The Relationships between Positivity , Forgiveness , Happiness , and Revenge

2 Kütahya Dumlupinar University, Turkey, hakansaricam@gmail.com Abstract: Vengeance is negative structure for interpersonal relationship and personality. Therefore, alternative models should be developed for lessening it. The basic purpose of this study was to examine the probable relationships between forgiveness, positivity, happiness, vengeance in university students. Participants were 330 (167 females, 163 males) university students in Turkey who volunteered to take part in this study. All of the participants were either 22 or 39 years old, with a mean age of 28.65 years. For gathering data, Oxford Happiness Questionnaire-Short Form, Positivity Scale, Trait Forgiveness Scale and Vengeance Scale were used. While analyzing the data, Independent sample t test, Pearson correlation analysis, and Multiple Regression analysis were used. According to the findings, there were statistical significant relationships between forgiveness, positivity, happiness, vengeance. In other words, vengeance had negative links with forgiveness, positivity, happiness. Findings of multiple regression analysis indicated that the increase of forgiveness, positivity, and happiness lead to reduction of vengeance.


Introduction
In the main aims of positive psychology is to reexamine some important concepts, events or phenomena neglected and not sufficiently emphasized in traditional psychology (Krentzman, 2013). In the historical process of psychology, it is possible to find rhetoric about the individual's flourishing, positive structure and influences in the Erikson's psychosocial development theory, Jung's individualized human theory, Maslow's human self-realization process, Rogers's fully functional human model, Reed's (1991aReed's ( , 1991b self-transcendence theory, Diener's (2000) subjective wellbeing and Seligman's (2002) authentic happiness theories (Ryff & Keyes, 1995;Sarıçam, 2015a). As the flourishing indicator of the individual, undoubtedly, happiness has a significant place among the most important concepts of positive psychology (Sarıçam & Canatan, 2015). The person's psychological well-being should include an effort to realize his or her true potential together with the happiness of the individual (Göçen, 2013). Many people have happiness in their life goals (Bülbül & Giray, 2011). But, it is difficult to draw the limits of subjective happiness as well as objective happiness (Sarıçam, 2016). Subjective happiness is the social and cognitive awareness of the individual about life satisfaction (Sarıçam, 2015b); therefore, it can be said to be measurable (Lyubomirsky & Lepper, 1999). Objective happiness is an indication of ideal well-being or flourishing (Fredrickson, 2001) but it is difficult to measure. According to Kahneman (1999), it is necessary to follow people's instant experiences related to good and bad feelings in order to measure objective happiness. Happiness is the degree to which an individual evaluates his or her quality of life as a whole (Selim, 2008). People, if they are satisfied with their living conditions, are often quite happy if they are experiencing positive emotions and also if they are experiencing negative emotions very infrequently (Eryılmaz & Atak, 2011).

Positivity
Another indication of flourishing and well-being is the affect level of the individual. There are two types of affect, positive and negative; positive affect is the positive emotional experience experienced by the individual (Diener & Emmons, 1985;Gross & Levenson, 1997). Positive affect reflects the individual's level of satisfaction with the environment (Clark, Watson, & Leeka, 1989). Positive affect is indicative of social and cognitive tendencies such as extroversion, self-esteem, personal control, and optimism (Cohen & Pressman, 2006). However, positive affect is associated with positivity (Yildiz, 2016); an increase in positive affect will make the individual look at the life more positively (Gross & John, 2003). Positivity is not only a personality trait but also a sign of subjective well-being and a balancer of happiness even if the environmental conditions change (Kozma, Stone, & Stones, 2000). In another definition, positivity is the tendency to evaluate life as positive or good (Diener, Scollon, Oishi, Dzokoto, & Suh, 2000). Positivity, positive thought, or positive orientation is a common mode of monitoring and a realistic window that affects the way individuals evaluate their subjective experiences (Alessandri, Caprara, & Tisak, 2012a;Caprara, Steca, Alessandri, Abela, & McWhinnie, 2010;Caprara et al., 2012). On the basis of these statements, positivity is not the Pollyannism but it can be said to be the potential to look at the life and future through a positive point of view with the positive emotions of the individual. Alessandri, Caprara, and Tisak (2012b) indicated that positivity has the components of self-esteem, life satisfaction and optimism.

