Decisional Forgiveness Scale and Emotional Forgiveness Scale

Abstract

The Decisional Forgiveness Scale (DFS) and the Emotional Forgiveness Scale (EFS) are twin psychometric instruments developed by Everett L. Worthington Jr., Joshua N. Hook, Shawn O. Utsey, and colleagues (2007, 2008) to operationalize the theoretical dual-process model of interpersonal forgiveness. Rooted in stress and coping theory, affective neuroscience, and positive psychology, these complementary scales differentiate between a behavioral, intention-driven commitment to forego retaliation and maintain prosocial conduct (decisional forgiveness) and the psychobiological replacement of negative, unforgiving emotions with positive, benevolent affect (emotional forgiveness). Each inventory comprises eight items assessed via a 5-point Likert response scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). The DFS assesses two distinct subdimensions: Prosocial Intention and Inhibition of Harmful Intention. In parallel, the EFS assesses two emotional trajectories: Presence of Positive Emotion and Reduction of Negative Emotion.

Extensive psychometric investigations across diverse community, undergraduate, and cross-cultural cohorts consistently confirm that both the DFS and EFS possess robust internal consistency reliabilities, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients typically ranging between α = .75 and α = .89 for the overall scales and primary subfactors, alongside strong test-retest stabilities over two-to-six-week intervals (r = .70 to .85). Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) demonstrate excellent structural validity for correlated two-factor architectures within each measure, as well as a higher-order four-factor unified model indicating that decisional and emotional forgiveness represent interrelated yet empirically dissociable psychological constructs. Convergent, discriminant, and incremental validity are evidenced by systematic associations with the Transgression-Related Interpersonal Motivations Inventory (TRIM), empathy, rumination, trait agreeableness, neuroticism, cardiovascular reactivity, and salivary cortisol levels. This article provides a comprehensive academic review of the historical development, theoretical foundations, psychometric parameters, structural validity, scoring procedures, clinical utility, and complete verbatim item sets for both scales.

Keywords

Decisional Forgiveness Scale, Emotional Forgiveness Scale, Everett L. Worthington Jr., interpersonal forgiveness, dual-process model, emotional forgiveness, prosocial intention, negative affect reduction, psychological measurement, psychometrics, relational transgressions, stress and coping

Authors

The Decisional Forgiveness Scale and Emotional Forgiveness Scale were conceptualized, authored, and psychometrically validated by a collaborative team of clinical, counseling, and social psychologists spearheaded by:

• Everett L. Worthington Jr., Ph.D. — Commonwealth Professor Emeritus of Psychology, Department of Psychology, Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU), Richmond, Virginia, United States. Dr. Worthington is widely recognized as one of the preeminent pioneering scholars in the empirical study of forgiveness, reconciliation, and virtue ethics. Contact: [email protected].
• Joshua N. Hook, Ph.D. — Professor of Psychology, Department of Psychology, University of North Texas, Denton, Texas, United States. Specializing in counseling psychology, humility, positive psychology, and multicultural counseling.
• Shawn O. Utsey, Ph.D. — Professor of Counseling Psychology and Chair of the Department of African American Studies, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, United States. Focuses on psychometrics, race-related stress, and cultural factors in mental health.
• Julia K. Williams, M.S. — Department of Psychology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, United States.
• Rachel L. Neil, B.S. — Department of Psychology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, United States.
• Subsequent validation collaborators (2008): Charlotte vanOyen Witvliet, Ph.D. (Hope College), Talia Nir, Ph.D., and Alfred Dueck, Ph.D. (Fuller Theological Seminary).

Purpose

For decades following the emergence of interpersonal forgiveness as an empirical field in the late 1980s and early 1990s, scholars struggled with operational ambiguity. Early psychological assessments often conflated cognitive decisions to reconcile, the cessation of vengeful acts, religious compliance, and visceral emotional healing into undifferentiated, monolithic instruments. Researchers such as Michael E. McCullough and colleagues focused largely on motivational shifts using instruments such as the Transgression-Related Interpersonal Motivations Inventory (TRIM-12 and TRIM-18), which quantified avoidance and revenge motivations. However, clinical practitioners observed that clients often explicitly decided to forgive an offender—renouncing revenge and deliberately choosing prosocial behaviors—yet continued to experience debilitating, visceral feelings of anger, resentment, bitterness, and physiological hyperarousal when confronted with reminders of the transgressor.

