Skip to main content

Evaluate Emotional and Decisional Forgiveness



Following a painful experience like those reported by women in the “me too” movement, many may work to forgive their offender to free themselves from the ongoing internal struggle caused by rehearsing the event and nursing anger.

Forgiveness, of course, should not be construed as excusing, pardoning, or tolerating abuse. Neither should survivors' forgiveness of their offenders reduce the responsibility of government and business leaders to act justly and provide safeguards against future offenses.

When people begin to work on forgiveness toward offenders for particularly horrific offenses like rape and murder, they may find strong emotions like anger and the desire for revenge make it seem impossible to overcome. Ev Worthington (Virginia Commonwealth University) and his colleagues have published two measures of forgiveness that divide forgiveness into two parts: Emotional and Decisional.

This makes sense to me as a clinician, a scientist, and a person who, like many, have had to forgive others. I had called the decisional part “dutiful” forgiveness because many cultures, including religious cultures, look at forgiveness as a duty. Thus, a person may act according to a sense of duty and decide to forgive an offender. They may find they are able to stop seeking revenge or stop avoiding their offender.

But, despite the decision to forgive an offender, the forgiver can be troubled by strong emotions, which persist despite the "decisional forgiveness." So, it can seem as if one has made little progress in forgiving, if the strong emotions persist. 

I think having two dimensions to consider may be helpful to survivors who wish to measure their progress in two different ways. The two measures can help clinicians as they guide clients through forgiveness and note that progress may be uneven. For example, the emotional aspect may proceed more slowly than the decisional aspect. Of course, researchers may also find the two measures helpful as additions to their surveys about relationships and counseling outcomes.

I will provide a link below to the two scales along with data indicating they have a history of reasonable values for reliability and validity statistics in published articles.

Following are examples:

DECISIONAL FORGIVENESS SCALE
Strongly Disagree (SD)
Disagree (D)
Neutral (N)
Agree (A)
Strongly Agree (SA)
1. I intend to try to hurt him or her in the same way he or she hurt me.
SD
D
N
A
SA
2. I will not try to help him or her if he or she needs something.
SD
D
N
A
SA






Creating Surveys

Create better surveys for work and school




BUY today AMAZON





EMOTIONAL FORGIVENESS SCALE
Strongly Disagree (SD)
Disagree (D)
Neutral (N)
Agree (A)
Strongly Agree (SA)
1. I care about him or her.
SD
D
N
A
SA
2. I no longer feel upset when I think of him or her.
SD
D
N
A
SA






Applied Statistics: Concepts for Counselors

Amazon Kindle 

BUY ON AMAZON

Available in over 12 countries.



The two forgiveness scales

[I would include the entire scales here but they are published in copyrighted works. Researchers and educators may use the scales for non-commercial purposes. You can find a downloadable pdf file on Researchgate:  https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286221719_Measures_of_Forgiveness 

Resource Link:  A – Z Test Index


Resource: Books About Forgiveness

 Connections and Links to Resources

My Page    www.suttong.com

My Books   AMAZON

FACEBOOK   Geoff W. Sutton

TWITTER  @Geoff.W.Sutton

LinkedIN Geoffrey Sutton  PhD

Publications (many free downloads)
     
  Academia   Geoff W Sutton   (PhD)
    
  ResearchGate   Geoffrey W Sutton   (PhD)






Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Academic Self-Efficacy Scale ASE

  Overview The  Academic Self-Efficacy Scale is an application of Self-Efficacy Theory   to examine the relationship between self-efficacy and academic performance using 8-items rated on a 7-point scale. The work of Chemers et al. (2001) has been widely cited. Format The 8-items are rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = Very Untrue to 7 = Very True. Sample Items 2. I know how to take notes. 6. I usually do very well in school and at academic tasks.   Reliability, Validity, and Other Research notes In the article describing the development and use of the ASE, the authors observed: “As predicted, academic self-efficacy was significantly and directly related to academic expectations and academic performance.” (Chemers et al., 2001, p. 61)   Sutton et al. (2011) reported Cronbach's alpha of .83 in their study of academic self-esteem and personal strengths. ASE was highly positively correlated with ACT scores (.24) and GPA (.39)....
Post a Comment
Read more

Rotterdam Emotional Intelligence Scale (REIS)

  Scale name: Rotterdam Emotional Intelligence Scale (REIS) Scales overview : The Rotterdam Emotional Intelligence Scale (REIS) is a 28-item measure of emotional intelligence having four subscales. Authors: Pekaar, Keri A., Bakker, Arnold B., van der Linden, Dimitri, & Born, Marise Ph. Response Type: All items are rated on a 5-point Likert type scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree to 5 (totally agree). Subscales = 4   Following are the four subscales with a sample item. Self-focused emotion appraisal( 1. I always know how I feel.) Other-focused emotion appraisal ( 8. I am aware of the emotions of the people around me.) Self-focused emotion regulation ( 15. I am in control of my own emotions.) Other-focused emotion regulation ( 22. I can make someone else feel differently.)   Reliability and Validity “The results indicate that the REIS follows a four-factorial structure and can be reliably measured with 28 items. The REIS was strongly correl...
Post a Comment
Read more

Spiritual Bypass Scale (SBS-13)

  Assessment name:   Spiritual Bypass Scale-13 (SBS-13) Scale overview: To assess the observed spiritual bypassing phenomenon, Fox et al. (2017) developed the 13 item Spiritual Bypass Scale . Authors: Fox, Cashwell, and Picciotto    [ Read more about Spiritual Bypassing in Psychotherapy] Response Type: The 13 items are rated on a four-point scale of agreement. Scale items Data analyses from two ethnically diverse US adult samples supported two factors (Psychological Avoidance, PA; Spiritualizing, SP). PA example: When I am in pain, I believe God will deliver me from it SP example: When someone I know is in trouble, I believe it is because they have done something wrong spiritually.   Psychometric properties Cronbach’salphas: Total scale = .85, PA = .82; Sp = .75. The total SBS score was associated with the ASPIRES subscales except for connectedness. PA was associated with depression and SP with stress and anxiety (DASS-21). The over...
Post a Comment
Read more