Heartland Forgiveness Scale (HFS)

1. Abstract

The Heartland Forgiveness Scale (HFS) is an 18-item psychometric self-report assessment developed by C. R. Snyder, Laura Yamhure Thompson, Lesa Hoffman, and their colleagues (2005) at the University of Kansas. Unlike event-specific or state-level instruments that capture transitory interpersonal reconciliation, the HFS is designed to measure dispositional forgiveness—defined as an enduring, cross-situational tendency to abandon negative cognitions, affects, and behavioral inclinations toward the transgressor, and to adopt neutral or benevolent stances over time. A critical theoretical innovation of the HFS is its conceptualization of forgiveness across three distinct targets: Forgiveness of Self (items 1–6), Forgiveness of Others (items 7–12), and Forgiveness of Situations (items 13–18). The inclusion of situational forgiveness captures how individuals appraise and reconcile uncontrollable adverse life events, natural disasters, severe illnesses, or systemic systemic impediments.

Responses are gathered on an operationalized categorical scale ranging from 1 (Almost always False of me) to 4 (Almost always true of me) (as well as an expanded 7-point continuum in specific research contexts), incorporating an equal balance of nine positively keyed and nine reverse-coded items to mitigate acquiescence bias. Psychometric validation studies demonstrate robust internal consistency, with total scale Cronbach’s alpha coefficients typically ranging from .84 to .87, and subscale alphas ranging from .71 to .83. Confirmatory factor analysis supports a correlated three-factor oblique model and a higher-order overarching dispositional factor. Construct validity is supported by strong negative correlations with neuroticism, chronic rumination, hostility, depression, and anxiety, alongside robust positive correlations with hope, trait self-esteem, cognitive reappraisal, and subjective well-being. This article provides a comprehensive academic analysis of the HFS, delineating its theoretical architecture, psychometric properties, factor structure, scoring mechanics, and clinical applications.

2. Keywords

Heartland Forgiveness Scale, dispositional forgiveness, self-forgiveness, interpersonal forgiveness, situational forgiveness, psychometrics, positive psychology, trait coping, cognitive appraisal, psychological well-being

3. Authors

The Heartland Forgiveness Scale was formulated through a programmatic research endeavor led by clinical and social psychologists at the University of Kansas:

• Laura Yamhure Thompson, Ph.D.: Department of Psychology, University of Kansas; specialized in clinical psychology, scale development, and cognitive-behavioral adaptation processes.
• C. R. (Rick) Snyder, Ph.D. (1944–2006): Wright Distinguished Professor of Clinical Psychology at the University of Kansas; pioneer of Hope Theory and seminal figure in positive psychology and psychological measurement.
• Lesa Hoffman, Ph.D.: Quantitative psychologist and psychometrician; Professor of Educational Psychology at the University of Iowa (formerly at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln); expert in generalized linear mixed modeling and advanced factor analytic methodologies.
• Collaborating Authors (2005 Validation Cohort): Scott T. Michael, Heather N. Rasmussen, Laura S. Billings, Laura Heinze, Jason E. Neufeld, Hal S. Shorey, Jessica C. Roberts, and Danae E. Roberts.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Heartland Forgiveness Scale is to provide a theoretically grounded, psychometrically sound, and multidimensional measure of an individual’s chronic disposition to forgive. Prior to the introduction of the HFS, the predominant psychometric instruments in forgiveness research—such as the Transgression-Related Interpersonal Motivations Inventory (TRIM-12; McCullough et al., 1998) or the Enright Forgiveness Inventory (EFI; Subkoviak et al., 1995)—focused predominantly on state-level forgiveness directed at a singular, identifiable human offender in a discrete interpersonal transgression. While state measures capture the proximal trajectory of hurt, resentment, and reconciliation within specific relational ruptures, they fail to evaluate an individual’s generalized trans-situational propensity to relinquish resentment across disparate life domains.

