Relational Engagement of the Sacred for a Transgression (REST)

Abstract

The Relational Engagement of the Sacred for a Transgression (REST) scale is a brief, psychometrically sound, self-report instrument developed by Don E. Davis, Joshua N. Hook, Everett L. Worthington Jr., and colleagues (2010) to assess the specific ways individuals draw upon theistic and spiritual beliefs to engage constructively with interpersonal offenders. Rooted in the intersection of relational spirituality, forgiveness, and the sanctification theory of interpersonal relationships, the REST scale quantifies the degree to which an injured party perceives the offender through a sacred lens (e.g., viewing the transgressor as a “child of God”), petitions divine assistance to adopt an empathetic perspective, engages in intercessory prayer, and discerns a transcendent moral calling toward relational restoration.

Comprising four unidimensional items evaluated on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (completely disagree) to 6 (completely agree), the instrument offers a focused, parsimonious assessment tool designed to minimize respondent burden in both clinical and empirical research settings. Across initial validation studies and subsequent applications—including doctoral research by Vasiliauskas (2010) evaluating prayer-based forgiveness interventions—the REST scale has exhibited strong psychometric properties, featuring high internal consistency (Cronbach’s α typically exceeding .85), stable factor structure via exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, and robust convergent validity with measures of benevolence, transgression-specific forgiveness, and positive religious coping, alongside robust discriminant validity against vindictive motivation, avoidance, and spiritual bypassing.

Keywords

Relational Engagement of the Sacred for a Transgression, REST scale, relational spirituality, interpersonal forgiveness, sanctification theory, religious coping, intercessory prayer, transgression, benevolence, psychometrics

Authors

The scale was developed by a collaborative research group specializing in the psychology of religion, virtue, and interpersonal forgiveness:

• Don E. Davis, Ph.D. — Department of Counseling and Psychological Services, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia, United States. Dr. Davis is an internationally recognized scholar in positive psychology, intellectual humility, relational spirituality, and forgiveness.
• Joshua N. Hook, Ph.D. — Department of Psychology, University of North Texas, Denton, Texas, United States. Dr. Hook specializes in cultural humility, positive psychology, and spiritually integrated psychotherapy.
• Everett L. Worthington, Jr., Ph.D. — Commonwealth Professor Emeritus of Psychology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, United States. Dr. Worthington is a pioneer in the psychological study of forgiveness, developer of the REACH Forgiveness model, and an expert in marriage and family psychology.
• Daryl R. Van Tongeren, Ph.D. — Department of Psychology, Hope College, Holland, Michigan, United States. Dr. Van Tongeren investigates meaning in life, religion, morality, and social psychology.
• Aubrey L. Gartner, M.S. — Virginia Commonwealth University.
• David J. Jennings II, Ph.D. — Virginia Commonwealth University.
• Laura Norton, B.S. — Virginia Commonwealth University.

Purpose

Interpersonal transgressions—ranging from minor relationship betrayals and insults to severe infidelity, abandonment, and trauma—inevitably disrupt human relational systems. Historically, psychometric instruments measuring religious coping with stress, such as the Brief RCOPE (Pargament et al., 1998), examined global strategies of turning to God for emotional support, searching for spiritual meaning, or dealing with divine struggle. However, these broad coping measures frequently fail to capture the specific, dyadic, and interpersonal nature of transpersonal religious mechanisms when coping with a designated human offender.

The primary purpose of the Relational Engagement of the Sacred for a Transgression (REST) scale is to fill this empirical void by measuring the explicit operationalization of the sacred within the immediate context of interpersonal conflict. Rather than assessing how religion helps a person manage their private psychological distress, the REST measures how an individual’s spiritual appraisal system is mobilized toward the offender and the relationship itself. The scale evaluates four core relational-spiritual behaviors and cognitive appraisals:

• Sanctification of the Offender: Evaluating whether the victim reframes the offender’s intrinsic human dignity through a theological lens (e.g., viewing them as an individual bearing divine worth or as a “child of God”).
• Divine Perspective-Taking: Petitioning a higher power to mitigate hostile attribution biases and assist the injured party in discerning the offender’s redeeming personal attributes and positive characteristics.
• Intercessory Prosocial Action: Actively engaging in benevolent intercessory prayer on behalf of the wrongdoer, shifting internal emotional dynamics from rumination to active goodwill.
• Transpersonal Relational Mandate: Experiencing an internalized spiritual imperative or conviction that divine will encourages repair, reconciliation, and the mending of fractured interpersonal bonds.

