(e.g., disapproval), presence of positive cognition (e.g., favorability), absence of negative behavior (e.g., avoid-
ance), and presence of positive behavior (e.g., considerateness). They administered items to 197 college students
and 197 of their same-sex parent. Of the 150 items, 60 were retained (10 on each domain). The final EFI is scored
on affect, belief, and behavior 20-item subscales (each combining 10 positive and 10 negative items) and a
60-item total score. Example items from the EFI include: (a) affect: ‘I feel warm toward him/her’; (b) behavior:
‘Regarding the person I do or would show friendship’; and (c) cognition: ‘I think he or she is horrible.’
Additional example items and details of the EFI are available in other sources (see Enright & Fitzgibbons, 2000 ).
The 60 items each correlated above .65 with its subscale score and below .17 with social desirability. Items are
rated on a 6-point response scale ranging from 1 5strongly disagree to 65strongly agree. High values indicate
more forgiveness. Subscale scores range from 20 to 60 and the total score ranges from 60 to 360.
Additional items on the EFI assess hurt severity, source of the hurt (e.g., child, spouse, etc.), time since the
hurt, and whether the offender is still alive. Five items are used to assess ‘pseudo-forgiveness,’ thought of as a
disingenuous form of forgiveness. A single, face-valid item assesses the respondent’s self-report of offered for-
giveness (1 5not at all ;55complete forgiveness ). The EFI begins with a written description of the offence and all
items reference that specific event. Thus, the EFI is an event- or person-specific assessment. The EFI is used for
young adolescents, young adults, and adults. A fifth-grade reading level is required.
Sample
The original sample consisted of 197 Midwestern college students and 197 same-sex parents ( Subkoviak et al.,
1995). Mean college student and parent age were 22.1 ( SD54.7) and 49.6 ( SD59.6), respectively. Sexes were
equally represented. Same-sex parents were used to control variation in education, social class, and values that
were anticipated to be shared among parents and children.
Reliability
Internal Consistency
Cronbach alpha coefficients, representing hundreds of individuals are typically greater than .95 ( Enright &
Rique, 2004; Subkoviak et al., 1995 ).
Test/C0Retest
Temporal stability estimates over four weeks range from .67 to .91 using 36 college students ( Subkoviak
et al., 1995 ).
Validity
Convergent/Concurrent
The positive affect, negative affect, and EFI total scores were correlated with a state-measure of anxiety in both
college-students ( rs/C252.40) and same-sex parents ( rs/C252.50;Subkoviak et al., 1995 ). EFI-anxiety correlations
increased for respondents reporting deep hurt by their offender. Enright and Rique (2004) reported that the
EFS positively correlated highly with the Wade Forgiveness Scale ( Brown, Gorsuch, Rosik, & Ridley, 2001;
Wade, 1990 ).
Divergent/Discriminant
The EFI was not correlated with depression in healthy samples ( Subkoviak et al., 1995 ; no exact correlation
reported). The relationship between religion and the EFI was unexpectedly low ( r[392]5.09; cf. a meta-analysis
of forgiveness with both spirituality and religion; Davis, Worthington, Hook, & Hill, 2013 ); investigators have
addressed several hypotheses for why this might be the case (e.g., McCullough & Worthington, 1999 ).
Construct/Factor Analytic
The factor structure of the EFI has been examined and, although the scale authors describe this as a confirma-
tory factor analysis, it is clearly exploratory in nature ( Enright & Rique, 2004 ). Exploratory factor analysis (EFA)
was conducted on 394 college students and their same-sex parents using principal axis factoring. Three factors
were set for extraction with oblique rotation (exact type unspecified). The resulting solution favored a one-factor
interpretation with almost 60 percent of the item variance being explained by the first factor (a combination of
affect, behavior, and cognition items) and little more than 10 percent being explained by additional factors
(neither of which had items clearly loading on those factors but not also loading high on factor 1). An EFA with478 17. MEASURES OF FORGIVENESS
IV. INTERPERSONAL STYLES