Moreover, existing dispositional measures frequently suffered from narrow target conceptualization, operating under the restrictive assumption that forgiveness is exclusively an interpersonal transaction between two or more human agents. Thompson and colleagues observed that individuals routinely confront internal moral fractures (demanding self-forgiveness) as well as unchosen, non-agentic suffering—such as natural disasters, chronic illness, economic crises, or terminal diagnoses—where no individual human perpetrator can be blamed. To address this gap, the HFS was constructed to operationalize forgiveness as a broader cognitive-affective coping process applicable across three essential targets: the self, other people, and unguided life situations.

In clinical settings, the HFS functions as a diagnostic and monitoring tool. Elevated scores indicate adaptive emotional regulation, resilience against rumination, and capacity for cognitive restructuring. Depressed scores—either globally or on specific subscales—pinpoint targeted psychological vulnerabilities. For example, a client with high interpersonal forgiveness but critically low self-forgiveness may exhibit vulnerability to internalizing disorders, self-punitive shame, and major depressive pathology. Conversely, deficits in situational forgiveness often reflect severe existential angst, chronic bitterness, learned helplessness, or externalized hostility toward life circumstances. In empirical investigations, the scale serves as an essential covariate or outcome variable in health psychology, personality science, peace studies, and clinical outcome research evaluating cognitive-behavioral and acceptance-based therapeutic interventions.

5. Psychological Construct

The construct measured by the Heartland Forgiveness Scale is dispositional forgiveness, conceptualized within a cognitive-affective framework as the habitual, over-time transformation of one’s responses to perceived transgressions, ruptures, or unfavorable circumstances. Thompson et al. (2005) defined forgiveness not as condoning, excusing, forgetting, or immediate reconciliation, but rather as the progressive reduction of negative thoughts, feelings, and behaviors toward a target, frequently culminating in the capacity to adopt neutral or positive appraisals. The construct is partitioned into three discrete yet interrelated dimensions:

Forgiveness of Self

This dimension reflects an individual’s tendency to resolve distress arising from their own perceived moral failures, mistakes, character deficits, or behavioral errors. When individuals violate their own internalized ethical standards or commit behavioral missteps, typical default reactions include chronic self-recrimination, shame, guilt-induced rumination, and persistent self-punitive behavior. A disposition toward self-forgiveness involves acknowledging the transgression or failure, relinquishing persistent self-condemnation, and developing self-compassion while maintaining personal accountability. Sample manifestations include recognizing that one has made an error without allowing that error to permanently corrupt self-concept or paralyze forward psychological motion (e.g., as operationalized in Item 1: “Although I feel bad at first when I mess up, over time I can give myself some slack”).

Forgiveness of Others

This subscale captures the traditional interpersonal domain: the generalized likelihood that an individual will cease to hold grudges, relinquish desires for retribution, and avoid cognitive fixation on harms enacted by other human beings. Rather than requiring reconciliation or resumption of an unhealthy relationship, dispositional interpersonal forgiveness signifies an internal emotional release. The individual gradually shifts away from viewing the offender exclusively through the lens of the injurious act, restoring emotional neutrality and recognizing the transgressor’s broader humanity (e.g., Item 10: “Although others have hurt me in the past, I have eventually been able to see them as good people”).

Forgiveness of Situations

Situational forgiveness represents the unique conceptual contribution of the HFS. It addresses circumstances where distress stems from impersonal, systemic, or uncontrollable adverse life events. When individuals encounter debilitating disease, the premature death of a loved one, socioeconomic injustice, systemic marginalization, or random accidents, they frequently direct anger toward abstract entities (e.g., destiny, God, society, or “the world”). Such anger often manifests as intractable bitterness and cognitive gridlock. Dispositional situational forgiveness reflects the psychological transition from protest, victimhood, and futile resistance toward functional acceptance, letting go of resentment toward adverse conditions, and meaning-making in the aftermath of trauma (e.g., Item 16: “I eventually make peace with bad situations in my life”).