To resolve this theoretical and clinical disconnect, Worthington and colleagues (2007, 2008) developed the Decisional Forgiveness Scale (DFS) and the Emotional Forgiveness Scale (EFS). The explicit purpose of these parallel instruments is to measure forgiveness as a two-stage, dual-process psychological phenomenon, isolating the volitional commitment to change interpersonal behavior from the emotional transformation that alters internal psychobiological states.

In clinical interventions and psychotherapy trials, the scales allow clinicians to track the distinct temporal trajectories of client recovery. For instance, in Worthington’s manualized REACH Forgiveness intervention (Emotion-Focused and Cognitive-Behavioral Psychoeducation), decisional forgiveness frequently occurs early in therapy as a cognitive-behavioral commitment, acting as an essential catalyst that provides psychological safety. Conversely, emotional forgiveness develops more gradually as empathy, compassion, and cognitive reframing replace the chronic stress response. Having separate scales allows practitioners to assess whether a client has attained decisional commitment without emotional resolution, avoiding premature assumptions of complete psychological healing that might lead to relational relapses or masked affective distress.

In experimental and observational research, the DFS and EFS provide investigators with psychometric granularity to test hypotheses concerning cognitive dissonance, executive functioning, stress resilience, autonomic nervous system regulation, immune function, and interpersonal relationship dynamics. The scales enable researchers to ascertain whether specific neurobiological outcomes (such as blunted heart rate reactivity or lowered cortisol awakening responses) are uniquely driven by emotional forgiveness rather than cognitive decisional intention alone.

Psychological Construct

The psychological constructs measured by the DFS and EFS represent complementary dimensions of a comprehensive, transdiagnostic model of interpersonal forgiveness. Rather than treating forgiveness as an all-or-nothing dichotomy or a purely cognitive state, the framework decomposes the construct into distinct volitional-behavioral and affective-motivational processes.

The Decisional Forgiveness Construct

Decisional forgiveness is defined as a behavioral intention statement wherein the victim consciously decides to relinquish intentions to seek revenge, refrain from doing harm to the offender, and endeavor to act positively or prosocially toward the offender if opportunities arise. It is fundamentally an act of will, driven by executive cognitive control, moral or philosophical convictions, religious commitments, or rational social pragmatism. Importantly, an individual may genuinely achieve decisional forgiveness while remaining intensely angry, fearful, or bitter. The DFS operationalizes this construct across two distinct subscales:

• Inhibition of Harmful Intention: This dimension measures the deliberate suppression or cessation of negative behavioral intentions. It captures the respondent’s conscious resolve to avoid retaliatory behaviors, refrain from active revenge, and resist hurting the transgressor in return. For example, high scores on this subscale reflect agreement with items affirming that one will not seek revenge and disagreement with urges to strike back or inflict reciprocal damage.
• Prosocial Intention: This dimension assesses the individual’s forward-looking, positive behavioral orientation toward the transgressor. It quantifies the respondent’s expressed readiness to treat the offender with civility, provide aid if the offender is in genuine distress, engage in dialogue, and act friendly upon encounter. It represents the constructive, approach-oriented facet of volitional forgiveness.

