Journal of Personality, 73 , 313-359. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467 /C06494.2005.00311.x. www.heartlandforgiveness.com/
(Retrieved January 9, 2014).
Results and Comments
The HFS allows assessment of three forms of dispositional forgivingness (self-forgivingness, other-forgiving-
ness, forgivingness of situations). The self-forgivingness subscale, which is the primary focus here, is composed
of six items /C0five of which entail self-condemnation and one of which alludes to understanding oneself.
Thus, the scale is more appropriate as a measure of self-condemnation and does not speak as strongly to how
one rids oneself of self-condemnation. Some have suggested that many people do so by letting oneself off of the
hook or pseudo-self-forgiveness (see Hall & Fincham, 2005 ). Particularly noteworthy are the nine-month temporal
stability estimates and the finding that the HFS predicted mental health and relationship quality. The scale has
been translated into Greek (translator: Despina Moraitou), Japanese ( Osanai & Furukawa, 2005 ), Thai (translator:
Ruck Chunhakan), and Turkish (translator: Asli Bugay) (for details, see: www.heartlandforgiveness.com/heart-
land-forgiveness-scale-translations/ (Retrieved January 9, 2014).
The notion that one can forgive situations (e.g., natural disasters) is unique to the HFS, and because they are
non-agentic, some forgiveness researchers do not embrace that construct. The HFS Self and HFS Other are good
brief measures of two types of dispositional forgivingness. Although Thompson et al. (2005) reported total scores,
we suggest that theoretical reasons would argue against this.
FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS
In evaluating the status of measurement of constructs related to forgiving, we suggest new directions in two
areas. First, methodological advances from the field of assessment need to be applied to forgiveness constructs.
Second, theoretical advances in understanding forgiveness need to be considered.
Methodological Advances in Assessment
IRT has been underused in constructing self-report measures of forgiveness. Only Berry et al. (2001) ,Berry
et al. (2005) , and McCullough et al. (2010) have employed IRT in this regard. The great advantage of IRT is its
promise for creating brief measures that have strong psychometric properties. Computer assessment has also
been underused. In today’s world, so many people are internet active that developing good computer-based
assessments seems a next step. Many researchers and clinicians simply load the existing measures onto the com-
puter and either email scales, use local computers in-office or in-lab for computer assessment, or administer sur-
veys on the web through general appeals or through sampling schemes like Amazon’s Mechanical Turkr.
However, this does not exploit the technological opportunities of computers and modern electronic systems like
web-connected ‘smart’ cell phones that can email or text data to investigators and allow more time sampling
designs and longitudinal data.
Implicit measures have also been underutilized. Only one study in our review employed implicit measures
(Worthington et al., 2007a). Implicit measures might be able to provide a behavioral measure (reaction time) that
adds to the existing laboratory-based behavioral measures. Cognitive neuroscience methods have not been
employed at all in the study of forgiveness. Stroop tests or other cognitive methods might fruitfully be used to
assess emotional forgiveness and the interference of negative emotions in cognitive problem solving.
Physiological assessments have become increasingly mobile and flexible. People can attach mobile heart-rate
monitors and receive immediate feedback on a computer tablet or cell phone that allows biofeedback treatment
of stress. If unforgiveness is a stress response, such treatment could easily be integrated with data collection.
Data could be transmitted electronically to researchers as people do their own stress-reduction (i.e., unforgive-
ness-reduction) treatments at home or at work. In the lab, Lifeshirtsrand EEG helmets have not been used to
assess unforgiveness or forgiveness (cf. E. Harmon-Jones, Vaughn-Scott, Mohr, Sigelman, & Harmon-Jones, 2004
who used EEG measurement to assess sympathy). Many other peripheral and central nervous system methods
could be employed to assess forgiveness.
Perhaps the weakest area in assessing forgiveness has been to devise laboratory manipulations that provide
a good stimulus for allowing forgiveness. Several resource-distribution methods have been developed
(Carlisle et al., 2012). The assessment of forgiveness in the laboratory might be difficult because the forgiveness
being measured might differ from the type of forgiveness that develops over time. Laboratory situations unfold498 17. MEASURES OF FORGIVENESS
IV. INTERPERSONAL STYLES