Heartland Forgiveness Scale

1. Abstract

The Heartland Forgiveness Scale (HFS) is an 18-item self-report psychometric instrument designed to assess dispositional forgiveness across three distinct targets: the self, other people, and adverse life situations. Developed by C. R. Snyder, Laura Y. Thompson, and colleagues (2005) at the University of Kansas, the HFS emerged from an expansion of Hope Theory to address a critical limitation in the forgiveness literature: the historical conflation of episodic or transgression-specific forgiveness with chronic, trait-level forgivingness. While earlier scales predominantly examined interpersonal transgressions committed by specific offenders (e.g., the Transgression-Related Interpersonal Motivations Inventory [TRIM]), the HFS conceptualizes forgiveness as a broad cognitive-affective coping disposition. It posits that individuals encounter violations not only from social counterparts, but also from their own flawed actions and from uncontrollable, blameless environmental adversities—such as debilitating illnesses, natural disasters, bereavement, or economic catastrophes.

The instrument comprises three balanced subscales of six items each: Forgiveness of Self (items 1–6), Forgiveness of Others (items 7–12), and Forgiveness of Situations (items 13–18). Respondents rate each statement using a 7-point Likert response format ranging from 1 (Almost Always False of Me) to 7 (Almost Always True of Me). To mitigate acquiescence response bias, exactly half of the items (9 items: 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17) are negatively keyed and reverse-scored. Across diverse empirical investigations, the HFS has demonstrated robust psychometric properties, exhibiting internal consistency reliabilities typically ranging between α = .84 and .87 for the total score, and α = .71 to .83 for the respective subscales. Test-retest stability coefficients over three-week and nine-month intervals demonstrate marked temporal durability (r = .72 to .83), affirming its utility as a stable dispositional marker. Confirmatory factor analyses support a hierarchical model wherein three correlated first-order factors load onto a higher-order general forgiveness factor. The scale has been widely utilized in positive psychology, clinical assessment, psychosomatic medicine, and trauma research to investigate the mechanisms through which relinquishing negative appraisals facilitates psychological resilience and somatic health.

2. Keywords

Heartland Forgiveness Scale, dispositional forgiveness, self-forgiveness, interpersonal forgiveness, situational forgiveness, Hope Theory, positive psychology, psychometrics, coping strategies, psychological resilience, chronic hostility, rumination, cognitive reappraisal

3. Authors

The Heartland Forgiveness Scale was conceived, developed, and validated by a collaborative team of researchers led by Laura Y. Thompson and the late Charles Richard (“Rick”) Snyder at the Department of Psychology, University of Kansas (Lawrence, Kansas, USA):

• Laura Y. Thompson, Ph.D. — Department of Psychology, University of Kansas. Primary investigator on the development and construct validation of dispositional forgiveness dimensions.
• C. R. Snyder, Ph.D. (1944–2006) — Wright Distinguished Professor of Clinical Psychology, University of Kansas. Internationally acclaimed pioneer in positive psychology, editor of the Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, and developer of Hope Theory, uniqueness theory, and excuse-making paradigms.
• Lesa Hoffman, Ph.D. — Department of Psychology, University of Kansas (presently Professor of Educational Measurement and Statistics, University of Iowa). Psychometrician and quantitative methodologist specializing in latent variable modeling, structural equation modeling, and longitudinal item response theory.
• Scott T. Michael, Ph.D. — Clinical psychology researcher, University of Kansas; clinician and scholar examining cognitive therapy and coping processes.
• Heather N. Rasmussen, Ph.D. — Department of Psychology, University of Kansas; specialist in health psychology, physical well-being, and dispositional optimism.
• Laura S. Billings, Ph.D. — Department of Psychology, University of Kansas; researcher examining coping interventions and personality assessment.
• Additional Collaborators — Karl K. Heinze, Ph.D., David A. Neufeld, M.A., Hannah S. Shorey, Ph.D., Jason C. Roberts, M.A., and Daniel E. Brown, M.A., all affiliated with the University of Kansas during the multi-year scale development program.

Institutional Contact for Historical Archives: Department of Psychology, University of Kansas, 1415 Jayhawk Blvd., Fraser Hall, Lawrence, KS 66045, USA.