Forgiveness
Positive psychology movement also affected the sub branches of psychology, like it influenced different disciplines. For example, the concept of forgiveness is an important concept in positive psychology as well as in personality psychology and social psychology. While there are many different definitions of forgiveness, forgiveness often is defined as "one's act of having mercy and showing love on someone who makes mistakes and breaks one's heart in a way that someone does not deserve and, in addition, one's desire to give up one's negative feelings, such as umbrage-resentment, offence, revenge and grudge (Enright & Coyle, 1998). It is important to define forgiveness correctly to clarify therapeutic goals and to try to prevent confusion and suffering more (Lamb, 2005;Murray, 2002). True forgiveness is voluntary, unconditional and an active process. Forgiveness is a moral response and a behavior chosen intentionally (Sarıçam & Biçer, 2015). Forgiveness is a condition that is left to one's own choice, beyond a necessity (Sakız & Sarıçam, 2015). A person forgives someone who hurts or injures him if he wants, does not forgive if he does not want. However, if he forgives, it will lead to the beginning of positive relationships and that the individual will have a morally high value because he or she will create positive psychological relationships both in himself and in the criminal (Sarıçam & Akın, 2013). The concept of forgiveness can be encountered in relationships with significant others and romantic relationships, as well as in different social relations. Bright, Fry, and Cooperrider (2006) point out that there are two views of thought about the meaning of forgiveness by The Relationships between Positivity, Forgiveness, Happiness, and Revenge Fatıma Firdevs ADAM KARDUZ, Hakan SARIÇAM examining our growing negative attitudes toward a phenomenon and our perceived aggressive experiences of being displaced or losing control; and according to the more dominant first view, forgiveness is defined as the neutralization of negative feelings towards the offender. According to the second view, forgiveness is the transformation of negative feelings to positive feelings. At the end of the study, they offer 3 suggestions for broken-heart/resentment: the unwillingly performing mode where the forgiveness is an imagination, the pragmatic mode where forgiveness is a must, and the transcendence/superiority mode where forgiveness is a preference of life. The transcendence/superiority mode is a fundamental proposal that develops the concept of forgiveness as a positive dynamic.

Revenge
As a necessity of social life, people establish personal relationships with other people. For this reason, the potential for the emergence of personal conflicts is quite high (Yılmaz, 2014). Aggressive behaviors are quite diverse and many researchers are working on the reactions developed by individuals against attackers. These reactions mainly are seeking revenge, giving no response, personal challenge, hatred and hostility, reconciliation and forgiveness (Yilmaz, 2014). Revenge is punishing by harm with retaliation against the perceived fault. This is often a factor motivating aggressive side of people (Stuckless & Goranson, 1992). The feeling of revenge, which can be defined as the desire of the individual to take the pain of an evil done to him in order to get revenge from the person who does the evil, is a primitive, destructive and illogical personality, accompanying some personality disorders (Satıcı, Can, & Akin, 2015). Revenge behavior is an approach towards eliminating the perceived injustice and correcting the resulting inequality. By taking revenge from the person, group or organization that harmed him, the individual thinks that justice has been served and that equality has been afforded again (Akın, Özdevecioğlu, & Ünlü, 2012). Whether or not a victimization is transformed into a willingness to seek revenge is influenced by factors such as the opportunities for revenge, the closeness of the relationship between the offender and the victim, the power of the victim and the offender, organizational rules and personality traits of the parties. The increased power of the victim over the offender and the greater opportunity for revenge may also strengthen the victim's intention to avenge (Tripp, Bies, & Aquino, 2007).