The Emotional Forgiveness Construct

Emotional forgiveness is defined as the psychobiological replacement of negative, unforgiving emotions (such as resentment, bitterness, hostility, anger, hatred, and fear) with positive, other-oriented emotions (such as empathy, sympathy, compassion, benevolence, and love). Emotional forgiveness does not merely imply emotional suppression, numbness, or indifference; rather, it requires an affective transformation whereby the emotional valence of the victim’s schema regarding the transgressor shifts from threat-based hostility to prosocial warmth. The EFS assesses this construct across two distinct affective dimensions:

• Reduction of Negative Emotion: This subscale measures the attenuation, neutralization, and dissipation of visceral distress, bitter ruminations, enduring anger, and chronic resentment tied to the transgression. It captures the extent to which thinking about the offender no longer provokes autonomic arousal or subjective negative affect.
• Presence of Positive Emotion: This subscale evaluates the emergence of benevolent, prosocial emotional states directed toward the transgressor. It taps feelings of genuine care, sympathy, liking, and relational warmth, signaling that the victim has progressed beyond emotional neutrality toward positive affective reconciliation or unselfish benevolence.

Theoretical Framework

The DFS and EFS are grounded in Worthington’s Stress-and-Coping Dual-Process Theory of Forgiveness (Worthington, 2006; Worthington & Scherer, 2004), which interfaces cognitive psychology, evolutionary social psychology, and affective neuroscience.

The Stress and Coping Paradigm

Under this theoretical model, an interpersonal transgression is conceptualized as an interpersonal stressor that induces an acute stress reaction. When a person perceives that another individual has violated a relational boundary or inflicted harm, the victim conducts a primary appraisal of threat, harm, or loss (invoking Lazarus & Folkman’s transactional model). This appraisal generates an emotional state termed unforgiveness—a complex, enduring emotional blend consisting of anger, resentment, hostility, bitter rumination, fear of vulnerability, and depressive affect.

Unforgiveness acts as a chronic stressor. Psychophysiologically, it activates the sympathetic-adrenomedullary (SAM) axis and the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis, resulting in elevated blood pressure, heightened vascular resistance, suppressed natural killer (NK) cell cytotoxicity, and hypercortisolemia. Coping strategies aimed at resolving unforgiveness may be categorized into problem-focused strategies (e.g., seeking legal justice, confronting the offender, demanding restitution) and emotion-focused strategies (e.g., reappraisal, acceptance, avoidance, and forgiveness).

The Dual-Process Model: Decisional vs. Emotional Forgiveness

Worthington posited that forgiveness operates through two distinct cognitive-affective pathways that can occur sequentially, concurrently, or independently:

1. The Decisional Pathway (Cognitive Executive Control): Driven primarily by prefrontal cortical executive networks (including the dorsolateral and ventrolateral prefrontal cortex), decisional forgiveness involves the strategic formulation of behavioral intentions. An individual evaluates their options, weighs the relational, moral, or psychological costs of perpetual conflict, and reaches a firm decision: “I will not retaliate, and I will treat this person constructively.” This decision creates a behavioral contract that governs future interactions. However, cognitive decisions alone often fail to immediately dismantle deep subcortical limbic conditioning (e.g., amygdaloid threat responses).
2. The Emotional Pathway (Affective Neuro-reconditioning): Emotional forgiveness relies on emotional juxtaposition and replacement. Because human neurobiology cannot simultaneously experience reciprocal physiological states (the principle of reciprocal inhibition, originally articulated by Joseph Wolpe), inducing positive, other-oriented emotional states—specifically empathy, sympathy, humility, and love—directly neutralizes and displaces negative emotional states. As positive affect is cultivated through repeated cognitive reappraisals and narrative perspective-taking, the ventral striatum, medial prefrontal cortex, and oxytocinergic pathways are engaged, terminating the systemic stress response.

Thus, the theoretical framework demonstrates that while decisional forgiveness sets an executive boundary that curbs antisocial actions and establishes psychological safety, emotional forgiveness provides psychobiological healing and immune-cardiovascular relief by eradicating the toxic residue of chronic unforgiveness.

Validity

Extensive empirical investigations across diverse cultural, developmental, and clinical contexts have established robust psychometric validity for both the Decisional Forgiveness Scale and the Emotional Forgiveness Scale.

