Cited by 57Forgiveness and Related BehaviorsSocial and Intergroup PsychologyPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

Forgiveness takes place on an attitudinal continuum from hostility to friendliness: Toward a closer union of forgiveness theory and measurement

Open access
Forster, Daniel E., Billingsley, Joseph, Russell, V. Michelle, McCauley, Thomas G., Smith, Adam, Burnette, Jeni L., Ohtsubo, Yohsuke, Schug, Joanna +2 more·2020·Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Researchers commonly conceptualize forgiveness as a rich complex of psychological changes involving attitudes, emotions, and behaviors. Psychometric work with the measures developed to capture this conceptual richness, however, often points to a simpler picture of the psychological dimensions in which forgiveness takes place. In an effort to better unite forgiveness theory and measurement, we evaluate several psychometric models for common measures of forgiveness. In doing so, we study people from the United States and Japan to understand forgiveness in both nonclose and close relationships. In addition, we assess the predictive utility of these models for several behavioral outcomes that traditionally have been linked to forgiveness motives. Finally, we use the methods of item response theory, which place person abilities and item responses on the same metric and, thus, help us draw psychological inferences from the ordering of item difficulties. Our results highlight models based on correlated factors models and bifactor (S-1) models. The bifactor (S-1) model evinced particular utility: Its general factor consistently predicts variation in relevant criterion measures, including 4 different experimental economic games (when played with a transgressor), and also suffuses a second self-report measure of forgiveness. Moreover, the general factor of the bifactor (S-1) model identifies a single psychological dimension that runs from hostility to friendliness while also pointing to other sources of variance that may be conceived of as method factors. Taken together, these results suggest that forgiveness can be usefully conceptualized as prosocial change along a single attitudinal continuum that ranges from hostility to friendliness. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/pspi0000227

Cites

74 of 74 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Forgiveness can be usefully conceptualized as prosocial change along a single attitudinal continuum that ranges from hostility to friendliness.

    “A recent study in samples from the United States and Japan found that “forgiveness can be usefully conceptualized as prosocial change along a single attitudinal continuum that ranges from hostility to friendliness” [43].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Forster, D. E., Billingsley, J., Russell, V. M., McCauley, T. G., Smith, A., Burnette, J. L., Ohtsubo, Y., Schug, J., Lieberman, D., & McCullough, M. E.
Affiliations
  • University of Miami (US)
  • North Carolina State University (US)
  • Nagoya University (JP)
  • Kobe University (JP)
  • William & Mary (US)
Corresponding author
McCullough, Michael E.
Venue
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Published
2020-10
Volume
119
Issue
4
Pages
861-880
ISSN
  • 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1315
OpenAlex
W2995928989
Cited by
57
References
74
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 8
FWCI
7.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • John Templeton Foundation (29165)
  • Japan Society for the Promotion of Science Summer Program (17036)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Forgiveness and Related Behaviors
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
forgiveness, bifactor model, hostility, friendliness, economic games, transgressors, close relationships, methodological factors, item response theory
MeSH terms
Adult, Attitude, Emotions, Female, Hostility, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Japan, Male, Motivation, Psychometrics, United States, Forgiveness

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review