In clinical psychology and couples counseling, the REST provides clinicians with a quantifiable baseline of an individual’s readiness to leverage their spiritual worldview toward prosocial reconciliation versus destructive spiritualized grudges. In empirical research, the REST facilitates nuanced investigations into why some highly religious individuals demonstrate profound forgiveness and post-traumatic growth, whereas others manifest rigid moral condemnation and religious triangulation.

Psychological Construct

The REST scale operationalizes a multidimensional yet structurally parsimonious psychological construct: relational engagement of the sacred. This construct operates at the nexus of social cognition, emotional regulation, and religious phenomenology. In interpersonal conflicts, individuals routinely engage in cognitive appraisals regarding the offender’s intent, blameworthiness, and character. When relational sacred engagement occurs, these cognitive-affective processes are fundamentally transformed across several critical dimensions.

1. Sacred Re-Appraisal and Sanctification of the Person

Under ordinary circumstances of interpersonal injury, the victim often undergoes cognitive dehumanization or moral exclusion of the perpetrator, reducing the transgressor to their worst actions. The psychological construct captured by the REST counters this through sanctification. Drawing upon theology-grounded cognitive reframing (such as the concept of imago Dei or universal spiritual kinship), the victim intentionally conceptualizes the offender as a “child of God.” This cognitive maneuver introduces sacred boundaries around the offender, making it cognitively discordant to wish malicious destruction or retributive harm upon an entity invested with divine significance.

2. Transcendentally Mediated Empathy

Hostile attribution bias leads injured individuals to fixate selectively on negative traits and malevolent motivations. The construct measured by the REST involves actively soliciting external, divine assistance to overcome this cognitive narrowing. By asking God to reveal the offender’s good points, the individual engages in spiritually scaffolded perspective-taking. This shifts the victim’s attentional resources away from threat-detection and self-protective antagonism toward a broader, more balanced cognitive schema that recognizes the transgressor’s human vulnerability, fallibility, and positive traits.

3. Behavioral and Affective Shift via Benevolent Intercession

A distinctive dimension of relational sacred engagement is the operationalization of benevolence through prayer. In psychological literature, intercessory prayer for a transgressor acts as a form of non-confrontational, intentional benevolence. It disrupts the autonomic cycle of anger, rumination, and cardiovascular arousal. By praying for the offender’s welfare, the victim systematically practices psychological desensitization to the conditioned anger cues associated with the perpetrator, replacing resentment with affective empathy and altruistic concern.

4. Sacred Teleology and Relational Reconciliation

The final facet of this construct involves divine purpose and relational morality: the perception that a transcendent authority actively wills healing, repair, and mutual reconciliation. While secular models of conflict resolution focus primarily on pragmatic costs and benefits, the relational engagement of the sacred imbues the relational bond with ultimate value. This transcendent attribution reduces the perceived finality of the breach and motivates prosocial efforts toward constructive problem-solving, restorative dialogue, and emotional forgiveness.

Theoretical Framework

The REST scale is grounded in three major theoretical frameworks within contemporary psychological science: Pargament and Mahoney’s Sanctification Theory, Davis and colleagues’ Relational Spirituality Framework, and Worthington’s Interpersonal Forgiveness Model.

1. Sanctification Theory (Pargament & Mahoney)

Sanctification theory posits that individuals perceive aspects of their lives—such as nature, marriage, parenting, or human bodies—as having spiritual character and significance. When an object or relationship is sanctified, people invest greater time, protection, and psychological resources into preserving it. However, when a sacred relationship experiences a transgression, the event may be appraised as a “spiritual desecration” or “sacred loss,” which can evoke intense rage and deep moral despair. The REST scale captures the constructive counterpart to desecration: rather than abandoning the relationship or declaring it irreversibly defiled, the individual mobilizes sanctification mechanisms to re-sacralize the transgressor and the interpersonal bond, facilitating restorative resilience.

2. The Relational Spirituality Framework (Davis, Hook, & Worthington)

The Relational Spirituality Framework asserts that an individual’s relationship with the sacred (e.g., God) is deeply interlinked with their relationships with other human beings. According to this model, an individual’s vertical attachment to God directly shapes, stabilizes, and modulates their horizontal attachments to human partners, family members, and community members. In the aftermath of a transgression, individuals use their perceived relationship with God as a regulatory buffer. If God is experienced as benevolent, forgiving, and invested in human reconciliation, the victim utilizes this divine attachment to regulate state-level hostility, thereby extending grace to the horizontal attachment partner.