Construct and Structural Validity

In the foundational validation samples reported by Worthington et al. (2007, 2008), the DFS and EFS demonstrated clear evidence of construct independence coupled with theoretical convergence. Factor-analytic procedures confirmed that items from the DFS and EFS load reliably onto their designated latent constructs without significant cross-loadings. While decisional and emotional forgiveness correlate moderately to strongly (typical latent correlations range from r = .50 to r = .70), structural equation modeling confirms that a two-factor oblique model (differentiating decisional from emotional forgiveness) fits the empirical data significantly better than a single-factor unidimensional forgiveness model (Δχ² tests yielded p < .001 across all developmental samples).

Convergent Validity

Both scales correlate in expected directions with established measures of transgression-related dynamics and dispositional personality traits:

• Transgression-Related Interpersonal Motivations: The DFS exhibits strong negative correlations with the TRIM-18 Revenge subscale (r = −.55 to −.72) and TRIM-18 Avoidance subscale (r = −.45 to −.65). The EFS demonstrates similarly strong negative correlations with Revenge (r = −.48 to −.65) and Avoidance (r = −.50 to −.68), while displaying an exceptionally strong positive correlation with the TRIM-18 Benevolence subscale (r = .60 to .75).
• Empathy and Perspective-Taking: The EFS exhibits a particularly strong positive correlation with victim empathy toward the transgressor, as assessed by the Batson Empathy Adjectives scale (r = .55 to .70), substantially higher than the corresponding correlation observed between empathy and the DFS (r = .30 to .42), demonstrating the theoretical prediction that emotional forgiveness is fundamentally driven by empathetic engagement.
• Personality Dimensions: Both scales correlate positively with Big Five Agreeableness (r = .25 to .40) and negatively with Neuroticism (r = −.20 to −.35).

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity has been demonstrated against constructs such as social desirability, condonation, excusing, and forgetting. Correlations between DFS/EFS scores and Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability scores are negligible to weak (r = .05 to .18), indicating that responses are not simply artifactual reflections of socially desirable responding. Furthermore, regression analyses show that both scales diverge sharply from measures of legal reconciliation, confirming that a victim can report high decisional and emotional forgiveness toward an abusive or untrustworthy offender while maintaining strict physical boundaries and refusing interpersonal reconciliation.

Predictive and Incremental Psychophysiological Validity

Crucially, psychophysiological investigations conducted by Witvliet, Worthington, and colleagues (e.g., Worthington et al., 2008) have confirmed the incremental and predictive validity of differentiating the two scales. While high DFS scores predict the inhibition of aggressive behavior in laboratory decision-making tasks, they do not consistently predict attenuated autonomic arousal during transgression imagery. Conversely, high EFS scores uniquely and significantly predict lower mean arterial blood pressure, reduced corrugator electromyographic (EMG) muscle tension, normalized heart rate variability (HRV), and suppressed salivary cortisol release during recall tasks. This physiological dissociation provides compelling biomarker-level validation for the distinct psychometric status of the EFS relative to the DFS.

Reliability

The Decisional Forgiveness Scale and the Emotional Forgiveness Scale have demonstrated high levels of internal consistency and temporal stability across numerous studies involving undergraduate cohorts, adult community samples, married couples, and clinical populations.

Internal Consistency

Across empirical studies, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the full scales and their respective subscales consistently meet and exceed accepted psychometric standards for behavioral research (α ≥ .70 to .80):

• Decisional Forgiveness Scale (DFS Total, 8 items): Displays Cronbach’s alpha values ranging from α = .78 to α = .88. The Prosocial Intention subscale (4 items) typically exhibits α = .74 to α = .82, while the Inhibition of Harmful Intention subscale (4 items) demonstrates α = .75 to α = .85.
• Emotional Forgiveness Scale (EFS Total, 8 items): Yields overall Cronbach’s alpha values ranging from α = .80 to α = .89. The Reduction of Negative Emotion subscale (4 items) reliably reports α = .76 to α = .86, and the Presence of Positive Emotion subscale (4 items) yields α = .78 to α = .88.

