The Forgiveness Myth: Why Trauma Survivors Don't Need to Forgive to Heal
The therapeutic utility of forgiveness in trauma treatment has been a subject of contention among mental health professionals for decades (Baskin & Enright, 2004). Despite growing awareness of trauma-informed care and survivor-centered approaches, many continue to view forgiveness as an essential milestone on the path to healing (Wade et al., 2014). If you are a trauma survivor, chances are you've received some version of this message—"You need to forgive them so you can move on." "Forgiveness is the only path to true healing." "Holding onto anger will only hurt you." While these messages often come by way of well-meaning loved ones, they reflect a cultural mandate that is pervasive and deeply embedded in our collective consciousness. The countless hours I have spent working alongside trauma survivors have taught me that forgiveness is deeply personal—it's something that resonates for some and not with others. However, when forgiveness is treated as an absolute, many survivors develop and carry profound shame when they find themselves unable or unwilling to extend forgiveness to those who harmed them (Lamb & Murphy, 2002). But what if the problem isn't with the survivor who can't forgive—what if the problem is with a healing model that insists forgiveness is universally necessary? When forgiveness is treated as a prerequisite for healing, the pressure to forgive becomes yet another burden for the survivor to carry rather than a pathway to peace. As a therapist with expertise in trauma, I've witnessed countless clients struggle under the weight of this expectation, believing that their inability to forgive represents a personal failure or a barrier to their own recovery.
At the risk of putting myself at odds with considerable portions of the therapeutic community, my years of sitting with trauma survivors—listening to their stories, witnessing their struggles, and supporting their healing journeys—have taught me that the forgiveness mandate is not only unnecessary, but for many survivors, it's actively harmful. When we tell trauma survivors that they cannot be whole unless they forgive those who harmed them, we are asking them to prioritize their perpetrator's absolution over their own protection. We are suggesting that healthy boundaries, righteous anger, and self-preservation are somehow obstacles to growth rather than necessary components of it (Herman, 1992). As a trauma expert and mental health professional, I feel obligated to challenge the assumption that forgiveness is a universal requirement for trauma recovery. I feel a personal sense of responsibility to practice from an alternative framework—one that honors each survivor's unique path to healing, whether that path includes forgiveness or not.
Forgiveness as an Evolutionary Phenomenon
Forgiveness is an evolutionary phenomenon that, historically, has been necessary for building and sustaining community (Tooby & Cosmides, 2005). Research shows that people practice forgiveness more readily within their tribe or primary support group, while being more likely to withhold forgiveness from outsiders (McAuliffe & Dunham, 2016). This evolutionary pattern makes sense from a survival perspective—early human groups needed internal cooperation to thrive, making in-group forgiveness essential for maintaining social cohesion and collective safety (Fehr et al., 2010). However, this research is built on a critical assumption: that the "tribe" or primary group functions in a fundamentally healthy, reciprocal, and protective manner. It presumes that group members share common values, operate with mutual respect, and that transgressions occur within a context of otherwise secure relationships.
A Spectrum of Transgressions
When accounting for influences on and within relationships, one can easily understand why it's inappropriate, and potentially harmful, to generalize and apply a forgiveness model uniformly across all relationships. Relationships are inherently nuanced and complex: they are shaped by power dynamics, history, attachment patterns, and the specific nature of harm inflicted (Johnson et al., 2001). The relationship between a survivor and their perpetrator cannot be treated in the same way as a conflict between equals, just as a single betrayal in an otherwise secure relationship differs fundamentally from a pattern of exploitation in a relationship defined by control.
Not all transgressions are created equal, and our emotional and psychological responses to harm exist on a spectrum that reflects both the objective severity of the transgression and our subjective experience of it (Worthington & Scherer, 2004). For example, I may be able to forgive a close friend who lied to me about something relatively minor—perhaps they canceled plans under false pretenses or embellished a story to make themselves look better. In that context, I might recognize their human fallibility, understand the circumstances that led to the lie, and choose to repair the relationship because the foundation of trust, though shaken, remains fundamentally intact.