4. Purpose

The fundamental purpose of the Heartland Forgiveness Scale is to assess an individual's omnibus, dispositional propensity to practice forgiveness across the full spectrum of perceived human transgression and adversity. Prior to the seminal publication by Thompson et al. (2005), the psychological assessment of forgiveness was characterized by two profound theoretical and operational blind spots: a near-exclusive reliance on transgression-specific methodologies and a restrictive interpersonal bias.

Overcoming Transgression-Specific Measurement Limitations

Transgression-specific instruments, such as the Enright Forgiveness Inventory (EFI) and the Transgression-Related Interpersonal Motivations Inventory (TRIM), require participants to recall a single, highly idiosyncratic real-world infraction and quantify their momentary thoughts, affects, and motivational orientations toward that distinct transgressor. Although such paradigms are invaluable for experimental manipulations and longitudinal analyses of singular conflict resolution, they fail to capture an individual's habitual, cross-situational coping style. A person who responds forgivingly to a minor social slight may exhibit severe, lifelong rancor when confronted with betrayal, or vice versa. The HFS circumvents these episodic contingencies by conceptualizing forgiveness as an enduring personality trait or disposition (“forgivingness”), reflecting the generalized cognitive, affective, and behavioral readiness to abandon chronic negative responses and cultivate neutrality or goodwill across multiple contexts.

Expanding Beyond Interpersonal Transgressions

Historically, psychological research conflated forgiveness with interpersonal reconciliation or the unilateral abatement of interpersonal resentment. Thompson, Snyder, and colleagues argued that this focus neglected two ubiquitous sources of psychological distress: internalized transgressions (against the self) and uncontrollable adverse life events (situational transgressions). Human beings regularly experience guilt, self-condemnation, and debilitating shame regarding their personal moral failures, missed opportunities, or destructive habits. Concurrently, individuals frequently harbor intense, enduring bitterness toward blameless external circumstances—such as natural disasters, chronic systemic poverty, pediatric oncology diagnoses, or fatal accidents—often reifying “fate,” “God,” “the world,” or “bad luck” as anthropomorphized targets of animosity. The HFS was purposefully constructed to measure these non-interpersonal domains with equal psychometric rigor.

Clinical and Research Applications

In clinical psychotherapy and psychiatric settings, the HFS serves as a comprehensive diagnostic and tracking mechanism. Low baseline scores on the Forgiveness of Self subscale routinely identify patients trapped in cycles of chronic depressive rumination, severe shame, and perfectionistic self-loathing. Low scores on Forgiveness of Others flag hostile attribution biases, intermittent explosive tendencies, and difficulties in marital or social attachment. In turn, deficient scores on Forgiveness of Situations denote existential helplessness, external locus of control, and demoralization in the aftermath of trauma or somatic disease. Clinicians utilize the HFS to tailor targeted cognitive-behavioral and acceptance-based interventions, determining whether a client requires cognitive reappraisal of self-blame, empty-chair techniques for external perpetrators, or acceptance-and-commitment strategies for existential misfortune. In empirical research, the HFS is widely employed to elucidate pathways linking dispositional traits to cardiovascular health, autonomic nervous system regulation, immune functioning, subjective well-being, and post-traumatic growth.

5. Psychological Construct

The psychological construct operationalized by the Heartland Forgiveness Scale is dispositional forgiveness, defined by Thompson and colleagues (2005) as “the framing of a perceived transgression such that one's responses to the transgressor, transgression, and sequelae of the transgression are transformed from negative to neutral or positive” (p. 318). This framing emphasizes cognitive reappraisal and motivational transformation rather than emotional suppression, condonation, or interpersonal excusing. The construct is tripartite, encompassing three interdependent yet empirically distinct domains:

1. Forgiveness of Self

Forgiveness of Self represents an individual's propensity to relinquish protracted self-punishment, self-directed contempt, and persistent guilt following one's own perceived moral lapses, mistakes, or failures. When individuals violate their own internalized ethical standards or commit behavioral errors that inflict harm upon others or themselves, natural cognitive responses include shame, guilt, and self-reproach. While acute remorse possesses adaptive value by motivating corrective restitution, chronic self-condemnation frequently degenerates into maladaptive rumination and depressive pathology.