6. Theoretical Framework

The conceptual architecture of the Heartland Forgiveness Scale is rooted in cognitive-behavioral theory, cognitive appraisal theory (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), and C. R. Snyder’s Hope Theory (Snyder, 2000). Lazarus and Folkman’s transactional model of stress posits that psychological stress occurs when an environmental or internal demand is appraised as taxing or exceeding an individual’s coping resources. Transgressions and negative life events trigger primary appraisals of threat, loss, or personal harm, followed by secondary appraisals concerning one’s capacity to alter or endure the situation. Within this theoretical framework, unforgiveness—characterized by enduring hostility, chronic rumination, and pervasive blame—represents a chronic, maladaptive stress-response syndrome that sustains sympathetic nervous system arousal and depletes cognitive resources.

Thompson and colleagues conceptualized forgiveness as an emotion-focused and meaning-focused cognitive coping mechanism. Instead of remaining entrenched in counterfactual ruminations (“Why did this happen?”, “They must suffer for this”), the forgiving individual engages in secondary cognitive reappraisal. This reappraisal modifies the valence of memory networks associated with the negative event, decoupling the memory from intense physiological and affective distress. Over time, cognitive processing shifts from a focus on punishment or self-flagellation to pragmatic accommodation and forward-focused problem-solving.

Furthermore, Snyder’s Hope Theory provides an essential foundation for the HFS. Hope Theory defines hope as a positive motivational state based on an interactively derived sense of successful pathways (planning to meet goals) and agency (goal-directed energy). Unforgiveness acts as a psychological barrier that arrests agency; emotional resources remain tethered to past betrayals or intractable situations, impairing the formulation of new behavioral pathways. By choosing to forgive—whether directing that psychological transformation toward the self, others, or unchosen situations—the individual frees attentional and emotional capital, re-establishing forward-oriented agency and constructing adaptive life goals. The HFS operationalizes this process not as an instantaneous affective burst, but as a deliberate cognitive trajectory over time.

7. Validity

The psychometric validity of the Heartland Forgiveness Scale has been confirmed across diverse cross-sectional, longitudinal, and multicultural investigations.

Construct and Convergent Validity

In the initial psychometric validation series involving multiple independent cohorts totaling over 1,200 participants, Thompson et al. (2005) demonstrated robust convergent validity. Total HFS scores and individual subscales correlated significantly and negatively with established markers of psychological distress:

• Depression and Anxiety: Moderate to strong negative correlations were consistently observed with the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI; $r = -.40$ to $-.52$) and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI; $r = -.38$ to $-.48$).
• Rumination and Hostility: Subscales demonstrated negative associations with the Rumination on Sadness Scale ($r = -.35$ to $-.47$) and trait hostility indices ($r = -.39$ to $-.54$).
• Positive Affect and Resilience: Strong positive correlations emerged with the Adult Hope Scale ($r = .45$ to $.56$), the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale ($r = .42$ to $.54$), and the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS; $r = .35$ to $.46$).

Importantly, the subscales demonstrated domain-specific convergent patterns. Forgiveness of Self correlated most intensely with internalizing symptoms, shame proneness, and self-blame. Forgiveness of Others showed the strongest negative associations with revenge motivations, relational hostility, and measures of interpersonal aggression. Forgiveness of Situations uniquely accounted for variance in indices of chronic existential distress, external locus of control, and catastrophic health-related appraisals.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity was established by evaluating the HFS against social desirability response sets and conceptually distinct personality constructs. Correlations between the HFS and the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale have consistently remained low to negligible ($r = .10$ to $.18$), verifying that high forgiveness scores reflect authentic dispositional tendencies rather than impression management. Furthermore, the HFS demonstrated empirical divergence from general cognitive intelligence and unrelated personality facets, while maintaining predictable, theoretically concordant associations with the Five-Factor Model of personality (moderate negative associations with Neuroticism, $r = -.45$; moderate positive associations with Agreeableness, $r = .36$, and Conscientiousness, $r = .28$).

Predictive and Criterion Validity

Longitudinal studies demonstrate that baseline HFS scores reliably predict reductions in physiological reactivity during recalled transgressions (such as attenuated cardiovascular reactivity and normalized cortisol curves) and predict psychological improvement following cognitive-behavioral and group forgiveness therapies. Criterion-related studies in medical populations (e.g., oncology, cardiovascular disease, substance abuse rehabilitation) reveal that higher situational and self-forgiveness scores prospectively predict treatment adherence, affective control, and superior health-related quality of life (Dehghan et al., 2014).

