FORGIVENESS SCALE

Abstract

The Forgiveness Scale, developed by Wade (1989), is an 83-item psychological instrument designed to quantify the degree to which a respondent has forgiven a specific individual (the offender) who caused them interpersonal hurt. Wade created the scale to remedy conceptual and methodological deficiencies in earlier forgiveness measures, ensuring the assessment was based on clear definitions derived from content analysis of interviews with experts.

The scale operationalizes forgiveness as a multidimensional construct, measuring related cognitions, affects, and behaviors. It is structured around nine intercorrelated subscales: Revenge, Freedom from Obsession, Affirmation, Victimization, Positive (vs. Negative) Feelings, Avoidance, Toward God, Conciliation, and Holding a Grudge. Responses are captured using a 5-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree), allowing for the derivation of nine distinct subscale scores.

Keywords

Forgiveness, Interpersonal hurt, Psychological scale, Unforgiveness, Revenge, Conciliation, Multidimensional construct, Psychometrics, Affects, Cognitions

Authors

S. H. Wade

[quads id=5]

Purpose

The primary purpose of Wade’s Forgiveness Scale is to provide a comprehensive and psychometrically sound measure of the process and outcome of forgiveness directed toward a specific, identified individual who has caused pain or injury. It moves beyond simple binary measures (forgiven/not forgiven) to capture the complexity of the psychological state.

The instrument is specifically designed to measure how respondents relate to the offender across various psychological domains—namely, their cognitions (thoughts about the offender), affects (emotional responses), and behaviors (actions taken or avoided). This detailed breakdown is valuable for researchers interested in the distinct components of recovery following serious interpersonal conflict.

Construct

Forgiveness, as measured by Wade’s scale, is defined as a complex, multidimensional construct encompassing various psychological and relational dimensions. Based on initial research, Wade developed fourteen dimensions of forgiveness and nine dimensions of unforgiveness, totaling 23 foundational dimensions.

These dimensions are distilled into the nine final subscales, which capture both positive moves toward forgiveness (e.g., Affirmation, Conciliation, Freedom from Obsession) and aspects of unforgiveness (e.g., Revenge, Victimization, Holding a Grudge). The scale aims to quantify the shift from negative, hurtful engagement to a state of emotional and cognitive release regarding the offense and the offender.

Validity

Concurrent validity was initially established by Wade (1989) using a form of the known groups method. In this study, 282 college students were divided into two groups: those instructed to complete the instrument regarding an offender they had forgiven, and those regarding an offender they had not forgiven. The ability of the retained nine factors (subscales) to successfully differentiate between these two groups provided strong evidence of construct validity.

Further validation studies have explored correlations with related psychological constructs. All subscales, except the Toward God subscale, showed moderate correlations with the four subscales of Spanier’s (1976) Dyadic Adjustment Scale in a sample of married individuals. Modest correlations were also observed with Christian religious maturity (measured by Massey’s Religious Status Inventory) and narcissistic traits (measured by the Narcissistic Personality Inventory).

The scale has also demonstrated utility in assessing intervention efficacy. McCullough and Worthington (1995) successfully utilized Wade’s scales to measure changes resulting from psychoeducational workshops designed to promote forgiveness, observing significant changes in the direction of forgiveness on the Revenge, Affirmation, Feelings, and Conciliation subscales.

Reliability

The internal consistency reliability of Wade’s subscales has been estimated across multiple studies, including the original work (Wade, 1989) and subsequent research (McCullough & Worthington, 1995; Woodman, 1991), primarily using Cronbach’s coefficient alpha. While specific alpha values are not provided in the source text (referencing a missing table), the psychometric properties appear robust, as all individual items were reported to correlate with their respective parent subscale at a minimum of r = .50 (Wade, 1989). To date, no studies have been conducted to investigate the temporal stability of scores, such as test-retest reliability.

Factor Analysis

The initial development of the scale involved generating a large pool of 600 items based on 23 dimensions of forgiveness and unforgiveness identified through content analysis. Wade (1989) performed factor analysis on this pool, resulting in the identification of 11 correlated factors that appeared to measure aspects of forgiveness.

Of these 11 factors, nine were retained as the final subscales of the 83-item instrument. The two factors that were ultimately abandoned failed to meet the validation criteria, specifically the ability to differentiate between individuals who reported having forgiven their offenders and those who reported not having forgiven. The final instrument features nine intercorrelated subscales that are summed to derive distinct measures of forgiveness components.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report, Multidimensional Psychological Scale

Format: Paper-and-pencil measure; 5-point Likert scale (Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree)

Language Available: English (Original)

Population Group: General population experiencing interpersonal hurt; validated initially on college students and studied in samples of church members and spouses.

Age Group: Adults (college students and married persons used in standardization)

Population Details: Initial development sample included 282 college students. Subsequent samples included church members and spouses. The scale is intended for use when the respondent has a specific offender in mind.

Test Methodology: The scale is scored by summing items for each of the nine subscales. The Feelings subscale requires reversal scoring for items reflecting negative emotions (e.g., anger, hatred) before summation with positive emotion items.

Keywords

Psychological assessment, Interpersonal relations, Offender, Victimization, Avoidance, Religious forgiveness, Dyadic adjustment, Psychometrics, Scaling, Likert scale

[quads id=5]

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: N/A (Not provided in source)

Affiliation Email addresses: N/A (Not provided in source)

Correspondence Address: N/A (Not provided in source)

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The scale was developed in 1989 as part of a doctoral dissertation. Administration and use generally require permission from the author, S. H. Wade. The instrument items were reprinted with permission of the author in the source material provided.