Self-forgiveness on the HFS does not signify self-indulgent exoneration, narcissistic denial of responsibility, or moral disengagement. Rather, it reflects an authentic cognitive transformation: the individual acknowledges their personal fallibility, confronts the negative reality of their error, but consciously halts perpetual self-persecution. For instance, Item 1 (“Although I feel bad at first when I mess up, over time I can give myself some slack”) captures the healthy transition from acute moral concern to adaptive self-compassion. Conversely, negatively keyed items such as Item 6 (“I don't stop criticizing myself for negative things I've felt, said, or done”) capture the persistent internal hostility and cognitive rigidity that sustain dysthymia and generalized anxiety.

2. Forgiveness of Others

Forgiveness of Others reflects the dispositional willingness to abandon sustained hostility, desire for vengeance, and emotional withdrawal directed toward external persons who have perpetrated real or perceived interpersonal offenses. Interpersonal harm routinely provokes autonomic fight-or-flight reactions, righteous indignation, and retributive motivations. However, maintaining chronic vindictiveness exacts significant neuroendocrine and psychological costs, elevating baseline cortisol and triggering sustained sympathetic arousal.

Within the HFS framework, interpersonal forgiveness involves transforming bitter appraisal into neutral acceptance or constructive engagement, without necessarily requiring interpersonal reconciliation. An individual can fully forgive an abusive partner or deceitful acquaintance—thereby extinguishing toxic interpersonal hatred—while prudently maintaining physical or social boundaries to prevent revictimization. This nuance is embedded in items such as Item 8 (“With time, I am understanding of others for the mistakes they've made”) and Item 12 (“I eventually make peace with people who have hurt me”), which contrast directly with the retributive spite measured by Item 7 (“I continue to treat a person who has hurt me with less respect”).

3. Forgiveness of Situations

Forgiveness of Situations constitutes the most innovative theoretical dimension introduced by the HFS. It captures the degree to which an individual can make cognitive peace with, and cease brooding over, negative life circumstances that are structurally blameless, uncontrollable, or attributable to impersonal forces. Traumatic life disruptions—including congenital disabilities, natural catastrophes, sudden economic displacement, or the tragic death of a loved one—frequently provoke deep existential outrage. Human beings instinctively exhibit a search for meaning, often demanding: “Why did this happen to me?”

When bad things happen for reasons beyond human agency, individuals often direct irrational bitterness toward “life,” “fate,” or institutional structures, remaining emotionally fixated on the unfairness of the event. Situational forgiveness entails cognitive adaptation to irreducible existential suffering. It does not entail finding the situation desirable or passively submitting to defeat; rather, it reflects an active cessation of existential protest and rumination. Item 14 (“With time, I can accept things for what they are when bad things happen that are beyond anyone's control”) exemplifies this construct, whereas Item 17 (“When bad things happen for reasons beyond my control, I can't help but wonder why that bad thing happened to me instead of someone else”) captures the subjective injustice and chronic victim identity that impede emotional recovery.

6. Theoretical Framework

The Heartland Forgiveness Scale is conceptually anchored in cognitive psychology, transactional stress and coping paradigms, and most centrally, the extended model of Hope Theory formulated by C. R. Snyder. To comprehend the architectural foundation of the HFS, one must analyze Snyder's cognitive-motivational framework and its interplay with attributional theory.

Hope Theory and Goal-Directed Thought

In Snyder's Hope Theory, hope is defined as a learned cognitive set comprised of two reciprocal components: pathways thinking (the perceived mental capacity to generate functional routes to desired goals) and agency thinking (the motivational volition and perceived self-efficacy to initiate and sustain movement along those pathways). Transgressions, personal failures, and uncontrollable life tragedies operate psychologically as catastrophic disruptions to goal-directed pathways. When an individual is injured or betrayed, their primary life trajectories—whether relational, financial, or physical—are abruptly blocked.

According to Snyder and colleagues, human beings confront blocked pathways through either adaptive cognitive reframing or perseverative negative rumination. If an individual harbors unyielding grudges toward themselves, others, or circumstances, enormous psychological agency (motivational energy) is squandered on re-living the original injury, nursing grievances, and cultivating retribution. Forgiveness serves as an indispensable cognitive coping mechanism that deconstructs blocked, dysfunctional pathways and frees up psychic energy. By transforming the cognitive frame of the transgression from an ongoing source of hostility to an accepted historical reality, forgiveness liberates agency thinking, enabling the person to construct alternative pathways toward prospective, flourishing goals.