8. Reliability

The Heartland Forgiveness Scale demonstrates strong internal consistency and temporal stability across non-clinical, student, and clinical cohorts.

Internal Consistency

Across the development samples presented by Thompson et al. (2005), internal consistency coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha, $\alpha$) evidenced high reliability for the omnibus score and acceptable to good reliability across the 6-item subscales:

• Total HFS Score: $\alpha = .86$ to $.87$
• Forgiveness of Self Subscale: $\alpha = .72$ to $.76$
• Forgiveness of Others Subscale: $\alpha = .73$ to $.80$
• Forgiveness of Situations Subscale: $\alpha = .72$ to $.79$

Subsequent international adaptations and independent validations—including Persian (Asgari & Roshani, 2013; Akbari et al., 2008), Spanish, Turkish, and Chinese translations—have replicated these metrics, yielding total alpha values ranging consistently between $.82$ and $.89$. Mean inter-item correlations within subscales typically fall within the psychometrically recommended range of $.30$ to $.45$, indicating conceptual coherence without excessive item redundancy.

Temporal Stability (Test-Retest Reliability)

Because the HFS was constructed as a dispositional trait assessment, evaluating temporal stability across time intervals is essential. Thompson et al. (2005) investigated test-retest reliability across multiple temporal intervals:

• Three-Week Interval: Total HFS test-retest correlation was $r = .83$. Subscale coefficients were $r = .72$ (Self), $r = .73$ (Others), and $r = .77$ (Situations), reflecting robust short-term stability.
• Nine-Month Interval: Demonstrating trait stability over extended periods, the total HFS retained a test-retest coefficient of $r = .77$, with subscales maintaining stability coefficients between $.68$ and $.74$.

These findings substantiate the premise that while specific state forgiveness fluctuates based on context and intervention, the overarching disposition captured by the HFS operates as an enduring personality feature.

9. Factor Analysis

The structural dimensionality of the Heartland Forgiveness Scale has been evaluated via exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to determine whether dispositional forgiveness is unidimensional, multidimensional, or hierarchical.

Exploratory Factor Analysis

During initial item development, an initial pool of candidate items was subjected to principal axis factoring with promax (oblique) rotation. The scree plot and eigenvalues decisively supported a three-factor solution accounting for the distinct targets of forgiveness. The three extracted factors mapped directly onto the hypothesized domains: Self, Others, and Situations. Each of the final 18 retained items exhibited salient factor loadings (predominantly $ge .45$) onto its designated target factor, with minimal cross-loadings ($< .20$ on non-target factors).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Model Fit

Confirmatory factor analytic investigations conducted by Lesa Hoffman and colleagues tested three competing structural models:

1. A single general-factor model where all 18 items load onto a unitary forgiveness latent construct.
2. A three-factor orthogonal model where Self, Others, and Situations are entirely independent.
3. A three-factor correlated (oblique) model where the three target dimensions correlate with one another.
4. A second-order hierarchical model where a overarching dispositional forgiveness factor accounts for the shared variance among the three lower-order target factors.

The unitary and orthogonal models demonstrated poor fit to the empirical data. In contrast, both the correlated three-factor model and the higher-order hierarchical model exhibited superior and acceptable model fit across standard indices:

• Chi-Square to Degrees of Freedom Ratio ($\chi^2/df$): Typically between $1.65$ and $2.30$
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): Values consistently $ge .93$ to $.96$
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): Values ranging from $.91$ to $.95$
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): $.042$ to $.056$ ($90%\text{ CI } [.035, .064]$)
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): $le .051$