3. Stress and Coping Theory of Forgiveness (Worthington)

In Everett Worthington’s stress-and-coping model of forgiveness, an interpersonal transgression is conceptualized as an interpersonal stressor that produces an “unforgiveness debt” consisting of delayed-type negative emotions such as resentment, bitterness, hostility, and fear. Emotional forgiveness involves the gradual emotional replacement of these negative, destructive feelings with positive, other-oriented emotions like empathy, sympathy, compassion, and love. The four practices captured by the REST serve as specific spiritual coping mechanisms that accelerate this emotional replacement, directly weakening unforgiving motivations (such as avoidance and revenge) and activating benevolent motivations.

Validity

Empirical investigations demonstrate that the REST scale exhibits excellent construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity across diverse samples undergoing interpersonal hurt.

Convergent Validity

The convergent validity of the REST has been verified through significant, theory-consistent correlations with established measures of forgiveness, religious coping, and relational functioning:

• Transgression-Related Interpersonal Motivations Inventory (TRIM-18): Scores on the REST correlate positively and strongly with the Benevolence subscale of the TRIM (McCullough et al., 1998; McCullough et al., 2006), with Pearson correlation coefficients typically ranging between r = .45 and r = .62 (p < .001). This demonstrates that relationally engaging the sacred directly aligns with prosocial motivations toward an offender.
• Transgression-Specific Forgiveness: The REST demonstrates moderate to strong positive associations with overall state forgiveness indices (e.g., Rye et al.’s Forgiveness Scale; Enright Forgiveness Inventory), indicating that individuals utilizing sacred resources experience higher levels of comprehensive emotional and decisional forgiveness.
• Positive Religious Coping: When compared against the Positive Religious Coping subscale of the Brief RCOPE, the REST demonstrates moderate convergent correlations (r ≈ .40 to .55), affirming its conceptual placement within spiritual coping methodologies while maintaining distinct uniqueness specific to the relational target.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity is supported by its divergent relationships with negative interpersonal constructs and non-constructive spiritual patterns:

• Avoidance and Revenge Motivations: The REST displays significant, moderate-to-strong negative correlations with the Revenge subscale of the TRIM (r = -.35 to -.50, p < .001) and the Avoidance subscale (r = -.30 to -.45, p < .001), indicating that the scale does not measure passive compliance or withdrawal, but active prosocial engagement.
• Negative Religious Coping and Divine Struggle: The REST shows negligible or inverse correlations with negative religious coping (e.g., feeling punished by God or questioning God’s love), differentiating restorative engagement from theological conflict or fatalism.
• General Trait Agreeableness: While moderately correlated with trait agreeableness (r ≈ .20 to .28), the REST retains clear psychometric independence, proving that it measures more than mere general polite disposition or social desirability.

Predictive and Incremental Validity

Hierarchical regression analyses conducted during scale validation (Davis et al., 2010; Vasiliauskas, 2010) demonstrated that the REST accounts for unique, incremental variance in predicting state forgiveness, empathy, and post-transgression relationship quality even after controlling for demographic variables, transgression severity, time elapsed since the transgression, general religious commitment (e.g., Religious Commitment Inventory-10), and general positive religious coping. This confirms that transgression-specific relational spiritual appraisals provide distinct explanatory power beyond global religiousness.

Reliability

The REST scale exhibits robust reliability metrics across exploratory, confirmatory, and intervention studies:

• Internal Consistency: Despite comprising only 4 items, the scale consistently yields high Cronbach’s alpha (α) coefficients. In the foundational validation studies by Davis et al. (2010), internal consistency estimates ranged from α = .84 to α = .91 across university student cohorts and community samples. In an experimental prayer intervention dissertation study by Vasiliauskas (2010), the scale maintained elevated internal consistency (α = .88 at pre-test and α = .92 at post-test).
• Composite Reliability: In structural equation modeling (SEM) evaluations, composite reliability (Raykov’s ρ or McDonald’s ω) routinely exceeds .86, demonstrating that item variance is overwhelmingly driven by the underlying latent construct rather than measurement error.
• Test-Retest Stability: Over brief test-retest intervals (e.g., 2 to 3 weeks) in stable baseline control conditions, the REST exhibits moderate-to-high stability coefficients (r = .72 to .80), while remaining appropriately sensitive to targeted therapeutic interventions such as directed intercessory prayer, pastoral counseling, and forgiveness psychoeducation.
• Standard Error of Measurement (SEM): The small standard error of measurement associated with the REST supports its use in tracking individual client trajectories over time in clinical practice without extensive measurement noise.