Cognitive Appraisal and Attribution Theory

The theoretical framework of the HFS also integrates Richard Lazarus and Susan Folkman's transactional model of stress and coping. Transgressions represent acute stressors whose long-term pathogenic impact depends on primary appraisal (appraising the transgression as a permanent, catastrophic threat to the self) and secondary appraisal (evaluating one's capacity to cope with the aftermath). Dispositional forgiveness acts as a secondary appraisal modifier. High-forgivingness individuals possess robust cognitive schemas that reframe transgressions, reducing catastrophic threat perceptions and enhancing perceived coping efficacy.

Furthermore, attribution theory explains why the HFS purposefully diverges into self, other, and situation. Following a negative outcome, people assign causality across three dimensions: locus (internal vs. external), stability (stable vs. unstable), and controllability (controllable vs. uncontrollable). When negative events are attributed to an internal, controllable locus, self-forgiveness is required to prevent pathological shame. When attributed to an external, controllable entity (another person's intentional malice), interpersonal forgiveness is required to avert vengeance. When attributed to an external, uncontrollable, unstable locus (a freak storm, random viral infection, macroeconomic shock), situational forgiveness is required to prevent chronic existential despair. Thus, the HFS maps systematically across the complete taxonomy of human causal attribution.

7. Validity

Empirical evaluation of the Heartland Forgiveness Scale across multiple developmental cohorts and international cross-cultural samples provides strong evidence for its construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity.

Convergent Validity

During initial validation across six separate samples totaling over 1,400 participants, Thompson et al. (2005) demonstrated robust correlations between the HFS and established constructs in personality, social, and clinical psychology:

• Cognitive and Affective Well-Being: Total HFS scores correlate positively with cognitive hope as measured by Snyder's Adult Hope Scale (r = .47 to .58), life satisfaction via the Satisfaction with Life Scale (r = .40 to .49), and positive affect via the PANAS (r = .38 to .46).
• Dispositional Empathy and Perspective-Taking: The Forgiveness of Others subscale demonstrates solid positive associations with empathy, perspective-taking, and agreeableness (r = .35 to .52), confirming that interpersonal forgivingness is inextricably linked to socio-cognitive decentralization.
• Self-Compassion and Self-Esteem: The Forgiveness of Self subscale correlates powerfully with Rosenberg's Self-Esteem Scale (r = .55 to .64) and Neff's Self-Compassion Scale (r = .62), while exhibiting inverse relationships with perfectionistic self-presentation and shame-proneness.
• Acceptance and Coping: The Forgiveness of Situations subscale correlates substantially with adaptive cognitive coping styles, positive reinterpretation, and emotional acceptance on the COPE inventory (r = .41 to .54).

Discriminant Validity

Crucially, dispositional forgiveness as captured by the HFS has proven empirically divergent from maladaptive personality constructs, chronic negative affect, and response distortions:

• Depressive Rumination and Trait Anxiety: The HFS total and subscale scores correlate strongly and negatively with Beck Depression Inventory scores (r = −.46 to −.60), trait anger on the Spielberger Trait Anger Scale (r = −.39 to −.51), and neuroticism on the NEO-PI-R (r = −.45 to −.58). Individuals high in dispositional forgiveness systematically exhibit lower baseline autonomic reactivity and reduced ruminative brooding.
• Social Desirability: To establish that the HFS does not merely assess virtuous self-presentation, Thompson et al. (2005) administered the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Correlations between the Marlowe-Crowne and HFS subscales were minimal to modest (ranging from r = .14 to .22), indicating that impression management accounts for less than 5% of the total scale variance.
• Distinctness from Condonation and Excusing: Discriminant validation paradigms demonstrate that high HFS scores do not correlate with submissiveness, lack of assertiveness, or tendency to tolerate domestic violence, empirically disproving the hypothesis that forgiveness represents passive resignation or moral capitulation.