The Present Study
It is, of course, inevitable that a human being who is a social being experiences conflicts in his relations. Depending on these conflicts, it is no doubt that the human being sometimes hurts, sometimes is hurt (Leung, Brew, Zhang, & Zhang, 2011). Because all interpersonal relationships are accomplished based on communication, most interpersonal problems are also based on communication barriers. A healthy communication provides the relations for the people to be deep, meaningful and satisfying; an unhealthy communication forms a source of distress, starting from a feeling of inexplicability or pathological loneliness to much deeper problems (Korkut, 1996). The positive subjective experience, the positive individual characteristics and the science of positive theories improve quality of life and prevent pathologies that arise when life is barren and pointless (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). The individual's approaching the other people positively and trying to make them happy in the context of the relationship actually makes him happy. Possible reasons for this may include a positive environment created from interaction, providing social support and less experiencing the feelings of loneliness (Doğan & Sapmaz, 2012). Heikamp et al. (2014) argued that individuals with high levels of positivity have high selfesteem, life satisfaction and optimism, and low levels of depression. In addition, employees with high positivity were found to have higher selfefficacy beliefs (Alessandri, Borgogni, Schaufeli, Caprara, & Consiglio, 2015), job satisfaction, work-life balance (Orkibi & Brandt, 2015) and work performance (Alessandri et al., 2012c). In this context, positivity is an important component of subjective well-being (Sarıçam, & Çelik, 2016). Subjective well-being is an indicator of individuals' evaluations of their life and reveals life-satisfaction, positive and negative emotional experiences, including cognitive decisions of individuals (Selim, 2008).
An individual's sustaining the intent to revenge by acting with negative emotions that may arise in the face of an erroneous behavior the individual is faced with depends on his personality characteristics. Bugay and Demir (2011) argue that forgiving the properties of mistakes made especially in close relationships by positively approaching may be part of the personality. Similarly, Akın, Özdevecioğlu and Ünlü (2012) found that there was a significant and positive relationship between people's mental health and their forgiveness of others and some situations. On the other hand, investigations have shown that individuals with higher negative emotions tend to be more likely to seek revenge for an injustice they perceive (Tripp, Bies, & Aquino, 2007). A person who feels a psychological or physical attack on himself is instinctively trying to protect himself (Yılmaz, 2014). It has also been found that there is a significant and negative relationship between the individuals' intentions of revenge and mental health. It has been found that the tendency to forgive has a significant and positive effect on the mental health and the intent to revenge has a significant and negative effect on the mental health. It was determined that the tendency of forgiveness among marrieds is higher than among singles, and that the singles' mental health is higher compared to that of the marrieds. According to McCullough (2008), to be more forgiving is to understand the evolutionary forces that reveal sincere human traits which are the key to open up to a world less vengeful, the social forces that activate those today in the human mind, and the changes necessary to develop our relationships.
In the light of this information, the importance of the psychological conditions of the individuals constituting the society cannot be denied for the sake of existence and continuance of the existence of the societies that are psychologically well, happy and healthy. Revenge harms not only the individual's own mental health (McCullough, Bellah, Johnson, & Kilpatrick, 2001) but also the opposing person (Baumeister, 1997) and the society. There is therefore a need for alternative structures to reduce feelings and instincts of revenge. It is thought that with the help of this study, which examines forgiveness, positivity and happiness as alternative models that can be effective in decreasing the feeling of revenge, a contribution will be made to research towards the strengths and well-being of individuals and the positive psychology emphasizing the importance of a permanent and healthy mental state. When the literature was examined, no research was found that presents a model proposal to reduce feelings of revenge with the concepts of positivity, forgiveness and happiness. The main purpose of this study is to examine the relationships between positivity, forgiveness, happiness and the feeling of revenge.
For this purpose, the following hypotheses have been claimed.
1. There will be a negative relationship between forgiveness and revenge.
2. There will be a negative relationship between positivity and revenge.
3. There will be a negative relationship between happiness and revenge.
4. As forgiveness increases, happiness will increase. Another aim of the research is to examine whether positivity, forgiveness, happiness and the feeling of revenge will differ based on gender.