However, I would likely find myself unwilling or unable to forgive that same friend if they physically harmed me, or knowingly exposed me to serious danger. The severity of the transgression fundamentally alters the moral and psychological landscape. It's not simply a matter of "degree" of harm—it's a qualitative difference. Some violations shatter the fundamental premises upon which relationships are built: bodily autonomy, physical and emotional safety, and basic human dignity (Herman, 1992). To suggest that both scenarios should be approached with the same forgiveness framework is not only clinically unsound—it's ethically troubling.
The transgression itself matters, but so does the context in which it occurred. Was this a single impulsive act by someone who has otherwise shown care and respect, or part of an ongoing pattern of exploitation? Did the person who caused harm take immediate responsibility, or did they deny, minimize, or blame the victim? Have they made genuine efforts to repair the damage, or do they expect forgiveness as an entitlement (Luchies et al., 2010)? These contextual factors fundamentally shape whether forgiveness is even a reasonable expectation—and yet, the cultural narrative around forgiveness often ignores such contextual factors entirely, treating all harm as equally forgivable given enough time, effort, or personal growth on the part of the survivor.
Limitations of the Forgiveness Model
A one-size-fits-all approach to healing simply doesn't work because human beings, relationships, and experiences of harm are far too diverse and complex to be reduced to a single prescription (Wohl et al., 2008). The forgiveness model, when applied equally across all domains and relationships, is fundamentally flawed because it fails to account for several critical variables:
Attachment style and relational history: A person with secure attachment who experienced a boundary violation within an otherwise safe relationship will have a vastly different capacity for forgiveness than someone with an insecure attachment whose earliest experiences of "love" were intertwined with fear, pain, and betrayal (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2005). For trauma survivors whose primary attachment figures were also their abusers, forgiveness isn't simply difficult—it may be psychologically incompatible with healing (Finkelhor & Browne, 1985).
Cultural context: Cultural backgrounds shape our understanding of forgiveness in profound ways. Some cultures emphasize collective harmony and expect family members to suppress individual grievances for the sake of group cohesion (McAuliffe & Dunham, 2016). Others prioritize individual autonomy and personal boundaries (Sandage & Williamson, 2005). A universal forgiveness model ignores these cultural nuances and risks imposing a specific cultural framework's values onto everyone, regardless of their own beliefs and needs.
Personal moral values and sense of justice: What feels morally acceptable to one person may feel like a profound betrayal of self to another. Some survivors find that forgiveness aligns with their values and brings them peace (Exline et al., 2003). Others experience the pressure to forgive as a request to compromise their integrity, to pretend that what happened was acceptable, or to prioritize the perpetrator's comfort over their own truth. Neither response is inherently wrong—they simply reflect different value systems and different paths to healing.
Individual differences in processing trauma: People process traumatic experiences differently based on neurobiology, temperament, coping resources, social support, and countless other factors (van der Kolk, 2014). Some individuals naturally move toward meaning-making and reconciliation; others find healing through boundary-setting, distance, and self-protection (Park, 2010). Neither approach is superior—they're simply different, and both deserve validation.
Prior trauma exposure and cumulative harm: A person who has experienced repeated violations across multiple relationships will understandably have a different threshold for forgiveness than someone experiencing a first-time betrayal (Follette et al., 1996). When harm is cumulative, forgiveness can feel like an invitation for further exploitation. For complex trauma survivors, protecting themselves often means refusing to extend forgiveness that could be interpreted as permission to continue harmful behavior (Courtois & Ford, 2009).
A Trauma-Informed Approach
When we insist that forgiveness is universally necessary for healing, we're not only ignoring the complexity of relationships and trauma—we're actively invalidating a survivor's lived experiences, and we’re taking away their agency (Lamb & Murphy, 2002). We're telling them that their boundaries are wrong, their protective instincts are flawed, and their refusal to absolve their perpetrator reflects a character deficiency rather than an act of self-preservation. This message compounds the original harm by demanding that survivors prioritize their perpetrator's interests over their own wellbeing.
