Forgiveness Scale

Abstract

The Forgiveness Scale, commonly designated in clinical and research psychometrics as the Rye Forgiveness Scale (RFS), is a self-report psychometric instrument developed by Mark S. Rye and colleagues (2001) to quantify episodic, interpersonal forgiveness toward a specific transgressor following a distinct interpersonal offense. Grounded in a multidimensional conceptualization of psychological forgiveness, the instrument departs from unidimensional paradigms by measuring two interrelated yet functionally distinct affective and behavioral vectors: the Absence of Negative feelings and behaviors (10 items) and the Presence of Positive feelings and behaviors (5 items). The 15 items are evaluated along a 5-point Likert response continuum ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree), yielding both dimension-specific scores and a total composite forgiveness index. Initial and cross-validation investigations demonstrate robust internal consistency reliability across diverse cohorts, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients typically ranging from α = .87 to α = .89 for the overall scale, α = .85 to α = .86 for the Absence of Negative subscale, and α = .85 to α = .86 for the Presence of Positive subscale. Two-week test-retest stability coefficients range between r = .76 and r = .80. Construct, convergent, and discriminant validity have been substantiated through marked negative associations with state and trait anger, psychological distress, depressive symptomatology, revenge motivations, and hostile rumination, alongside significant positive correlations with empathy, emotional healing, subjective well-being, religious and existential well-being, and alternative established forgiveness metrics such as the Enright Forgiveness Inventory (EFI) and the Transgression-Related Interpersonal Motivations Inventory (TRIM). The Forgiveness Scale is widely implemented across clinical psychology, counseling, health psychology, and conflict resolution studies to track therapeutic change and model psychosocial adjustment.

Keywords

Forgiveness Scale, Rye Forgiveness Scale, RFS, interpersonal forgiveness, Absence of Negative, Presence of Positive, episodic forgiveness, psychological measurement, psychometrics, transgression, rumination, emotional healing

Authors

The Forgiveness Scale was conceived, developed, and empirically validated by a collaborative research team led by Mark S. Rye, Ph.D., alongside co-investigators Dawn M. Loiacono, Chad D. Folck, Brandon T. Olszewski, Todd A. Heim, and Benjamin P. Madia. At the time of the instrument’s development and publication in 2001, the primary investigative group operated within the Department of Psychology at the University of Dayton in Dayton, Ohio, United States. Dr. Mark S. Rye subsequently continued his extensive empirical work in clinical psychology, psychotherapy intervention research, and the psychological dimensions of forgiveness and religious coping as a Professor of Psychology at Saint Vincent College (Latrobe, Pennsylvania) and Skidmore College. Academic correspondence regarding the theoretical conceptualization and initial empirical validation was originally documented through the seminal article published in Current Psychology: Developmental, Learning, Personality, Social.

Purpose

Interpersonal offenses, emotional betrayals, and relational trauma constitute pervasive phenomena across human relationships, frequently precipitating adverse psychiatric and somatic outcomes, including chronic hyperarousal, hostile rumination, depressive episodes, and cardiovascular strain. Despite the clinical salience of forgiveness as an adaptive coping mechanism, early psychological research was hampered by ambiguous operational definitions and measurement tools that either conflated forgiveness with reconciliation or focused exclusively on the mitigation of vindictive impulses while neglecting positive emotional restoration. The primary purpose of the Forgiveness Scale is to deliver an empirically rigorous, psychometrically sound, and administration-efficient assessment tool capable of capturing episodic forgiveness toward a specific individual across both negative and positive valence domains.

Clinically, the instrument is designed to facilitate diagnostic formulation and treatment monitoring in psychotherapy. Clinicians utilize the scale to determine a client’s baseline capacity to process an interpersonal injury, assess the presence of persistent intrusive thoughts or desires for retribution, and measure whether therapeutic interventions (such as cognitive-behavioral therapy, emotion-focused therapy, or specialized forgiveness-based interventions) are effectively reducing toxic resentment while cultivating psychological peace or compassion. By dissociating the reduction of negative affect from the presence of benevolent attitudes, the instrument enables clinicians to identify clients who have ceased overt hostile behaviors but remain emotionally detached, as well as those who have achieved genuine positive prosocial transformation toward an offender.