Participants
The study group consists of 330 pedagogical formation certificate program students in the province of Kütahya. Of the respondents, 163 (49.4%) were male and 167 (51.6%) were female. Participants' ages ranged from 22 to 39 and the average age was 28.65. In addition, while 119 participants continue their undergraduate studies; 111 participants are graduates. Of the participants who graduated, 48 are married or engaged.

Instruments
Oxford Happiness Questionnaire-Short Form (OHQ-SF): It is an 8-item scale designed by Hills and Argyle (2002) to assess the level of happiness and have a 6-point scale (1-Strongly disagree, 6-Strongly agree). The Turkish adaptation of the scale was made by Doğan and Akıncı Çötok, (2011). Based on exploratory factor analysis, The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) sample fit coefficient was .80 and the Barlet-Sphericity test was found to be 390.616 (p <.001). Item factor loadings ranged from .53 to .72. The single factor structure of OHQ-S was examined by confirmatory factor analysis and the fit-good indexes were found to be (χ 2 /df=2.77, AGFI=0.93, GFI=0.97, CFI=0.95, NFI=0.92, IFI=0.95, RMSEA=0.074). In the context of the criterion-related validity, the relationships between the OHQ-S and Life Satisfaction Scale (25), Life Orientation Test and Zung Depression Scale (27) were examined and it was seen that there were correlations between the scales, .61 (.001), .51 (p<.001) and -.48 (p <.001), respectively. The internal consistency coefficient was .74 and the test retest reliability coefficient was .85 for the reliability of OHQ-S. In this study, internal consistency reliability coefficient was found as .82.
Trait Forgivingness Scale (TFS): The Forgiveness Scale, developed by Berry, Worthington, O'Connor, Parrot III, and Wade (2005), adapted to Turkish by Sarıçam and Akın (2013), consists of 10 items and one dimension and 5-point ("1" Strongly disagree -"5" Strongly agree) ratings is a measurement tool based on the principle of self-reporting. The highest score that can be obtained from the scale is 50 and the lowest score is 10. The scale gives a total score of forgiveness. Rising scores indicate that the individual has a high tendency to forgive. Items 1, 3, 6, 7, 8 of the scale are reverse coded. Confirmatory factor analysis was applied to the data obtained from 288 university students for the construct validity of the Forgiveness Scale and it was found that the scale fit well just as in the original form (χ²=106.47, df=32, RMSEA=.077, CFI=.89, GFI=.95 , AGFI=.91, SRMR=.062). The factor loadings of the scale range from .32 to .61. The Cronbach Alpha internal consistency reliability coefficient of the scale was .67 and the corrected item total correlation coefficients varied between .26 and .43. In this study, internal consistency reliability coefficient was found as .71.
Positivity Scale (PS): The Positivity Scale developed by Caprara et al. (2012) is a measurement tool with a 5-point Likert ("1" Not at all -"5" Completely appropriate) type rating consisting of a total of 8 items, one of which is scored in reverse (item 6). The adaptation of the scale to Turkish was made by Çıkrırkçı, Çiftçi and Gençdoğan (2015). According to confirmatory factor analysis results, fit index values were χ 2 (17)= 49.75, p<.001; χ 2 /df= 2.92; RMSEA = .06; CFI = .95; IFI = .95; GFI = .97; AGFI = .94; NFI = .92; NNFI = .92; SRMR = .04; RFI = .88 and the factor loadings of the items ranged from .33 to .72. Cronbach Alpha internal consistency coefficient was .73, and test retest reliability correlation coefficient was .91. The item total correlation coefficients range from .46 to .72. The internal consistency reliability coefficient for this study was found to be .72.
Revenge Scale (RS): Developed by Stuckless and Goranson (1992), RS consists of 20 items and one dimension and is of 7-point Likert (1=Strongly disagree, 7=Strongly agree) type. After items 1, 4,5,8,9,11,15,17,18, and 20 on the scale are reverse coded, a revenge score is obtained by summing scores of all items. The range of probable scores in the scale ranges from 20 to 140. The high scores on the scale indicate that the level of revenge of the individual is high. The Turkish adaptation of the scale was made by the Satıcı, Can, and Akın (2015). As a result of the exploratory factor analysis, it was determined that the Turkish form revealed 37% of the total variance and had a one-dimensional structure as in the original scale. Confirmatory factor analysis results showed that the one-dimensional structure of the scale fit well (χ 2 =341, χ 2 /df=2.23, NFI=.95, CFI=.97, IFI=.97, RFI=0.94, GFI=.91, RMSEA=.061 and SRMR=.05). The Cronbach alpha internal consistency coefficient of the scale was .91 and the test-retest correlation coefficient was .87. In the criterion-related validity, it was found that there was a negative relationship between RS and forgiveness, and a positive relationship between RS and deep thinking about anger.