Standardized factor loadings for individual items onto their respective latent subscales generally range from $.48$ to $.78$. Furthermore, inter-factor correlations among the three latent dimensions are moderate (typically ranging between $r = .35$ and $r = .52$), demonstrating sufficient shared variance to warrant aggregating a Total HFS score while confirming empirical distinction among targets.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Test Type: Multi-dimensional, self-report dispositional personality assessment
• Target Population: Adolescents and adults (typically ages 14 and older; standardized on undergraduate, community, and clinical cohorts)
• Administration Time: Approximately 3 to 7 minutes
• Item Count: 18 items
• Subscale Breakdown:
  • Forgiveness of Self Subscale: Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 (6 items)
  • Forgiveness of Others Subscale: Items 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 (6 items)
  • Forgiveness of Situations Subscale: Items 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 (6 items)
• Response Scale: 4-point categorical response format:
  • 1 = Almost always False of me
  • 2 = More often False of me
  • 3 = More often true of me
  • 4 = Almost always true of me

  (Note: An expanded 7-point continuum is also utilized in specific psychometric literature; however, the standard scoring protocol operationalizes items along this 1-to-4 scale.)

• Reverse Coding Protocol:
  • Nine items are phrased to capture unforgiving tendencies and must be reversed prior to score computation: Items 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, and 17.
  • For 4-point scoring: Recode $1 \rightarrow 4$, $2 \rightarrow 3$, $3 \rightarrow 2$, and $4 \rightarrow 1$ (or mathematically: $\text{Recoded Score} = 5 – \text{Raw Score}$).
• Scoring and Interpretation:
  • Subscale Scores: Sum or average the six items within each respective domain (Self, Others, Situations) following reverse coding. On a sum scale (1–4 per item), each subscale yields a score between 6 and 24.
  • Total HFS Score: Sum all 18 recoded items (possible range: 18 to 72). Higher scores reflect greater generalized disposition toward forgiveness.
  • Normative Ranges: Subscale sums between 6 and 12 indicate marked unforgiving tendencies; 13 to 17 reflect average/moderate dispositional forgiveness; 18 to 24 reflect pronounced, high dispositional forgiveness.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Heartland Forgiveness Scale was formally introduced to the scientific literature in 2005 by Laura Yamhure Thompson, C. R. Snyder, and Lesa Hoffman via the Journal of Personality. The authors and the University of Kansas established the HFS as an open-access psychometric instrument to encourage academic investigation, epidemiological research, and clinical evaluation.

No licensing fees or formal commercial royalties are required for non-profit academic research, university coursework, or therapeutic clinical applications. The original assessment instructions, scoring keys, and interpretive guides were deposited on public university archives (such as the University of Nebraska–Lincoln Digital Commons) and associated research portals. Researchers and practitioners utilizing the instrument are expected to cite the original 2005 validation article in all formal publications and presentations. Commercial repackaging, inclusion in commercial software platforms, or fee-based distribution requires explicit authorization from the primary copyright holders or their estates.

12. References

• Akbari, M., Golparvar, M., & Kamkar, M. (2008). The relationship between interpersonal trusts, forgiveness, self-efficacy and religiosity with procedural and distributive beliefs of a just world. Knowledge & Research in Applied Psychology, 10, 53–80.
• Asgari, P., & Roshani, K. (2013). Validation of forgiveness scale and a survey on the relationship of forgiveness and students’ mental health. International Journal of Psychology and Behavioral Research, 2(2), 109–115.
• Dehghan, S., Tamini, B. K., & Arab, A. (2014). Compare the forgiveness, psychological well being and affective control between recovering drug-addicted and healthy subjects. Journal of Social Issues & Humanities, 2(4), 211–216.
• Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer Publishing Company.
• 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
• Snyder, C. R. (2000). Handbook of hope: Theory, measures, and applications. Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012654050-5/50003-8
• Subkoviak, M. J., Enright, R. D., Wu, C. R., Gassin, E. A., Freedman, S., Olson, L. M., & Sarinopoulos, I. (1995). Measuring interpersonal forgiveness in late adolescence and middle adulthood. Journal of Adolescence, 18(6), 641–655. https://doi.org/10.1006/jado.1995.1045
• Thompson, L. Y., Snyder, C. R., & Hoffman, L. (2005). Heartland Forgiveness Scale. Faculty Publications, Department of Psychology, Paper 452. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/psychfacpub/452
• 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

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)