ENRIGHT FORGIVENESS INVENTORY – U.S. VERSION

Abstract

The Enright Forgiveness Inventory – U. S. Version (EFI-US) is a comprehensive psychological scale designed to quantify the degree to which an individual has forgiven a specific person who has caused them significant hurt or offense. Developed through a process involving psychologists and graduate students, the scale is grounded in the theoretical conceptualization of forgiveness as a multidimensional construct encompassing cognitive, affective, and behavioral components. The final instrument consists of 60 items distributed across six subscales (ten items per subscale). Respondents use a 6-point Likert-type scale (ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree) to rate their agreement with the items. Scoring allows for both individual subscale scores (ranging from 10 to 60) and a total forgiveness score (ranging from 60 to 360), with negative items being reverse-scored to ensure higher scores consistently reflect greater forgiveness.

Keywords

Forgiveness, Interpersonal Forgiveness, Psychological Assessment, Affective Components, Cognitive Components, Behavioral Components, EFI-US, Social Desirability.

Authors

Robert D. Enright, Subkoviak et al.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Enright Forgiveness Inventory – U. S. Version (EFI-US) is to provide a detailed, quantitative measure of an individual’s level of forgiveness directed toward a specific, identified offender. This specificity allows researchers and clinicians to assess the subjective experience of moving past a relational injury. The instrument is intended to capture the complex psychological changes that occur as a person overcomes negative responses and cultivates positive responses following significant interpersonal hurt.

The scale was developed with the view that forgiveness is a universal construct, applicable across diverse cultural and religious backgrounds, evidenced by data collection efforts spanning the United States, Brazil, Israel, Korea, Saudi Arabia, and Taiwan.

Construct

The EFI-US is predicated on the definition of forgiveness established by Subkoviak et al. (1995), which views it as a multidimensional construct involving the transformation of one’s relationship with an offender following a serious offense. This transformation involves two simultaneous processes: the overcoming of negative responses and the manifestation of positive responses.

The scale measures six specific dimensions, structured into six corresponding subscales:

• Absence of Negative Components:
  • Absence of Negative Affect (NA)
  • Absence of Negative Judgment (NC)
  • Absence of Negative Behavior (NB)
• Presence of Positive Components:
  • Presence of Positive Affect (PA)
  • Presence of Positive Judgment (PC)
  • Presence of Positive Behavior (PB)

Each subscale is measured by ten items, totaling 60 items for the full inventory. The theoretical basis for this six-factor model was established a priori by the developers.

Validity

Data supporting the validity of the EFI-US were gathered through multiple methods. First, the six subscales were found to be highly intercorrelated, with correlation coefficients ranging from .80 to .87, suggesting that while they measure distinct components, they contribute to a strong, unified measure of the overall forgiveness construct.

Second, concurrent validity was supported by correlating the EFI-US subscales with a single-item measure of forgiveness (“To what extent have you forgiven the person that you rated?”). Pearson correlations between the subscales and this single item ranged impressively from .60 to .68, considering the inherent limited reliability of a single-item measure.

Third, the EFI-US scales were correlated with the Crowne-Marlowe (1960) social desirability scale to assess potential response bias.

Fourth, construct validity was investigated by correlating EFI-US scores with indices of mental health, based on the hypothesis that forgiveness should correlate negatively with psychological distress. The EFI total score showed a small, negative correlation with anxiety for the total sample (r = -.15). This correlation was larger (r = -.25) for respondents who reported experiencing a great deal of initial hurt. Furthermore, for married respondents rating their spouses, forgiveness was moderately and negatively correlated with trait anxiety (r = -.53) and state anxiety (r = -.44). While no significant overall relationship was found between the EFI total score and the Beck Depression Inventory, the negative affect subscale was negatively correlated with depression among adults who had experienced significant hurt from a family member.

Finally, McCullough (1995) provided additional support by demonstrating the EFI-US’s sensitivity to change: participants in a forgiveness intervention seminar showed significantly higher EFI total scores post-intervention compared to a waiting-list control group, suggesting its utility in measuring the efficacy of therapeutic programs.

Reliability

The reliability of the EFI-US was established primarily through estimates of internal consistency using Cronbach’s alpha. Alphas were consistently high for all six subscales and the total score, ranging from .93 to .98. McCullough (1995) corroborated these findings, reporting similar high internal consistency estimates (.93 to .98) for both the subscales and the total scale.