Test-Retest Stability

Temporal stability assessments have revealed robust test-retest reliability across various testing windows, confirming that both scales assess enduring psychological states that exhibit trait-like stability in the absence of therapeutic intervention while remaining sensitive to psychological change:

• Two-Week Test-Retest Reliability: Intraclass correlation coefficients and Pearson product-moment correlations range from r = .75 to .85 for the DFS, and r = .72 to .82 for the EFS.
• Four-to-Six-Week Stability: In waitlist control groups participating in forgiveness intervention trials, stability coefficients remain solid (r = .68 to .78 for the DFS; r = .65 to .75 for the EFS). In treatment groups, however, both scales demonstrate substantial and statistically significant change scores (Cohen’s d ranging from 0.60 to 1.10), confirming high sensitivity to clinical and psychoeducational interventions.

Factor Analysis

The structural architectures of the DFS and EFS were thoroughly evaluated through initial exploratory factor analysis (EFA) followed by rigorous confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) across multiple large independent samples.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

During scale development, Worthington et al. conducted principal axis factoring with promax (oblique) rotation on large candidate item pools. For the DFS, item screening extracted two distinct, highly interpretable factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0, corresponding to Inhibition of Harmful Intention (accounting for approximately 35% of common variance) and Prosocial Intention (accounting for approximately 18% of common variance). Item loadings on their designated primary factors were robust, ranging from .58 to .84, with minimal cross-loadings (< .20).

Similarly, EFA on the EFS item pool yielded a clear two-factor structure. Factor 1, Presence of Positive Emotion, explained approximately 38% of common variance, with factor loadings between .62 and .88. Factor 2, Reduction of Negative Emotion, accounted for approximately 16% of common variance, with item loadings ranging from .55 to .82.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Subsequent CFA investigations across community and college samples verified the structural fit of the proposed multidimensional models. Goodness-of-fit indices consistently supported the hypothesized multidimensional structures over competing single-factor solutions:

• DFS Model Fit: The correlated two-factor model for the DFS demonstrated excellent fit across independent validation datasets: Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = .96 to .98, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) = .94 to .97, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = .045 to .062 (90% CI [.031, .076]), and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) = .038 to .051. Standardized factor loadings across all eight items exceeded .60 (p < .001).
• EFS Model Fit: The correlated two-factor model for the EFS similarly showed strong empirical fit: CFI = .97 to .99, TLI = .95 to .98, RMSEA = .041 to .058 (90% CI [.028, .072]), and SRMR = .034 to .048. All standardized factor loadings were statistically significant and ranged from .63 to .89.
• Hierarchical / Four-Factor Joint Model: When both scales were evaluated concurrently within a unified CFA framework, a four-factor model (specifying the four distinct subscales: Inhibition of Harmful Intention, Prosocial Intention, Reduction of Negative Emotion, and Presence of Positive Emotion) loading onto two correlated higher-order factors (Decisional Forgiveness and Emotional Forgiveness) provided superior fit to the data (χ²/df = 1.84, CFI = .96, RMSEA = .050, SRMR = .044) compared to a single general “forgiveness” factor (χ²/df = 5.21, CFI = .78, RMSEA = .115).