In empirical research, the scale serves as a standardized operationalization for cross-sectional, longitudinal, and experimental paradigms investigating the nexus between emotional processing, health outcomes, and personality dynamics. Researchers deploy the tool across counseling psychology, developmental psychopathology, marriage and family therapy, behavioral medicine, and organizational conflict studies. By quantifying both the cessation of retaliatory avoidance and the emergence of prosocial regard, the scale provides a nuanced dependent or moderating variable to test complex psychological models involving attachment styles, cognitive reframing, empathy, emotional intelligence, and existential well-being.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct evaluated by the Forgiveness Scale is episodic interpersonal forgiveness, defined as a conscious, prosocial motivational shift whereby a victim voluntarily relinquishes chronic resentment, bitterness, and retaliatory impulses toward a wrongdoer while progressively fostering neutral or benevolent attitudes, emotional peace, and prosocial goodwill. Crucially, this operationalization explicitly distinguishes forgiveness from condonation (justifying the wrongful act), excusing (denying the offender’s moral culpability), forgetting (cognitive decay of the event’s memory), or reconciliation (restoring behavioral relational interaction or trust). The construct operates across two fundamental sub-dimensions:

1. Absence of Negative (10 Items)

This subscale captures the systematic diminution and eradication of cognitive, emotional, and behavioral indicators of hostility, bitterness, rumination, and avoidance elicited by the transgression. Cognitive manifestations encompass persistent intrusive rumination regarding the injustice and active contemplation of revenge (e.g., spending time plotting retribution). Emotional indicators involve pervasive feelings of intense resentment, hatred, and depression stemming directly from the mistreatment. Behavioral elements include deliberate social withdrawal or the avoidance of specific people, physical locations, or environmental cues that serve as reminders of the transgressor. Furthermore, this dimension assesses the subjective cognitive appraisal that one’s life has been irrevocably damaged or that the emotional wounds remain unhealed. Successful progression along this dimension signifies that the individual is no longer psychologically held captive by the trauma of the offense.

2. Presence of Positive (5 Items)

This subscale assesses the proactive cultivation of benevolent, empathic, and peaceful cognitive, affective, and spiritual orientations toward the transgressor. Moving beyond mere emotional neutrality or the absence of overt hostility, the presence of positive regard signifies a qualitative transformation wherein the injured party wishes favorable outcomes for the offender, experiences an internal sense of peace should an encounter occur, harbors genuine compassion, and desires that the wrongdoer be treated equitably in future contexts. In addition, this subscale captures spiritual or transcendent benevolent actions, such as offering prayers for the well-being of the person who committed the offense. The inclusion of this dimension reflects the theoretical consensus that complete psychological forgiveness transcends negative affect reduction by instilling an altruistic orientation toward the transgressor.

Theoretical Framework

The Forgiveness Scale is grounded in contemporary cognitive-affective and social psychological frameworks of forgiveness, drawing heavily from the seminal theoretical contributions of Robert D. Enright and the Human Development Study Group, Everett L. Worthington Jr., and Michael E. McCullough. A central premise of these foundational frameworks is that forgiveness represents a dual-process phenomenon involving both the cancellation of negative debt and the generation of unconditional prosocial motivations.

Historically, early philosophical and psychological writings debated whether the reduction of negative affect alone was sufficient to constitute genuine forgiveness. Rye and colleagues (2001) addressed this conceptual divide by synthesizing the stress-and-coping model of forgiveness advanced by Worthington with the socio-cognitive developmental model proposed by Enright. According to the stress-and-coping paradigm, an interpersonal transgression functions as an interpersonal stressor that disrupts the victim’s socioemotional equilibrium, instigating an “unforgiving state” dominated by chronic anger, fear, avoidance, and revenge motivations. Coping with this interpersonal stressor necessitates active cognitive appraisal and emotional regulation strategies. While primary coping may focus on containing distress (manifested as the absence of negative reactions), advanced emotional coping culminates in emotional replacement, where negative emotions are systematically displaced by incompatible positive emotions such as empathy, sympathy, and compassion.

Furthermore, the theoretical framework incorporates social-cognitive attribution theory. Transgressions routinely generate hostile attribution biases, leading victims to perceive offenders as uniquely malevolent, unrepentant, or inherently toxic. Through the psychological trajectory of forgiveness, cognitive restructuring occurs: the victim decouples the personhood of the transgressor from their wrongful act, recognizes shared human fallibility, and relinquishes ruminative monitoring. Consequently, the construct measured by Rye et al. reflects both the neutralization of stress-induced negative affect and the reconstruction of positive interpersonal schemas.

Validity

The psychometric validity of the Forgiveness Scale has been empirically evaluated across multiple independent university, community, and clinical cohorts, providing substantial evidence for its construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity.