Predictive and Criterion-Related Validity

Criterion-related validity is evidenced by the scale's ability to predict objective physiological and relational outcomes. In laboratory stress paradigms, participants with higher HFS scores exhibit faster cardiovascular recovery (mean arterial pressure and heart rate return to baseline) following an anger-recall task. In clinical interventions, changes in HFS scores across cognitive therapy sessions predict reductions in post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptom clusters, improved immunological profiles (e.g., enhanced natural killer cell cytotoxicity), and decreased relationship attrition over longitudinal assessment intervals.

8. Reliability

The Heartland Forgiveness Scale demonstrates strong psychometric reliability across both internal consistency parameters and temporal stability evaluations in diverse clinical and non-clinical populations.

Internal Consistency

Across the six validation samples reported in the foundational psychometric study by Thompson et al. (2005), Cronbach's alpha coefficients consistently exceeded standard psychometric benchmarks for both research and clinical utility:

• Total HFS Score (18 items): α = .84 to .87 (consistently demonstrating high internal consistency across college, community, and clinical cohorts).
• Forgiveness of Self Subscale (6 items): α = .72 to .76.
• Forgiveness of Others Subscale (6 items): α = .73 to .80.
• Forgiveness of Situations Subscale (6 items): α = .72 to .79.

Subsequent psychometric adaptations worldwide—including validated Chinese, Spanish, Portuguese, Turkish, and Persian translations—have reproduced these internal consistency figures, with total alpha values generally centering around .86 and subscale alphas hovering between .71 and .83. Average inter-item correlations within subscales fall comfortably within the recommended .25 to .45 range, demonstrating that items share common variance without exhibiting excessive redundancy.

Temporal Stability (Test-Retest Reliability)

Because the HFS was explicitly engineered to measure a dispositional trait rather than a fleeting affective state, temporal stability is paramount. Thompson et al. (2005) evaluated test-retest reliability across multiple temporal intervals:

• Three-Week Interval: In a sample of undergraduate students re-tested after 3 weeks, test-retest correlations were r = .83 for the Total HFS, r = .72 for Self, r = .73 for Others, and r = .77 for Situations (all p < .001).
• Nine-Month Interval: In a longitudinal sample tracked over an academic year (9 months), test-retest reliability remained exceptionally stable: r = .77 for Total HFS, r = .68 for Self, r = .69 for Others, and r = .72 for Situations.

These findings substantiate that the HFS measures a persistent psychological disposition that resists spontaneous short-term fluctuations, while retaining adequate responsiveness to deliberate therapeutic interventions.

9. Factor Analysis

The structural dimensionality of the Heartland Forgiveness Scale was extensively evaluated through both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) during its initial scale construction and subsequent cross-cultural replications.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

During initial item development, an initial pool of 107 candidate items reflecting varied manifestations of forgiveness across multiple targets was administered to test cohorts. Principal axis factoring with oblique (Promax) rotation was selected, under the theoretical assumption that forgivingness dimensions would correlate with one another. Eigenvalue scree plot examinations and parallel analysis conclusively pointed toward a three-factor solution.

Iterative item trimming eliminated items that exhibited factor loadings below .40, cross-loadings greater than .30, or semantic redundancy. The final 18 items loaded cleanly onto their three theoretical dimensions, with factor loadings ranging from .44 to .78 on their primary latent factors, and negligible cross-loadings on non-target factors. The three extracted factors accounted for approximately 45% to 52% of the common item variance across samples.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

To verify the construct architecture, Thompson, Hoffman, and colleagues (2005) conducted CFA using maximum likelihood estimation to test competing structural models:

1. Unidimensional Model: All 18 items loading onto a single omnibus “Forgiveness” factor. This model demonstrated poor fit (χ²/df > 5.2, CFI = .72, RMSEA = .112), indicating that forgiveness cannot be accurately modeled as an undifferentiated general trait.
2. Three Independent Factors Model: Three orthogonal factors (Self, Others, Situations) with no shared covariance. This model likewise failed to meet standard fit criteria (χ²/df > 4.1, CFI = .79, RMSEA = .094).
3. Three Correlated Factors Model: Three distinct latent factors allowed to freely intercorrelate. This model exhibited superior fit (χ²[132] = 294.5, p < .001; CFI = .94; TLI = .93; RMSEA = .048, 90% CI [.041, .056]; SRMR = .044). The latent inter-factor correlations were moderate: Self and Others (r = .38 to .44), Self and Situations (r = .46 to .53), and Others and Situations (r = .35 to .42).
4. Hierarchical / Higher-Order Model: A higher-order latent factor (Overall Dispositional Forgiveness) explaining the covariance among the three first-order factors (Self, Others, Situations). This hierarchical model exhibited virtually identical statistical fit indices to the three correlated factors model, providing robust empirical justification for both reporting the three distinct subscale scores and summing all 18 items into a unified composite HFS score.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Heartland Forgiveness Scale is structured as follows:

• Instrument Name: Heartland Forgiveness Scale (HFS)
• Alternative Names: Snyder & Thompson Dispositional Forgiveness Scale
• Measurement Construct: Trait / Dispositional Forgiveness across three targeted domains (Self, Others, Situations)
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil self-report inventory, or computerized web-based survey
• Completion Time: Approximately 4 to 6 minutes
• Total Number of Items: 18 items
• Factor Structure / Subscales:
  • Forgiveness of Self Subscale: Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 (measures transformation of negative self-appraisal, guilt, and self-blame)
  • Forgiveness of Others Subscale: Items 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 (measures transformation of hostility, resentment, and vindictiveness toward interpersonal offenders)
  • Forgiveness of Situations Subscale: Items 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 (measures cessation of existential rumination and acceptance of uncontrollable, blameless adversity)
• Authentic Response Format: 7-point Likert scale:
  • 1 = Almost Always False of Me
  • 2 = More Often False of Me
  • 3 = More Often False than True (or somewhat false)
  • 4 = Equally Often True and False (Neutral)
  • 5 = More Often True than False (or somewhat true)
  • 6 = More Often True of Me
  • 7 = Almost Always True of Me
• Scoring and Directionality Rules:
  • Exactly nine items are negatively formulated to mitigate acquiescence bias: Items 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, and 17.
  • Negative items MUST be reverse-scored prior to calculating subscale and total scores using the transformation formula: Score_Reversed = 8 - Original_Score (i.e., 1 → 7, 2 → 6, 3 → 5, 4 → 4, 5 → 3, 6 → 2, 7 → 1).
  • Subscale Scores: Sum the six relevant items after reverse-scoring (Possible subscale range: 6 to 42 points per subscale). Higher scores indicate greater dispositional forgiveness within that specific domain.
  • Total HFS Score: Sum all 18 items after reverse-scoring (Possible total range: 18 to 126 points). Higher total scores reflect a stronger overall disposition to practice forgiveness across domains.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Heartland Forgiveness Scale was formally published in 2005 following extensive empirical validation trials conducted between 1998 and 2004. In accordance with the academic philosophy of its primary authors, Dr. Laura Y. Thompson and the late Dr. C. R. Snyder, the HFS is placed in the public domain for non-commercial educational, clinical, and scientific research purposes. No licensing fees, royalties, or formal administrative permission charges are required for academic investigators, graduate researchers, or practicing clinicians employing the measure for non-profit assessment.

Commercial utilization—such as incorporating the HFS into fee-for-service corporate coaching software, proprietary mobile applications, or revenue-generating psychological test batteries—requires formal authorization from the copyright holders and the University of Kansas Department of Psychology. Academic users must properly cite the original 2005 validation article in all resulting publications, theses, and psychometric reports.

12. 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
• Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer Publishing Company.
• McCullough, M. E., Root, L. M., & Cohen, A. D. (2006). Writing about the benefits of an interpersonal transgression facilitates forgiveness: An anger-reduction mediated model. 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
• Snyder, C. R. (2000). Handbook of hope: Theory, measures, and applications. Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012654050-5/50003-8
• Snyder, C. R., & Lopez, S. J. (Eds.). (2001). Handbook of positive psychology. Oxford University Press.
• Thompson, L. Y., Snyder, C. R., Hoffman, L., Michael, S. T., Rasmussen, H. N., Billings, L. S., Heinze, K. K., Neufeld, D. A., Shorey, H. S., Roberts, J. C., & Brown, D. E. (2005). Dispositional forgiveness of self, others, and situations. Journal of Personality, 73(2), 313–359. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00311.x
• Worthington, E. L., Jr. (Ed.). (2005). Handbook of forgiveness. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203955673

13. Items of the Scale