Forgiveness Likelihood Scale

1. Abstract

The Forgiveness Likelihood Scale (FLS) is an influential, scenario-based psychometric instrument developed by Mark S. Rye and colleagues in 2001 to assess an individual’s dispositional tendency or propensity to forgive across a broad spectrum of hypothetical interpersonal transgressions. In contrast to state-based measures that evaluate forgiveness directed toward a single, idiosyncratic real-life offense (such as the Transgression-Related Interpersonal Motivations Inventory), the FLS conceptualizes forgiveness as a cross-situational, trait-like disposition. Comprising 10 realistic interpersonal scenarios depicting offenses ranging from breaches of confidentiality and infidelity to property damage and grand larceny, respondents indicate their perceived likelihood of granting forgiveness on a 5-point Likert-type response scale ranging from 1 (“Not at all likely”) to 5 (“Extremely Likely”).

Extensive psychometric investigations conducted across university and community populations demonstrate that the FLS possesses robust internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha coefficients routinely falling between α = .84 and α = .87) and commendable test-retest reliability across a multi-week interval (r = .81). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses generally substantiate a predominant unidimensional structure reflecting generalized forgiveness propensity, although some empirical investigations identify subtle secondary factors related to the severity of the offense or the relational intimacy of the transgressor (e.g., romantic partners vs. strangers). Construct validity is firmly established through robust convergent correlations with other dispositional forgiveness inventories (e.g., the Heartland Forgiveness Scale, the Enright Forgiveness Inventory), empathy, agreeableness, and psychological well-being, as well as significant inverse associations with trait anger, hostility, neuroticism, vengeance, and depressive symptomatology. The FLS has established itself as an indispensable methodological tool in clinical assessment, social-personality psychology, marital and family counseling research, and peace psychology, serving as an effective baseline metric and outcome variable in intervention trials designed to cultivate interpersonal and intrapersonal forgiveness.

2. Keywords

Forgiveness Likelihood Scale, FLS, dispositional forgiveness, interpersonal transgressions, trait forgiveness, psychometrics, Rye forgiveness scale, conflict resolution, interpersonal offenses, forgiveness propensity, relational forgiveness, psychological assessment

3. Authors

The Forgiveness Likelihood Scale was developed and empirically validated by a research team led by Dr. Mark S. Rye along with collaborators Dawn M. Loiacono, Chad D. Folck, Brandon T. Olszewski, Todd A. Heim, and Benjamin P. Madia at the Department of Psychology, University of Dayton, Ohio, USA.

• Mark S. Rye, Ph.D.: Professor of Psychology at Skidmore College (formerly at the University of Dayton). Dr. Rye is a prominent clinical psychologist whose scholarship focuses on the psychology of forgiveness, religion, spirituality, and mental health. He has developed psychoeducational group interventions for divorce recovery and interpersonal trauma. Contact: Department of Psychology, Skidmore College, 815 North Broadway, Saratoga Springs, NY 12866, USA. Email: [email protected].
• Dawn M. Loiacono, B.A.: Department of Psychology, University of Dayton, Dayton, Ohio. Contributed to study conceptualization, scenario generation, and initial normative data collection.
• Chad D. Folck, B.A.: Department of Psychology, University of Dayton, Dayton, Ohio. Collaborated on scale development and psychometric evaluation.
• Brandon T. Olszewski, Ph.D.: Conducted early psychometric validation at the University of Dayton; later pursued advanced research methodologies and educational assessment.
• Todd A. Heim, B.A.: Department of Psychology, University of Dayton, Dayton, Ohio. Assisted in data coding, statistical analyses, and construct validation.
• Benjamin P. Madia, B.A.: Department of Psychology, University of Dayton, Dayton, Ohio. Assisted in longitudinal testing and criterion-related validity assessments.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Forgiveness Likelihood Scale is to provide a standardized, objective, and experimentally controlled index of an individual’s trait propensity to forgive hurtful interpersonal infractions. In the empirical study of positive psychology, relational conflict, and emotion regulation, researchers had long encountered a methodological dilemma: state measures of forgiveness (such as asking a participant to recall their most severe unresolved transgression) are subject to tremendous confounding variance. When individuals report on real-life offenses, their scores are inherently influenced by time elapsed since the transgression, subjective ratings of offense severity, whether the perpetrator apologized or made restitution, and the current state of the ongoing relationship.