Factor Analysis

The structural dimensionality of the REST has been subjected to rigorous exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) across diverse samples.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

Initial exploratory factor analyses utilizing principal axis factoring and maximum likelihood estimation with both orthogonal (Varimax) and oblique (Promax) rotations consistently extracted a single dominant factor with an eigenvalue substantially greater than 1.0 (often accounting for 68% to 75% of the total item variance). The scree test clearly depicted an unambiguous single-factor elbow, with all four items loading robustly onto the primary dimension without cross-loading anomalies.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Subsequent confirmatory factor analyses supported the unidimensional structure of the REST scale. Model fit indices met or exceeded conventional cutoff criteria for excellent model fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999):

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): .985 to .999
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): .970 to .997
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): .032 to .058 (with 90% confidence intervals enclosing zero)
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): .015 to .028
• Chi-Square to Degrees of Freedom Ratio (χ²/df): Typically < 2.0, non-significant in adequately powered cohorts.

Factor Loadings

Standardized factor loadings (λ) for all four items consistently range from .74 to .91, indicating that each item is an exceptional indicator of the latent construct:

• Item 1 (“I tried to view him/her as a child of God.”): Standardized loading ≈ .78 – .84
• Item 2 (“I asked God to help me see his/her good points.”): Standardized loading ≈ .82 – .89
• Item 3 (“I tried to pray for him/her.”): Standardized loading ≈ .74 – .81
• Item 4 (“I believe God wants us to mend our relationships”): Standardized loading ≈ .76 – .85

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: Relational Engagement of the Sacred for a Transgression (REST)
• Alternative Titles: REST Scale, Relational Engagement of the Sacred Scale
• Authors: Don E. Davis, Joshua N. Hook, Everett L. Worthington, Jr., Daryl R. Van Tongeren, Aubrey L. Gartner, David J. Jennings II, & Laura Norton
• Year of Formal Introduction: 2010
• Instrument Type: Self-report psychometric questionnaire / Likert scale
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil, computer-assisted self-interview (CASI), or mobile digital assessment
• Number of Items: 4 items
• Dimensionality: Unidimensional (single composite factor)
• Response Scale: 6-point Likert scale:
  • 1 = completely disagree
  • 2 = disagree
  • 3 = slightly disagree
  • 4 = slightly agree
  • 5 = agree
  • 6 = completely agree
• Target Population: Adolescents and adults who have experienced an interpersonal offense, betrayal, or conflict
• Completion Time: Approximately 1 to 2 minutes
• Scoring Guidelines:
  • All 4 items are positively worded; there are no reverse-coded items.
  • Sum Scoring: Scores range from a minimum of 4 to a maximum of 24.
  • Mean Scoring: Sum the item scores and divide by 4 (range: 1.0 to 6.0).
  • Interpretation: Higher scores reflect a higher degree of relational engagement of sacred resources toward the offender, indicating greater readiness for empathy, prayerful intercession, and spiritually motivated relational reconciliation. Lower scores indicate an absence of relational spiritual engagement, potentially reflecting spiritual disengagement, avoidance, or retributive motivations.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Relational Engagement of the Sacred for a Transgression (REST) scale was developed in 2010. In accordance with the academic dissemination practices established by Dr. Don E. Davis and Dr. Everett L. Worthington, Jr., the REST scale is considered an open-access, non-commercial measurement instrument. It is freely accessible to researchers, educators, and mental health clinicians for non-commercial scholarly research, empirical investigations, doctoral dissertations, and clinical assessment without the payment of licensing fees.

Researchers utilizing the scale are expected to cite the original authors appropriately in all publications, presentations, and technical reports. For commercial applications, integration into proprietary healthcare software platforms, or large-scale corporate consulting, interested parties should contact the primary developer, Dr. Don E. Davis (Georgia State University) or Dr. Everett L. Worthington, Jr. (Virginia Commonwealth University), to obtain explicit written authorization.

References

• Davis, D. E., Hook, J. N., Worthington, E. L., Jr., Van Tongeren, D. R., Gartner, A. L., Jennings, D. J., II, & Norton, L. (2010). Development of the Relational Engagement of the Sacred for a Transgression (REST) scale. Manuscript submitted for publication.
• Hu, L. t., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
• 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
• 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
• Pargament, K. I., & Mahoney, A. (2005). Sacred matters: Sanctification as a vital topic for the psychology of religion. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 15(3), 179–198. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327582ijpr1503_1
• Pargament, K. I., Smith, B. W., Koenig, H. G., & Perez, L. (1998). Patterns of positive and negative religious coping with major life stressors. Journal of Health Psychology, 3(6), 710–724. https://doi.org/10.1177/135910539800300607
• Vasiliauskas, S. L. (2010). The effects of a prayer intervention on the process of forgiveness (Doctoral dissertation, George Fox University). Digital Commons @ George Fox University. https://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/psyd/1092/
• Worthington, E. L., Jr. (2006). Forgiveness and reconciliation: Theory and application. Routledge.

Items of the Scale