Validity
Convergent/Concurrent
Worthington et al. (2007a ) reported a positive correlation of the DFS with the TRIM-B7 ( r5.68); The DFS was
correlated with several dispositional measures of forgiveness like the Rye Forgiveness Likelihood Scale ( r5.44)
and Trait Forgivingness Scale ( r5.46). Worthington, Hook, Utsey, Williams, and Neil also reported positive cor-
relations of the EFS with the TRIM-B7 ( r5.75), empathy for the offender ( r5.54), dispositional measures of for-
giveness like the Rye Forgiveness Likelihood Scale ( r5.67) and Trait Forgivingness Scale ( r5.36).
Divergent/Discriminant
Worthington, Hook, Utsey, Williams, and Neil also reported correlations of the DFS with the TRIM-A
(r52.63), TRIM-R ( r52.61), however, no relationships were found between DFS scores and empathy for the
offender or rumination. The EFS correlated negatively with rumination ( r52.29). Worthington, Hook, Utsey,
Williams, and Neil also reported negative correlations of the EFS with the TRIM-A ( r52.73), and TRIM-R
(r52.44).
Construct/Factor Analytic
All items were initially analyzed using principal com ponents analysis (PCA) constrained to two factors
(N5399; Worthington et al., 2007a ). Items on the DFS and EFS were subjected to separate PCAs using Promax
(oblique) rotation. A simple structure was found b oth for DFS and for EFS. CFAs were carried out using
sample 1B ( Worthington et al., 2007a ) with acceptable fit statistics on each scale. For the DFS, χ2/df was 2.5,
comparative fit index (CFI) 5.98; normed fit index (NFI) 5.97; goodness of fit index (GFI) 5.96; root mean
squared error of approximation (RMSEA) 5.08). For the EFS, χ2/df53, CFI 5.97; NFI 5.96; GFI 5.95;
RMSEA 5.08.
Criterion/Predictive
Predictive validity evidence has been adduced using an implicit measures test (Worthington et al., 2007a).
In sample 1C of Worthington et al. (2007a), participants were randomly assigned to identify a relationship in
which either they held a grudge, had granted decisional forgiveness but had not experienced complete emotional
forgiveness, or had experienced both. Scores on the DFS and EFS were consonant with the condition, and reaction
times were correlated with scores on the DFS. Furthermore, the reaction times for the congruent conditions
(M5687 ms, SD5104 ms) were significantly faster than for the incongruent conditions ( M5822 ms,
SD5186 ms, t(61)55.47, p,.001). EFS scores (but not DFS scores) were found to predict physiological responses
(McCrocklin, 2009 ).Harper et al. (in press) found that EFS and DFS both responded to six-hour workbook-based
forgiveness interventions.
Location
Worthington, E.L., Jr., Hook, J.N., Utsey, S.O., Williams, J.K., & Neil, R L. (2007, October). Decisional and emo-
tional forgiveness . Paper presented at the Positive Psychology Summit, Washington, DC, October 5, 2007.
Note: To obtain a copy of this paper, contact Everett Worthington at the following email address: eworth@
vcu.edu
Hook, J.N. (2007). Forgiveness, individualism, and collectivism . Unpublished master’s thesis, Virginia
Commonwealth University, Richmond.
McCrocklin, C. (2009). Cardiovascular reactivity to forgiveness in females . Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond.
Results and Comments
Studies suggest that the DFS measures a decision to forgive and might be related to what people often
mean when they say they have forgiven an offender; they often mean they intend to act more positively
toward the person. Emotional forgiveness is informed by a theory of replacing negative unforgiving emotions
with more positive ones toward the offender (for evidence supporting the theory, see Worthington, 2006 ).
Emotional forgiveness is related to what people mean when they say they ‘feel like’ they have forgiven an
offender. The DFS and EFS have been translated in to Korean and used with samples from North Korea
(Park, 2012 )a n dS o u t hK o r e a( Chong, 2010 ). More evidence exists for scores on either of the DFS and EFS
than for the two subscales.485 STATES OF FORGIVENESS
IV. INTERPERSONAL STYLES