Construct and Factorial Validity

Factor-analytic investigations consistently confirm that the 15 items map coherently onto the two theorized latent dimensions (Absence of Negative and Presence of Positive). When evaluated against competing structural models, the two-factor correlated model demonstrates superior goodness-of-fit indices compared to unidimensional models, confirming that the reduction of negative affect and the cultivation of positive affect represent related yet distinct psychological mechanisms.

Convergent Validity

Extensive convergent validity testing indicates that the Forgiveness Scale correlates robustly with established instruments measuring identical or highly congruent psychological constructs:

• Enright Forgiveness Inventory (EFI): The Rye Forgiveness Scale demonstrates strong, statistically significant positive correlations with the EFI total score (typically r = .80 to .88), confirming that both instruments measure the core multifaceted dimensions of forgiveness toward a specific transgressor.
• Transgression-Related Interpersonal Motivations Inventory (TRIM-12 / TRIM-18): The Absence of Negative subscale correlates strongly and negatively with the TRIM Avoidance (r = −.60 to −.72) and Revenge (r = −.55 to −.68) subscales, demonstrating that lower scores on the negative dimension accurately capture the attenuation of retaliatory and evasive motivations.
• Single-Item Forgiveness Ratings: Scores on both the composite scale and individual subscales correlate significantly with direct self-ratings of overall degree of forgiveness (r = .65 to .75).

Discriminant and Nomological Validity

Nomological validity has been corroborated through anticipated associations with diverse psychological, emotional, and spiritual variables:

• Anger and Hostility: Full scale and Absence of Negative scores exhibit robust inverse correlations with state anger (r = −.45 to −.55) and trait anger (r = −.35 to −.48) measured via the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI).
• Depression and Emotional Distress: Significant negative correlations are consistently observed between the Forgiveness Scale and clinical depression inventories, including the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) and the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D), with coefficients typically hovering between r = −.30 and r = −.45.
• Religious and Spiritual Well-Being: The Presence of Positive subscale demonstrates meaningful positive correlations with existential and religious well-being measures, reflecting the empathic and spiritual facets (e.g., praying for the offender) embedded within the positive dimension.
• Social Desirability: Correlations with the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale are routinely modest to non-significant (r ≤ .15), indicating that response patterns on the Forgiveness Scale are largely free from distortion caused by impression management or socially approved responding.

Reliability

The Forgiveness Scale exhibits high internal consistency reliability and temporal stability across a wide variety of adult, college, and intervention samples. In the foundational psychometric investigations conducted by Rye et al. (2001), internal consistency was thoroughly examined across large developmental and validation samples:

• Total Composite Scale: Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the overall 15-item instrument range consistently between α = .87 and α = .89 across normative college student and community populations, indicating an exceptionally cohesive item pool.
• Absence of Negative Subscale: The 10-item negative affect and rumination dimension demonstrates high internal consistency, with alpha coefficients consistently observed between α = .85 and α = .86.
• Presence of Positive Subscale: The 5-item prosocial and benevolent dimension similarly yields robust internal reliability, with alpha coefficients ranging from α = .85 to α = .86.

Temporal stability (test-retest reliability) was established over a standard two-week interval (15 days) among non-intervention control participants. The bivariate correlation coefficients indicated satisfactory stability over time while retaining sensitivity to genuine emotional changes:

• Total Score Test-Retest: r = .80 (p < .001)
• Absence of Negative Test-Retest: r = .76 (p < .001)
• Presence of Positive Test-Retest: r = .78 (p < .001)

Subsequent psychometric evaluations across cross-cultural adaptations and clinical intervention studies have replicated these reliability figures, with average internal consistency figures rarely dropping below α = .82, confirming the tool’s measurement precision across varied methodological environments.

Factor Analysis

The internal structural architecture of the Forgiveness Scale was delineated through an iterative sequence of exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) during its developmental phases.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

In the initial scale construction phase, an initial pool of candidate items reflecting cognitive, emotional, and behavioral indicators of forgiveness was administered to 358 college undergraduates who had experienced a significant interpersonal offense. Principal axis factoring with oblique (promax/direct oblimin) rotation was performed, based on the theoretical assumption that the absence of negative reactions and the presence of positive reactions represent correlated rather than orthogonal psychological processes.