Data Analysis
The Oxford Happiness Questionnaire-Short Form, Forgiveness Scale, Positivity Scale, and Revenge Scale, after obtaining approval to use, were combined with personal information form to obtain the application form. By coming together with volunteer participants outside the classroom hours, they were given 20 minutes to fill this application form. The obtained forms were transferred to the digital medium and the statistical data analysis process begun. As a result of the preliminary analyzes made, it is assumed that the data exhibit a normal distribution since the values obtained as a result of division of kurtosis and skewness values by standard error coefficients are between -1.96 and +1.96 (Table 1). Therefore, for the data analyses, of the parametric tests, independent samples t-test, Pearson product-moment correlation analysis, and multiple regression analysis was used. The analyses were assessed by taking 95% confidence interval p<.05 as the criterion.

Correlation Analysis
The Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Analysis was applied to determine whether there is a relationship between forgiveness, positivity, happiness and revenge in adults, and the results are shown in Table 2. When Table 2 is examined, there are negative correlations at p<.01 significance level between the revenge feelings of adults and forgiveness, positivity and happiness levels (r=-.55, -.45, -.33), respectively. There is a positive correlation between forgiveness and positivity and happiness at p<.01 significance level (r=.67, .58), respectively. There is also a positive correlation of r=.61 between positivity and happiness at p<.01 significance level.

Regression Analysis
Before conducting multiple regression analysis, some assumptions must be met to apply this analysis according to Tabachnick and Fidell (2013). Among these, the reliability of normality prediction results (normality), autocorrelation and multicollinearity were checked in this study. After multiple regression analysis criteria were met, revenge was taken as dependent variable, forgiveness, positivity and happiness scores were taken as independent variables; the results are given in Table 3.  Table 3 shows that forgiveness and positivity explains 31% (R 2 =.31, F=51.72, p=0.000) of the total variance of revenge. Forgiveness is an important predictor of revenge. Happiness has almost no effect in this structure.

Comparative Analysis
The Independent Samples t-Test was used to determine whether participants' forgiveness, positivity, happiness and revenge scores varied according to gender, and the results are given in Table 4. When Table 4 is examined, the males' forgiveness scores ( = 31.60) are higher than the females' forgiveness scores ( = 30.82). This difference is statistically insignificant at p>.05 level. Likewise, the males' happiness scores ( = 32.21) are higher than the females' happiness scores ( = 30.91). This difference is statistically insignificant at p>.05 level. None the less, the males' revenge scores ( = 87.75) are lower than the females' revenge scores ( = 91,67). This difference is statistically insignificant at p>.05 level. On the other hand, the males' positivity scores ( = 29.00) are higher than the females' positivity scores ( = 27.07). This difference was statistically significant at p<.05 level.

