Belgium participants similarly suggested a one-factor solution ( Orathinkal, Vansteenwegen, Enright, &
Stroobants, 2007 ). We conclude that there is strong support for the EFI’s assessment of forgiveness but less
support for subscales.
Criterion/Predictive
Enright and Rique (2004) suggest that numerous intervention studies have shown that the EFI is sensitive to
clinical change in forgiveness in patient samples where hurts have been deep and psychologically compromising
(for a meta-analysis, see ( Wade, Hoyt, Kidwell, & Worthington, 2014 ). Studies using the EFI with emotionally dis-
turbed patients provide strong evidence for its usefulness in clinical settings. Neither EFI subscale nor total score
is correlated ( rs,.02) with the Marlowe-C rowne Social Desirability Scale ( Enright & Rique, 2004; Subkoviak
et al., 1995 ).
Location
The EFI can be purchased from Mind Garden at: www.mindgarden.com/products/efins.htm (Retrieved
January 9, 2014).
Results and Comments
The EFI is credited with offering researchers and practitioners one of the first tools for assessment of interper-
sonal forgiveness, and is one of the two most widely used measures of forgiveness. It is available in six languages
from at least six countries: Austria, Brazil, Israel, Korea, Norway, and Taiwan. The EFI manual contains norms
for these countries and for the United States. The manual and website provide conflicting information about the
construct validity of the translated versions of the EFI.
The EFI has proven especially useful for clinical applications and is sensitive to clinical change in forgiveness. It
must be considered the premier instrument to use in clinical contexts for assessment leading to diagnosis and prog-
nosis with disorders involving unforgiveness and anger, or disorders that involve large amounts of rumination.
The EFI’s length may be prohibitive for some uses. One abbreviated version of the EFI has been published
with subscales for affect, behavior, and cognition with eight, six, and eight items, and Cronbach alphas for the
subscales are .91, .91, and .89, respectively ( McLernon, Cairns, Hewstone, & Smith, 2004 ). The total 22-item abbre-
viated scale alpha coefficient is .95. Subscale intercorrelations exceed .70 ( McLernon et al., 2004 ). The abbreviated
EFI may offer researchers an efficient and effective means of assessing interpersonal forgiveness.
Transgression Related Interpersonal Motivations Inventory (TRIM)
(McCullough et al., 1998b)
Variable
The TRIM inventory measures unforgiving motivations toward the offender after a particular identified trans-
gression. The motives are avoidance (TRIM-A) of the person, revenge (TRIM-R), and (added later) benevolent
(TRIM-B) motives.
Description
The original source of the TRIM was Susan Wade Brown’s doctoral dissertation at Fuller Seminary
(Wade, 1990 ). She originally created 600 items winnowed them to 83 items in nine subscales resulting in he Wade
Forgiveness Scale (WFS; Wade, 1990 ). Using 5-point anchors, responses ranged from 1 5Strongly disagree to
55Strongly agree for each item. The WFS was subsequently published ( Brown et al., 2001 ) with all 83 items
grouped into 11 subscales /C0four that reflected cognition (Revenge, Freedom from Obsession, Affirmation, and
Victimization), one that reflected affect (Positive versus Negative Feelings), and six that reflected behaviors
(Avoidance, Movement Against, Toward God, Conciliation, Holding a Grudge, and Personal Benefit). Prior to
the publication of the WFS, Brown’s scale had been trimmed to two subscales (Revenge and Avoidance) with
five and seven items, respectively (McCullough et al., 1998a), and that abbreviated version was called the TRIM.
Because the TRIM-12 measures unforgiving motivations, its use has limitations. For example, there are many
ways to reduce unforgiveness besides forgiving ( Worthington, 2006 )/C0such as acceptance, seeing justice done, or
even getting successful revenge. Thus, in some cases, it is not conceptually advisable to equate lower scores on
the TRIM-12 (reduced unforgiveness) with actually forgiving (see Wade & Worthington, 2003 ). In studies479 STATES OF FORGIVENESS
IV. INTERPERSONAL STYLES