Scree plot examination and eigenvalues exceeding unity supported a clear two-factor solution. Items exhibiting salient primary factor loadings (≥ .40) and minimal cross-loadings (≤ .25) were retained, yielding the final 15-item instrument. Factor 1, accounting for the largest proportion of total variance, was defined by 10 items assessing negative rumination, feelings of hatred and resentment, depressogenic attribution, and avoidance. Factor 2, accounting for a distinct and meaningful proportion of additional variance, was comprised of 5 items assessing benevolent wishes, emotional peace, prayer, compassion, and fair treatment toward the wrongdoer. The two latent factors displayed a moderate inter-factor correlation (typically r = .40 to .52), supporting their theoretical conceptualization as complementary facets of a higher-order forgiveness construct.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Subsequent confirmatory investigations tested competing structural models to determine optimal latent fit. Models evaluated included a unidimensional (single-factor) model, an orthogonal two-factor model, and an oblique (correlated) two-factor model. The oblique two-factor structural model demonstrated superior goodness-of-fit across standard structural equation modeling indices:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): ≥ .92 to .95
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): ≥ .91 to .94
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): .055 to .068 (with 90% confidence intervals below .08)
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): ≤ .058

Standardized factor loadings across all 15 items consistently ranged from .52 to .83, demonstrating that each individual item contributes substantial explained variance to its designated latent dimension.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: Forgiveness Scale (frequently referenced as the Rye Forgiveness Scale [RFS])
• Target Population: Adolescents and adults (ages 16 and older) who have experienced an interpersonal offense, betrayal, or relational transgression
• Administration Format: Self-administered paper-and-pencil questionnaire or computerized/online survey
• Completion Duration: Approximately 3 to 5 minutes
• Item Count: 15 items
• Factor Structure / Subscales:
  • Absence of Negative Subscale: 10 items (Items 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14)
  • Presence of Positive Subscale: 5 items (Items 2, 6, 7, 13, 15)
• Response Scale: 5-point Likert scale formatted as:
  • 1 = Strongly Disagree
  • 2 = Disagree
  • 3 = Neutral
  • 4 = Agree
  • 5 = Strongly Agree
• Scoring and Transformation Protocol:
  • Reverse Scoring: Items 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 12, and 14 represent negative cognitive, affective, or behavioral reactions and must be reverse-coded prior to calculating scale totals (i.e., 1 becomes 5, 2 becomes 4, 3 remains 3, 4 becomes 2, 5 becomes 1).
  • Items 9 and 11: Although categorized within the Absence of Negative subscale, Items 9 and 11 describe positive healing/release (e.g., letting go of anger, emotional wounds healing) and are scored in the direct (positive) direction without reverse coding.
  • Absence of Negative Score: Sum or mean of Items 1 (reversed), 3 (reversed), 4 (reversed), 5 (reversed), 8 (reversed), 9 (direct), 10 (reversed), 11 (direct), 12 (reversed), and 14 (reversed). Potential sum range: 10 to 50.
  • Presence of Positive Score: Sum or mean of Items 2, 6, 7, 13, and 15 (all scored in the direct direction). Potential sum range: 5 to 25.
  • Total Composite Forgiveness Score: Sum or mean of all 15 items after reverse scoring. Potential sum range: 15 to 75. Higher scores reflect greater interpersonal forgiveness toward the designated transgressor.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Forgiveness Scale was published in 2001 by Mark S. Rye, Dawn M. Loiacono, Chad D. Folck, Brandon T. Olszewski, Todd A. Heim, and Benjamin P. Madia in the scholarly peer-reviewed journal Current Psychology. The instrument was developed within an academic research context and published directly within the journal article (pages 274–275) to encourage scholarly dissemination and clinical inquiry.

The authors made the scale freely available for non-commercial research, academic, and clinical assessment purposes without requiring licensing fees, provided that appropriate scholarly attribution and citation are accorded to Rye et al. (2001). Commercial exploitation, incorporation into proprietary digital assessment platforms, or fee-based clinical software may require explicit copyright permission from the copyright holders or publisher (Springer Nature). Researchers seeking confirmation or consultation on adapted formats are encouraged to contact Dr. Mark S. Rye through his academic affiliation.

References

• 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., 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
• Rye, M. S., Folck, C. D., Heim, T. A., Olszewski, B. T., & Traina, E. (2004). Forgiveness of an ex-spouse: How does it relate to mental health following a divorce? Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 41(3–4), 31–51. https://doi.org/10.1300/J087v41n03_02
• 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: Developmental, Learning, Personality, Social, 20(3), 260–277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-001-1011-9
• Rye, M. S., Pargament, K. I., Ali, M. A., Beck, G. L., Dorff, E. N., Hallisey, C., Narayanan, V., & Williams, J. G. (2000). Religious perspectives on forgiveness. In M. E. McCullough, K. I. Pargament, & C. E. Thoresen (Eds.), Forgiveness: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 17–40). Guilford Press.
• Worthington, E. L., Jr. (2006). Forgiveness and reconciliation: Theory and application. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203955673

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)