Reference’s

• Davidson & Jurkovic (1992). Reference details not fully provided in source.

• Dreelin (1992). Reference details not fully provided in source.

• Massey, D. E. (1989). The construction and initial factor analysis of the Religious Status Inventory. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Fuller Graduate School of Psychology, Pasadena, CA.

• McCullough, M. E., & Worthington, E. L., Jr. (1995). Promoting forgiveness: A comparison of two brief psychoeducational interventions with a waiting-list control. Counseling and Values, 40, 55-68.

• Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and Family, 38, 15-28.

• Wade, S. H. (1989). The development of a scale to measure forgiveness. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Fuller Graduate School of Psychology, Pasadena, CA.

• Woodman, T. (1991). The role of forgiveness in marital adjustment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Fuller Graduate School of Psychology, Pasadena, CA.

[quads id=5]

Items of the FORGIVENESS SCALE

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

Please answer the items below by using the following scale:

• Strongly disagree
• Disagree
• Neutral
• Agree
• Strongly agree

1. Our relationship is more important than this offense. (AFFI)
2. I like them. (AFF2)
3. I’ll make them pay. (REV})
4. I wish that something bad would happen to them. (REV2)
5. There’s something wrong with them. (REV3)
6. It (the offense) no longer has a hold on me. (FREI)
7. I was victimized. (VICI)
8. I don’t replay the offense in my mind, dwelling on it. (FRE2)
9. I love them. (AFF3)
10. I blame them. (VIC2)
11. I recognize it was very painful for the offender. (AFF4)
12. They wronged me. (VIC3)
13. I have a responsibility for this relationship too. (AFF5)
14. I have stopped blaming. (FRE3)
15. I want them to get what they deserve. (REV4)
16. I have a clearer ability to see their good points. (AFF6)
17. They’re guilty. (VIC4)
18. I’m going to get even. (REVS)
19. It’s not fair. (VIC5)
20. I can understand where they’re coming from. (AFF7)
21. I think about the good they’ve done. (AFF8)
22. I’m glad to be around them. (AFF9)
23. They can’t do anything right. (REV6)
24. I think about them without anger. (FRE4)
25. They’re scum. (REV7)
26. I want to see them hurt and miserable. (REVS)
27. I continue to think about how much I hate them. (REV9)
28. They’re bad. (REVlO)
29. betrayed (FEEl-R)
30. wronged (FEE2-R)
31. peace (FEE3)
32. joy (FEE4)
33. hate is dropped (FEE5)
34. anger (FEE6-R)
35. hurt rushes away, is accepted or assuaged (FEE7)
36. hurt/pain (FEE8-R)
37. victimized (FEE9-R)
38. holding a grudge (FEElO-R)
39. hatred (FEEl 1-R)
40. rage (FEE12-R)
41. release (FEE13)
42. respect (FEE14)
43. care (FEE15)
44. violated (FEE16-R)
45. good feeling (FEE17)
46. resentment (FEE18-R)
47. vengeance is dropped, no pleasure in it (FEE19)
48. cooperation (FEE20)
49. anger is released, gone (FEE21)
50. compassion (FEE22)
51. resentment is gone, or less (FEE23)
52. relief (FEE24)
53. acceptance (FEE25)
54. comfortable with them (FEE26)
55. I’m not letting go of the offense. (GRUl)
56. I told God I forgave them. (TOWl)
57. I asked God for forgiveness for them. (TOW2)
58. I wished them well. (CONl)
59. I keep as much distance between us as possible. (AVOl)
60. I’m holding on to the hurt and anger. (GRU2)
61. I looked for the source of the problem and tried to correct it. (CON2)
62. I took steps toward reconciliation: Wrote them, called them, expressed love, showed concern, etc. (CON3)
63. I gave my feelings to God. (TOW3)
64. I gave them back a new start, a renewed relationship. (CON4)
65. I asked God to help me forgive them, to love them. (TOW4)
66. I accept my part of the situation. (CON5)
67. I see no good in them. (AVO2)
68. I live as if they don’t exist, aren’t around. (AVO3)
69. I prayed for them, asking God to bless them. (TOW5)
70. I don’t trust them. (AVO4)
71. I find it difficult to act warmly toward them. (AOV5)
72. I avoid them. (AVO6)
73. I accept their humanness, flaws, failures. (CON6)
74. I cut off the relationship with them. (AVO7)
75. I’m suspicious of them. (GRU3)
76. I accept them. (CON7)
77. I made an effort to be more friendly and concerned. (CONS)
78. I did my best to put aside the mistrust. (CON9)
79. I was willing to forget the past and concentrate on the present. (CONlO)
80. I tried to make amends. (CONll)
81. I harbor a grudge against them. (GRU4)
82. I don’t blame them. (CONl2)
83. I withdraw from them. (AV08)

REV = Revenge

FRE = Freedom from obsession

AFF = Affirmation

VIC = Victimization

FEE = Feelings

AVO = Avoidance

TOW = Toward God

CON = Conciliation

GRU = Holding a grudge

R = Item must be reverse scored

Note: Do not include codes in parentheses in administration of this scale. Reprinted with permission of author.