To overcome the methodological limitations of idiosyncratic recall, the FLS presents all test-takers with an identical, calibrated battery of 10 hypothetical vignettes. These vignettes encompass diverse interpersonal configurations—including intimate romantic partners, close friends, family members, acquaintances, and complete strangers—and involve distinct transgressions such as infidelity, slander, broken promises, financial theft, and abandonment. By holding the objective offense characteristics constant across all respondents, the FLS isolates the underlying personal threshold for forgiveness, effectively measuring individual differences in forgiveness propensity.

In clinical and therapeutic environments, the FLS serves several key diagnostic and therapeutic functions:

• Baseline Cognitive-Affective Assessment: Clinical psychologists and marriage and family therapists utilize the FLS during intake evaluations to gauge a client’s cognitive and affective readiness to forgive. It identifies deep-seated patterns of punitive attribution, grudge-holding, or chronic unforgiveness that often exacerbate mood and anxiety disorders.
• Evaluation of Clinical Interventions: The scale serves as a sensitive pre-test and post-test measurement tool for evaluating the efficacy of clinical forgiveness interventions, such as Enright’s Process Model of Forgiveness or Worthington’s REACH Model. Increases in FLS scores demonstrate generalized cognitive-emotional growth that transcends the specific incident being targeted in therapy.
• Couples and Marital Therapy: Discrepancies between partners’ FLS scores offer profound systemic insights into relationship dynamics. For instance, a partner with an exceptionally low FLS score may struggle with pervasive mistrust, hypervigilance, and an unwillingness to relinquish relational leverage following perceived slights.
• Basic Research in Social and Personality Psychology: The FLS enables researchers to model complex structural equations linking personality traits (e.g., the Big Five taxonomy, Dark Triad constructs) with prosocial inclinations, physiological stress markers (cortisol, cardiovascular reactivity), and longitudinal relationship stability.

5. Psychological Construct

The construct measured by the Forgiveness Likelihood Scale is dispositional forgiveness (also termed forgivingness or forgiveness propensity). Within contemporary affective and moral psychology, forgiveness is conceptualized as a multi-stage suite of prosocial motivational changes whereby an injured party voluntarily overcomes negative, retaliatory, and avoidant impulses toward an unjust transgressor, replacing them over time with neutral or benevolent feelings, thoughts, and behaviors.

Rye and colleagues (2001) define forgiveness as letting go of negative affect (e.g., hostility, bitterness, resentment), negative cognitions (e.g., vengeful fantasies, blame attributions), and negative behavior (e.g., passive-aggressive retaliation, social ostracism) toward an offender, which may also be accompanied by the cultivation of positive affect and compassion. Dispositional forgiveness represents the stable, cross-situational habitus or internal readiness of an individual to enact this transformation when wronged.

Core Dimensions and Psychological Mechanisms Assessed by the FLS

Although the FLS is typically scored as a unidimensional composite index of forgiveness likelihood, it operationalizes dispositional forgiveness through multiple contextual dynamics represented across its 10 vignettes:

• Relational Closeness and Attachment Security: Transgressions committed by intimate partners (e.g., Item 3: break-up due to dating a mutual friend; Item 5: sexual infidelity/one-night stand) and close friends (e.g., Item 1: breach of confidential secrets; Item 2: malicious rumors) evaluate forgiveness within high-investment, attachment-rich bonds. Individuals with secure attachment styles typically display higher forgiveness likelihood in these scenarios because the relational preservation motivation outweighs the ego threat, whereas insecure or anxiously attached individuals may experience intense relational trauma and resist forgiveness.
• Betrayal of Trust and Loyalty: Items depicting intentional deception, gossiping, and denial of wrongdoing (e.g., Item 6: talking behind one’s back and lying about it; Item 10: breaking a formal dance commitment for someone deemed more attractive) tap directly into violations of loyalty. The construct here involves the respondent’s capacity to overcome feelings of humiliation and social devaluation.
• Material Loss and Restitution Absences: Transgressions involving tangible property or opportunistic professional exploitation (e.g., Item 7: losing a valued possession and refusing replacement; Item 8: stealing a prospective employment opportunity; Item 9: home break-in and financial theft by a stranger) measure the boundary between moral justice and interpersonal benevolence. Forgiving in the absence of restitution or remorse requires overriding retributive justice mechanisms.
• Intentionality and Malice Attributions: Each scenario varies the degree of apparent intentionality. The cognitive dimension of the construct assesses whether the respondent reflexively attributes hostile intent to the transgressor or maintains cognitive flexibility, allowing for external, situational attributions that facilitate empathy and subsequent pardon.