True trauma-informed care recognizes that healing is as unique as the individual and the harm they experienced (SAMHSA, 2014). For some survivors, forgiveness may be a meaningful step toward peace, but for others, healing looks entirely different. For them it may involve identifying a cohesive narrative where a trusted other can bear witness, establishing and maintaining firm boundaries, ending relationships that no longer serve their wellbeing, processing anger and grief at their own pace, seeking justice or accountability, or simply moving forward with their lives while refusing to grant absolution (Neimeyer et al., 2014). All these paths are valid and none should be considered morally or psychologically inferior to forgiveness. The measure of healing is not whether a survivor forgives, but whether they reclaim their sense of safety, agency, and wholeness on their own terms.
References
Baskin, T. W., & Enright, R. D. (2004). Intervention studies on forgiveness: A meta-analysis. Journal of Counseling & Development, 82(1), 79-90. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6678.2004.tb00288.x
Courtois, C. A., & Ford, J. D. (Eds.). (2009). Treating complex traumatic stress disorders: An evidence-based guide. Guilford Press.
Exline, J. J., Worthington, E. L., Hill, P., & McCullough, M. E. (2003). Forgiveness and justice: A research agenda for social and personality psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7(4), 337-348. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0704_06
Fehr, R., Gelfand, M. J., & Nag, M. (2010). The road to forgiveness: A meta-analytic synthesis of its situational and dispositional correlates. Psychological Bulletin, 136(5), 894-914. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019993
Finkelhor, D., & Browne, A. (1985). The traumatic impact of child sexual abuse: A conceptualization. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 55(4), 530-541. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-0025.1985.tb02703.x
Follette, V. M., Polusny, M. A., Bechtle, A. E., & Naugle, A. E. (1996). Cumulative trauma: The impact of child sexual abuse, adult sexual assault, and spouse abuse. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 9(1), 25-35. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.2490090104
Herman, J. L. (1992). Trauma and recovery: The aftermath of violence—from domestic abuse to political terror. Basic Books.
Johnson, S. M., Makinen, J. A., & Millikin, J. W. (2001). Attachment injuries in couple relationships: A new perspective on impasses in couples therapy. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 27(2), 145-155. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.2001.tb01152.x
Lamb, S., & Murphy, J. G. (2002). Before forgiving: Cautionary views of forgiveness in psychotherapy. Oxford University Press.
Luchies, L. B., Finkel, E. J., McNulty, J. K., & Kumashiro, M. (2010). The doormat effect: When forgiving erodes self-respect and self-concept clarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(5), 734-749. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017838
McAuliffe, K., & Dunham, Y. (2016). Group bias in cooperative norm enforcement. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 371(1686), 20150073. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0073
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2005). Attachment theory and emotions in close relationships: Exploring the attachment-related dynamics of emotional reactions to relational events. Personal Relationships, 12(2), 149-168. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1350-4126.2005.00108.x
Neimeyer, R. A., Baldwin, S. A., & Gillies, J. (2014). Continuing bonds and reconstructing meaning: Mitigating complications in bereavement. Death Studies, 30(8), 715-738. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481180600848322
Park, C. L. (2010). Making sense of the meaning literature: An integrative review of meaning making and its effects on adjustment to stressful life events. Psychological Bulletin, 136(2), 257-301. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018301
Sandage, S. J., & Williamson, I. (2005). Forgiveness in cultural context. In E. L. Worthington Jr. (Ed.), Handbook of forgiveness (pp. 41-56). Routledge.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). (2014). SAMHSA's concept of trauma and guidance for a trauma-informed approach (HHS Publication No. SMA 14-4884). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2005). Conceptual foundations of evolutionary psychology. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 5-67). Wiley.
van der Kolk, B. A. (2014). The body keeps the score: Brain, mind, and body in the healing of trauma. Viking.
Wade, N. G., Hoyt, W. T., Kidwell, J. E. M., & Worthington, E. L. (2014). Efficacy of psychotherapeutic interventions to promote forgiveness: A meta-analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 82(1), 154-170. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035268
Wohl, M. J. A., DeShea, L., & Wahkinney, R. L. (2008). Looking within: Measuring state self-forgiveness and its relationship to psychological well-being. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 40(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1037/0008-400x.40.1.1.1
Worthington, E. L., & Scherer, M. (2004). Forgiveness is an emotion-focused coping strategy that can reduce health risks and promote health resilience: Theory, review, and hypotheses. Psychology & Health, 19(3), 385-405. https://doi.org/10.1080/0887044042000196674