultural context. In E.l.
Worthington (Ed), Handbook of forgiveness (pp. 41-56). New York: Routledge
 Worthington, E.L.Jr. (Ed). (2005). Handbook of forgiveness. New York: Routledge
 McCullough, M.E., Rachal, K.C., Sandage, S.J., Worthington, E.L. Jr., Wade Brown,
S., & Hight, T. L. (1998). Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships: II.
Theoretical elaboration and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 75, 1586-1603
 McCullough, M. E., Rachal, K. C., Sandage, S. J., Worthington, E. L. Jr., Wade
Brown, S., & Hight, T. L. (1998). Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships: II.
Theoretical elaboration and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 75, 1586-1603.
 http://etd.fcla.edu/CF/CFE0004178/Wildman_Jessica_L_201112_PhD.pdf