Discussion
The main purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between positivity, forgiveness, happiness and the feeling of revenge. A number of hypotheses have been claimed to achieve this goal. According to the first hypothesis, as forgiveness increases, the feeling of revenge must The Relationships between Positivity, Forgiveness, Happiness, and Revenge Fatıma Firdevs ADAM KARDUZ, Hakan SARIÇAM decrease. According to Schwartz (1978), forgiveness for social participation is a principle, while revenge is a retaliation and dangerous for social participation. In other words, forgiveness and revenge are opposite to each other in social relations. Similarly, Bajwa and Khalid (2015) found that forgiveness in their work on young adults was a negative predictor of revenge. Berry et al. (2005) argued that revenge-oriented thoughts were less in forgiving people. McCullough, Bellah, Johnson, and Kilpatrik (2001) argued that revenge was associated with less forgiveness, more rumination about crime, higher negative affect, and lower life satisfaction; in addition, they found negative relationships between revenge and forgiveness and between revenge and acceptability/appropriateness in their 8-week crosssectional study, whereas they found that revenge was positively related to neuroticism. These expressions and findings show similarities to the negative relationship between forgiveness and revenge, which is the finding of the study. In other words, the first hypothesis of the study was confirmed.
According to the second hypothesis, as the positivity increases, the feeling of revenge must decrease. There was no direct study of the relationship between positivity and revenge, but studies involving similar concepts were found. For example, Satıcı (2016) found that university students with high positive affect had less revenge feelings. In addition, Ysseldyk (2005) claimed that revenge feelings (e.g., anger, furiousness) and components (hostility, aggression, etc.) harm psychological well-being and mental health; and emphasized that positive reinterpretation of the problematic event restrains anger and revenge. Anger, stress, anxiety and depression can be inevitable because the planner of revenge has negative metacognitions, ruminative and diffusive deep thoughts about a revenge plan, retaliation, punishment, the event or the perpetrator (Bradfield & Aquino, 1999;Bushman, 2002;Morrison & O'Connor, 2005, Nolen-Hoeksema, Parker, & Larson, 1994Sarıçam, 2015c;Treynor, Gonzalez, & Nolen-Hoeksema, 2003;Ysseldyk, 2005). This situation negatively affects the individual's well-being. McCullough et al. (2001) found negative relationships between revenge and goodness and between revenge and extroverted personality type. As the extroversion increases, the feeling of revenge decreases. According to Köknel (1995), Costa (1987, 1990) and Zel (2001), "being positive" is among the most important characteristics of extroverted personality type. In a study conducted by Szczesniak and Soares (2011), there was a negative relationship between life satisfaction and motivation for revenge. According to Çapan and Arıcıoğlu (2014), as psychological stability increases, forgiveness towards oneself, forgiveness towards others and forgiveness towards the situation are influenced positively. It cannot be said that forgiveness and revenge are exactly the opposite of each other, but revenge begins with the forgiveness of the offender's behavior (Brown, 2004). When one thinks of it in this context, the feeling of revenge may decrease as the psychological stability increases. Based on these statements, the negative relationship between revenge and positivity, which is the finding of this study, can be explained indirectly. As a result, the research hypothesis can be said to have been confirmed.
According to the third hypothesis, there will be a negative relationship between happiness and revenge. According to Uysal and Satıcı (2014), subjective happiness has an intermediary role between revenge and forgiveness. According to another finding of the same research, as the feeling of revenge increases, subjective happiness decreases. Phillips, Henry, Hosie, and Milne (2006) claimed that emotional regulation strategies could improve well-being. Verbal or non-verbal emotional expressions, emotional control and especially anger control increase well-being by providing social interaction; the rumination in emotional events negatively affects the wellbeing because it causes concern in social interaction. In other words, quality of life increases as anger control is provided. Bono, McCullough, and Root (2008) stated that the feeling of revenge in the past has adversely affected the present-day close relationships and the state of psychological well-being. Because these findings confirm the negative relationship between revenge and happiness, which is the finding of this research, the research hypothesis has been confirmed.