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Tool Names: Decisional Forgiveness Scale (DFS) and Emotional Forgiveness Scale (EFS).
• Developers / Authors: Everett L. Worthington Jr., Joshua N. Hook, Shawn O. Utsey, Julia K. Williams, Rachel L. Neil, Charlotte vanOyen Witvliet, Talia Nir, and Alfred Dueck.
• Publication / Validation Dates: 2007 (Conference Presentation, International Positive Psychology Summit); 2008 (Formal Psychometric Validation Manuscript).
• Assessment Type: Transgression-specific, self-report psychological rating scales.
• Target Population: Adolescents (ages 14+) and adults who have experienced an interpersonal offense, betrayal, or transgression.
• Total Item Count: 16 items total (8 items on the DFS; 8 items on the EFS).
• Administration Time: Approximately 3 to 5 minutes total for both scales.
• Response Format / Scale: 5-point Likert-type scale scored as follows:
• 1 = Strongly Disagree
• 2 = Disagree
• 3 = Neutral
• 4 = Agree
• 5 = Strongly Agree
• Subscale Structural Breakdown:
  • Decisional Forgiveness Scale (DFS):
    • Prosocial Intention Subscale: Items 2, 3, 5, 7.
    • Inhibition of Harmful Intention Subscale: Items 1, 4, 6, 8.
  • Emotional Forgiveness Scale (EFS):
    • Presence of Positive Emotion Subscale: Items 1, 4, 6, 8.
    • Reduction of Negative Emotion Subscale: Items 2, 3, 5, 7.
• Scoring Instructions:
  • DFS Reverse Scoring: Items 1, 2, 4, 6, and 7 must be reverse-scored prior to calculating subscale and total scores (i.e., transform: 1 → 5, 2 → 4, 3 → 3, 4 → 2, 5 → 1). Note that Item 8 is already worded in the direction of forgiveness (“I will not seek revenge…”) and is therefore scored directly.
  • DFS Total Score: Sum or average all 8 items after reverse-coding. Total summed scores range from 8 to 40, with higher scores reflecting greater decisional forgiveness.
  • EFS Reverse Scoring: Items 3, 5, and 7 must be reverse-scored prior to calculating subscale and total scores (transform: 1 → 5, 2 → 4, 3 → 3, 4 → 2, 5 → 1). Items 1, 2, 4, 6, and 8 are scored directly.
  • EFS Total Score: Sum or average all 8 items after reverse-coding. Total summed scores range from 8 to 40, with higher scores reflecting greater emotional forgiveness.
  • Subscale Scores: Sum or average the designated 4 items for each subscale. Subscale sums range from 4 to 20.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Decisional Forgiveness Scale (DFS) and Emotional Forgiveness Scale (EFS) were initially presented at the International Positive Psychology Summit in 2007 and fully validated in psychometric research reports in 2008. The scales were developed under the leadership of Dr. Everett L. Worthington Jr. at Virginia Commonwealth University.

Licensing and Accessibility: In accordance with Dr. Worthington’s commitment to open science and the dissemination of positive psychological interventions, both the DFS and EFS are placed in the public domain for non-commercial educational, clinical, and scientific research purposes. No licensing fees or formal royalties are required to administer, translate, or adapt the instruments for empirical research or therapeutic practice. The complete instruments, alongside scoring manuals and intervention workbooks, are publicly hosted on Dr. Worthington’s official academic repository: http://www.evworthington-forgiveness.com/assessment-scales/.

Researchers and clinical professionals utilizing the DFS or EFS are expected to cite the primary author and foundational validation papers in all academic publications, dissertations, and conference presentations.

References

• McCullough, M. E., Root, L. M., & Cohen, A. D. (2006). Writing about the benefits of an interpersonal transgression facilitates forgiveness. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74(5), 887–897. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.74.5.887
• McCullough, M. E., Worthington, E. L., Jr., & Rachal, K. C. (1997). Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(2), 321–336. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.2.321
• Witvliet, C. v. O., Ludwig, T. E., & Vander Laan, K. L. (2001). Granting forgiveness or harboring grudges: Implications for emotion, physiology, and health. Psychological Science, 12(2), 117–123. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00320
• Worthington, E. L., Jr. (2006). Forgiveness and reconciliation: Theory and application. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203955680
• Worthington, E. L., Jr., Hook, J. N., Utsey, S. O., Williams, J. K., & Neil, R. L. (2007, October). Decisional and emotional forgiveness. Paper presented at the International Positive Psychology Summit, Washington, DC.
• Worthington, E. L., Jr., Hook, J. N., Vitvliet, C. V. O., Williams, J., Nir, T., Utsey, S. O., & Dueck, A. (2008). Emotional and decisional forgiveness: Construct validity, development of self-report measures, and psychometric properties of the instruments. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA. Available online at: http://www.evworthington-forgiveness.com/assessment-scales/
• Worthington, E. L., Jr., & Scherer, M. (2004). Forgiveness is an emotion-focused coping strategy that promotes health. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 7(4), 385–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/13674670410001666633

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)