To assess test-retest reliability, students completed the EFI-US and were re-tested four weeks later. The test-retest reliabilities ranged from .67 (for the Negative Behavior subscale) to a strong .86 (for the EFI Total Score), indicating good temporal stability, particularly for the overall measure of forgiveness.

Factor Analysis

The structure of the EFI-US was determined not through empirical factor analysis but through rigorous a priori theorizing by Subkoviak et al. (1995) regarding the essential dimensions of forgiveness. The six subscales were conceptually defined to capture the cognitive, affective, and behavioral components, both positive and negative, inherent in the forgiveness process. While the subscales were highly intercorrelated (as noted in the Validity section), supporting a strong general forgiveness factor, the six-factor structure is based on the theoretical model of forgiveness development proposed by Enright and colleagues.

Instrument

Test Type:

Specific interpersonal self-report inventory/measure of forgiveness.

Format:

Paper-and-pencil measure consisting of 60 items scored on a 6-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree). Items are summed to yield six subscale scores (10-60 each) and a total score (60-360).

Language Available:

The U. S. Version (EFI-US) is reviewed here, but data collection has been conducted internationally, suggesting translation availability in languages relevant to Brazil, Israel, Korea, Saudi Arabia, and Taiwan.

Population Group:

Individuals who have experienced interpersonal hurt or offense from a specific target person (e.g., family member, friend, spouse).

Age Group:

Late adolescence and middle adulthood (Standardization sample means: college students, 22 years; parents, 49 years).

Population Details:

The standardization sample consisted of 394 persons in the U. S., including 204 female and 190 male college students and their same-sex parents.

Test Methodology:

Respondents are first directed to recall a specific person who seriously offended or hurt them. They then respond to items indicating their current feelings, thoughts, and behavioral intentions regarding that offender. No special qualifications are required for administration.

Keywords

Psychometrics, Scale Norms, Interpersonal Offense, Affective components, Cognitive assessment, Reliability estimates, Cronbach’s alpha, Test-retest reliability.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier:

Not provided in source material.

Affiliation Email addresses:

Not provided in source material.

Correspondence Address:

Robert D. Enright, Ph. D., Department of Educational Psychology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706-1796.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The full scale is available through Robert D. Enright, Ph. D. Contact information for permissions is provided above. The primary developmental and validation research underpinning the U.S. Version was published in 1995 (Subkoviak et al., 1995).

Reference’s

Beck, A. T., & Steer, R. A. (1987). Beck Depression Inventory. San Antonio: Psychological Corporation.

Crown, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349-354.

McCullough, M. E. (1995). Forgiveness as altruism: Toward a social-psychological theory of forgiveness and tests of its validity. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA.

Subkoviak et al. (1995). Measuring interpersonal forgiveness in late adolescence and middle adulthood. Journal of Adolescence, 18, 641-655.

Norms and Standardization

The standardization sample for the EFI-US consisted of 394 individuals (204 female and 190 male) drawn from college students (average age 22) and their same-sex parents (average age 49). The following list summarizes the means (M), standard deviations (SD), and internal consistency (Alpha) for the six subscales and the total score based on this U.S. sample:

• Positive Affect: M = 36.73, SD = 14.14, Alpha = .96
• Negative Affect: M = 39.60, SD = 13.97, Alpha = .95
• Positive Behavior: M = 43.89, SD = 12.76, Alpha = .96
• Negative Behavior: M = 43.12, SD = 11.71, Alpha = .93
• Positive Cognition: M = 45.18, SD = 12.16, Alpha = .96
• Negative Cognition: M = 48.02, SD = 11.76, Alpha = .95
• EFI Total Score: M = 256.55, SD = 69.43, Alpha = .98

Items of the ENRIGHT FORGIVENESS INVENTORY -U. S. VERSION

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.

The following six items are sample items, one for each subscale. Items are answered on a 6-point Likert Scale ranging from zero (“strongly disagree”) to five (“strongly agree”).

• Negative Affect

I feel hostile toward him/her.

• Positive Affect

I feel wann toward him/her.

• Negative Cognition

Regarding the person, I disapprove of him/her.

• Positive Cognition

Regarding the person, I wish him/her well.

• Negative Behavior

Regarding the person, I do or would put him/her down.

• Positive Behavior

Regarding the person, I do or would be considerate.