According to the last hypothesis about the relationship between the variables of the research, a positive relationship between forgiveness and happiness should be expected. Friedman (2009), McCullough (2000) and Safaria (2014) argue that forgiveness is an important predictor of happiness. Similarly, Chan (2013) found positive relationships between forgiveness and happiness orientations and between forgiveness and meaning in life. In other words, as forgiveness increases, pleasure in life, engagement with life, life satisfaction and meaning in life increase. Maltby, Day, and Barber (2005), by utilizing the two dimensional happiness model called hedonic and eudemonic happiness, claim that both hedonic and eudemonic happiness increase, as forgiveness in relationships increases. They also emphasized that it is important not to plunge into negative thinking about crime/error in terms of short-term hedonic happiness, but also to adhere to positive behaviors and emotions while maintaining longterm eudemonic happiness. Toussaint and Friedman (2009) found relationships between forgiving motives and psychological well-being, and found also that gratitude has a mediating role in these positive relationships. Bono et al. (2008), Tsang, McCullough, and Fincham (2006) have indicated that the faulty person's apology and victim's forgiving especially in close relationships increase the psychological well-being of both sides by restoring the relationship. The relationship between forgiveness and happiness, which is the finding of this research, shows parallels with these studies. In other words, the last hypothesis of the research has been confirmed.
When the scores of positivity, forgiveness, happiness and revenge are examined according to the gender variable, which is another purpose of the study, the males' forgiveness scores are higher than the females' forgiveness scores, although the difference is statistically not significant. Similarly, Toussaint and Webb (2005) found that forgiveness scores did not differ statistically significantly by gender, but that females had more empathic tendencies. In contrast, Walker and Doverspike (2001) claim that Christian men's adherence to masculine gender roles block their experience of forgiveness. Konstam, Chernoff, and Deveney (2001) stated that the feeling of guilt and the reduction or disappearance of anger plays an important role in women's forgiveness; and shame, age and pride are important factors in men's forgiveness. In other words, when women's anger cools off or because they think they are also guilty in the event, they forgive more easily; and men become more forgiving as they age, they are ashamed and not proud of the incident. Thus, the finding of the study partially overlaps with the literature.
In this study, although statistically insignificant, males' happiness scores are higher than females' happiness scores. Similarly, according to Fujita, Diener, and Sandvik (1991), although the negative affection is more intense in women, happiness does not differ statistically significantly by gender. Pinquart and Sörensen (2001) in their study of the meta-analysis where they synthesized findings from three hundred empirical studies found that the perceived happiness levels of older women were significantly lower than that of men. So the finding of the current study overlaps with the literature.
In this study, men's revenge scores are lower than women's revenge scores, although the difference is statistically insignificant. Cota-McKinley, Woody, and Bell (2001) found that age, gender and tendency for religiousness were affective in the feeling of revenge, and men were more avenging because women tend to have more tendency for religiousness; and they claimed that religiousness reduced the feeling of revenge. Miller, Everett, Worthington, and McDaniel (2008) claimed that men might have a greater feeling of revenge than women because their aggression tendencies are higher. So the finding of the study does not coincide with the literature.
On the other hand, the males' positivity scores are statistically significantly higher than females' positivity scores. According to Fujita et al. (1991) and Nolen-Hoeksema and Rusting (1999), females show more personality types due to cultural and social roles (such as motherhood) placed on them and this can cause them to live more negative emotions compared to men. So, the related literature overlaps with the finding of the study.

Conclusions
According to the findings of correlation analysis, positive relationships between the feeling of revenge and positivity, forgiveness and happiness are found, whereas positivity, forgiveness and happiness have positive relations among themselves. According to the findings of predictive analysis, the most important negative predictor of the revenge feeling is forgiveness. It is interesting to note that even though there is a negative relationship between happiness and revenge, this negative effect of happiness is lost in the explanation of revenge. It can be said that the reason for this is that some people who have feelings of revenge or take revenge take pleasure from this situation or, in other words, they are happy with this situation. In addition, it was found as a result of the study that males had a statistically more positive outlook. It can be said that cultural factors and the characteristics of the selected group are influential in this difference. Since the selected group is the pedagogical formation students, not only the single university students but also married and working individuals, especially mothers, were in it. Therefore, in future studies, this over-heterogeneity can be controlled to obtain more different findings.
Based on the above findings and the related literature, it can be said that a strategy for increasing forgiveness, positivity and happiness can be used in psycho-education programs or therapy applications to be designed to reduce or prevent the feeling of revenge.