6. Theoretical Framework

The theoretical architecture undergirding the Forgiveness Likelihood Scale is rooted in cognitive-motivational theories of emotion, cognitive appraisal models, and interpersonal interdependence theory.

Cognitive Appraisal and Attribution Theory

According to the cognitive appraisal theory pioneered by Richard Lazarus, emotional reactions to interpersonal offenses are not direct consequences of the objective event, but rather the result of a two-step cognitive appraisal process. Primary appraisal assesses whether an event constitutes a threat, loss, or personal harm to one’s well-being or self-concept. Secondary appraisal evaluates one’s coping resources and options for redress. When an individual confronts an interpersonal offense, trait forgivingness acts as a high-order cognitive schema that influences primary and secondary appraisals.

As explicated by Bernard Weiner’s attribution theory, when a victim attributes an offense to internal, stable, and controllable factors of the perpetrator (“They did this intentionally because they are evil”), the primary emotional output is moral outrage and righteous anger, predisposing the victim toward revenge. Conversely, an individual characterized by high dispositional forgiveness (as tapped by high FLS scores) possesses cognitive heuristics that mitigate hostile attribution bias. Even in scenarios of explicit wrongdoing, individuals high in forgiveness propensity are theoretically more capable of separating the offensive deed from the intrinsic moral worth of the human perpetrator.

Interdependence Theory and Prosocial Transformation

From the perspective of Interdependence Theory (developed by Harold Kelley and John Thibaut), interpersonal transgressions present victims with a coordination dilemma. The natural, immediate “gut-level” impulse (the given matrix) following betrayal is retaliatory aggression or complete social withdrawal (exit). However, individuals possess the psychological capacity to undergo a transformation of motivation, actively shifting from selfish, short-term retribution toward broader, long-term prosocial outcomes (the effective matrix).

The FLS scenarios capture this exact decision-making junction. In each hypothetical vignette, the participant is presented with a scenario where the given matrix dictates anger and social punishment. An endorsement of “Fairly Likely” or “Extremely Likely” on the FLS operationalizes an adaptive transformational capacity: the cognitive ability to inhibit destructive impulses in favor of benevolent outcomes.

The Stress-and-Coping Framework of Forgiveness

Everett Worthington’s stress-and-coping model of forgiveness posits that an interpersonal offense functions as a severe interpersonal stressor. Victims experience an “unforgiveness complex” consisting of chronic, stress-inducing emotions (resentment, bitterness, anger, hostility, fear). Forgiveness is conceptualized as an emotion-focused coping strategy that replaces negative unforgiving emotions with positive other-oriented emotions (empathy, sympathy, compassion, love). The FLS measures an individual’s chronic reliance on this emotion-focused coping style when confronted with various stressors.

7. Validity

The construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity of the Forgiveness Likelihood Scale has been extensively documented in Rye et al. (2001) and substantiated across independent cross-cultural replications.

Convergent Validity

In the seminal psychometric validation study conducted by Rye et al. (2001) with undergraduate participants, the FLS exhibited substantial convergent correlations with established indices of forgiveness and moral behavior:

• Forgiveness of a Specific Offense: The FLS demonstrated significant positive correlations with the Forgiveness Scale (FS; Rye et al., 2001), which assesses state-based forgiveness of a real-life perpetrator (r = .36 to .42, p < .001). This moderate magnitude is theoretically sound: dispositional tendency to forgive should significantly predict, yet remain distinct from, whether one has forgiven a single catastrophic event.
• Trait Empathy: The FLS correlates moderately and positively with measures of perspective taking and empathic concern (e.g., Davis’s Interpersonal Reactivity Index; r values typically ranging from .30 to .45, p < .001), corroborating the theoretical premise that the capacity to imagine another’s internal world fosters forgiveness likelihood.
• Big Five Agreeableness: Across multiple studies, Agreeableness emerges as the single strongest personality correlate of the FLS (r = .38 to .49, p < .001), indicating that interpersonal warmth, altruism, and trust directly fuel forgiveness propensity.
• Religiousness and Spirituality: FLS scores correlate positively with intrinsic religiousness, spiritual well-being, and frequency of private prayer or meditation (r = .24 to .35), consistent with the prioritization of forgiveness within major theological traditions.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity has been demonstrated by showing that the FLS is negatively related to maladaptive interpersonal and emotional traits, while avoiding conflation with socially desirable responding:

• Trait Anger and Hostility: The FLS exhibits strong negative correlations with the Trait Anger scale of the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI; r = -.40 to -.48, p < .001) and the Cook-Medley Hostility Scale, confirming that the scale genuinely taps an absence of persistent rancor.
• Vengefulness: Significant inverse correlations have been repeatedly documented between the FLS and the Vengeance Scale (Stuckless & Goranson; r = -.50 to -.62, p < .001), verifying that individuals with high forgiveness likelihood strongly reject retributive retaliation.
• Social Desirability: Correlations between the FLS and the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale have consistently remained low to negligible (r = .09 to .16, often non-significant), demonstrating that high scores on the FLS reflect genuine behavioral tendencies rather than a mere desire to present oneself in a morally favorable light.
• Neuroticism and Psychological Distress: FLS scores exhibit modest inverse associations with Neuroticism (r = -.21 to -.29) and depressive symptomatology as measured by the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI; r = -.18 to -.25).

8. Reliability

The Forgiveness Likelihood Scale has consistently shown strong psychometric reliability across diverse demographic strata, educational settings, and cultural contexts.

Internal Consistency

In the initial scale construction and validation cohorts evaluated by Rye et al. (2001), the internal consistency of the 10-item instrument was exceptionally high:

• In the primary development sample (N = 277), Cronbach’s coefficient alpha was computed at α = .85.
• In a subsequent cross-validation sample (N = 194), internal consistency was replicated at α = .86.
• Subsequent studies utilizing the FLS in adult community and clinical samples have documented alpha coefficients consistently spanning from α = .84 to α = .88.
• Corrected item-total correlations across the 10 items demonstrate excellent cohesion, with all items exhibiting item-total correlations above r = .42, and the vast majority clustering between r = .50 and r = .68. Deletion of any individual item does not result in an appreciable increase in the overall alpha coefficient.

Test-Retest Reliability and Temporal Stability

Because the FLS is designed to index a trait-like disposition rather than transient situational feelings, temporal stability is critical. Rye et al. (2001) assessed test-retest reliability across a 15-day interval among a subsample of university undergraduates:

• The Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient for test-retest reliability was r = .81 (p < .001), indicating high temporal stability.
• Paired-samples t-tests revealed no significant drift in absolute mean scores across the two-week timeframe, confirming that the instrument captures enduring personality patterns rather than fleeting emotional moods.

9. Factor Analysis

The structural dimensionality of the Forgiveness Likelihood Scale has been scrutinized using both exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

In the foundational psychometric study by Rye et al. (2001), an exploratory factor analysis using principal components analysis (PCA) with both varimax (orthogonal) and oblimin (oblique) rotations was conducted on the 10 items:

• Eigenvalue Analysis: The initial unrotated solution revealed a dominant first factor accounting for the vast majority of the common variance (eigenvalue > 4.0, accounting for approximately 42% to 46% of total variance). A secondary factor yielded an eigenvalue slightly above 1.0 (approximately 1.08), but the scree plot exhibited a clear drop-off after the first component, justifying a single-factor interpretation.
• Factor Loadings: When extracted as a single general factor, all 10 items loaded positively and robustly. Factor loadings for the single-factor solution typically ranged from .52 to .78, indicating that each scenario contributes meaningfully to the latent construct of dispositional forgiveness.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Alternative Structural Models

Subsequent psychometric evaluations utilizing Confirmatory Factor Analysis have evaluated competing structural models:

• Unidimensional Model: The single-factor model demonstrates acceptable to good fit across various samples when minor residual covariances between conceptually parallel items (e.g., items involving romantic partners) are accounted for. Typical fit indices reported in literature include: Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = .93 to .96, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) = .91 to .95, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = .052 to .068 (with 90% confidence intervals spanning .038 to .081), and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) = .041 to .055.
• Two-Factor Relational Proximity Model: Some investigators have tested a bifactor or two-factor model separating Interpersonal/Relational Forgiveness (items involving romantic partners, family, and close friends: Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) from Non-Relational/Distal Forgiveness (items involving acquaintances and strangers: Items 8, 9, 10). While the two factors correlate strongly (r > .65), this distinction illustrates that forgiveness likelihood diminishes as social distance increases, though the overarching unidimensional composite remains the standard convention for scoring and empirical interpretation.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: Forgiveness Likelihood Scale (FLS)
• Original Developers: Mark S. Rye, Dawn M. Loiacono, Chad D. Folck, Brandon T. Olszewski, Todd A. Heim, and Benjamin P. Madia (2001)
• Construct Assessed: Dispositional forgiveness (trait forgiveness propensity across interpersonal transgressions)
• Format / Administration Mode: Self-report paper-and-pencil questionnaire or computerized/online survey
• Target Population: Adolescents (ages 14+) and adults
• Estimated Completion Time: 3 to 5 minutes
• Total Number of Items: 10 hypothetical situational vignettes
• Response Scale: 5-point Likert-type response scale:
  • 1 = Not at all likely
  • 2 = Slightly Likely
  • 3 = Somewhat Likely
  • 4 = Fairly Likely
  • 5 = Extremely Likely
• Scoring Protocol:
  • All 10 items are positively keyed. There are no reverse-coded items.
  • Total Score Calculation: Sum the numerical ratings for all 10 items. Total scores range from a minimum of 10 to a maximum of 50.
  • Mean Score Calculation: Alternatively, divide the sum total by 10 to yield a mean score ranging from 1.0 to 5.0, which corresponds directly to the original response anchors.
  • Interpretation of Scores:
    • 10 – 22 (Mean 1.0 – 2.2): Low Forgiveness Likelihood. Indicates a strong propensity toward grudge-holding, persistent unforgiveness, vindictiveness, or emotional cutoff following transgressions.
    • 23 – 37 (Mean 2.3 – 3.7): Moderate Forgiveness Likelihood. Indicates situational or conditional forgiveness; willingness to pardon depends heavily on the severity of the offense, apologies, and the nature of the relationship.
    • 38 – 50 (Mean 3.8 – 5.0): High Forgiveness Likelihood. Reflects high dispositional benevolence, low hostile attribution bias, and an exceptional willingness to forgive across varied interpersonal domains.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

• Year of Publication: 2001
• Original Publication Source: Current Psychology: Developmental, Learning, Personality, Social, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 260–277.
• Copyright & Intellectual Property: Copyright © 2001 Springer Nature / Transaction Publishers. The scale items and validation data were published in an open academic forum for scientific utilization.
• Permissions & Accessibility: The Forgiveness Likelihood Scale is considered an open-access psychometric instrument for non-commercial academic research and clinical educational purposes. Researchers and clinicians are permitted to reproduce and administer the scale without paying royalty fees, provided that appropriate formal academic citation is granted to Mark S. Rye and co-authors (2001).
• Commercial Applications: Commercial usage, inclusion in for-profit software suites, or corporate consulting deployment requires explicit written permission from the lead author (Dr. Mark S. Rye) and the publisher (Springer Nature).

12. References

Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 113–126. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113

Enright, R. D., & Fitzgibbons, R. P. (2000). Helping clients forgive: An empirical guide for resolving anger and restoring hope. American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10381-000

McCullough, M. E., Hoyt, W. T., & Rachal, K. C. (2000). What we know (and need to know) about assessing forgiveness determinants. In M. E. McCullough, K. I. Pargament, & C. E. Thoresen (Eds.), Forgiveness: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 65–88). Guilford Press.

McCullough, M. E., Rachal, K. C., Sandage, S. J., Worthington, E. L., Jr., Brown, S. W., & Hight, T. L. (1998). Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships: II. Theoretical elaboration and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(6), 1586–1603. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.6.1586

Rye, M. S., Loiacono, D. M., Folck, C. D., Olszewski, B. T., Heim, T. A., & Madia, B. P. (2001). Evaluation of the psychometric properties of two forgiveness scales. Current Psychology, 20(3), 260–277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-001-1011-6

Stuckless, N., & Goranson, E. (1992). The Vengeance Scale: Development of a measure of attitudes toward revenge. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 7(1), 25–42.

Thompson, L. Y., Snyder, C. R., Hoffman, L., Michael, S. T., Rasmussen, H. N., Billings, L. S., Heinze, L., Neufeld, J. E., Shorey, H. S., Roberts, J. C., & Roberts, D. E. (2005). Dispositional forgiveness of self, others, and situations. Journal of Personality, 73(2), 313–360. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00311.x

Worthington, E. L., Jr. (2006). Forgiveness and reconciliation: Theory and application. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203955680

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)