In the article Following Transgressions: Examining Forgiveness Communication in Personal Relationships, forgiveness communication styles are examined in association with the determinants of forgiveness. Research is being conducted to examine how forgiveness is communicated, the type of forgiveness style, and the association of overall relationship satisfaction with these. It is found that as the severity of a problem and the guilt of the offender increase, the style of forgiveness tends to shift more towards conditional or indirect forgiveness, which decreases relationship satisfaction, while direct forgiveness and Sincere recognition promotes the strengthening of relationships. This article observes how forgiveness is related to the maintenance of existing relationships or in specific states, as well as the repair and reconciliation of relationships, depending on the forgiveness styles described and the circumstances in which the offender behaves. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay Personal Relationship Feedback This article examines the use of forgiveness styles like direct, indirect, and conditional. Direct forgiveness is direct forgiveness. Indirect forgiveness is expressed by minimizing the offense and conditional forgiveness is forgiveness accompanied by the imposition of stipulations. The determinants of forgiveness are classified into socio-cognitive, offense-related, relational and personality levels. The socio-cognitive consists of the level of blame or empathy placed towards the offender. The linked offense addresses the seriousness of the offense and the sincerity of the apology. Relationship is related to the quality of the relationship, and personality level is related to the level of agreeableness that the offended partner associates with the offender. The author claims that the socio-cognitive and offensive levels are closest to the forgiveness decisions of offended people. (80).Taking into account the factors of seriousness of the offense, guilt of the offender and sincere recognition, the first six hypotheses are examined. The first assumption is associated with the seriousness of the offense, or the level of injury resulting from the wrongdoing. H1 states that offense severity positively predicts direct and conditional forgiveness, and negatively predicts indirect forgiveness. The second and third assumptions relate to the culpability of the offender or the extent to which the offender is considered responsible for the harmful action. H2 states that guilt positively predicts direct and conditional forgiveness, and negatively predicts indirect forgiveness. H3 states that the level of guilt is positively associated with the seriousness of the offense, predicting that the more hurtful the action, the greater the blame attributed to the offender. The fourth, fifth, and sixth assumptions concern sincere acknowledgment, or sincerity of apology and acceptance of responsibility for hurtful actions. H4 states that sincere gratitude positively predicts direct forgiveness and negatively predicts indirect and conditional forgiveness styles. H5 and H6 indicate that sincere acknowledgment will be positively associated with offense seriousness and will be negatively associated with guilt (due to remorse). The next set of hypotheses (7–10) concerns relational damage and satisfaction, or how relational quality is affected by indiscretions and their forgiveness. H7 states that relational damage will be negatively predicted by direct and indirect forgiveness and positively by conditional forgiveness. H8 and H9 indicate that offense severity and guilt positively predict relational damage,, 79-95