The DOI matches its Crossref record; 48 of the 48 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Measuring Individual Differences in the Tendency to Forgive: Construct Validity and Links with Depression
Open accessAbstract
Four studies examine the construct validity of the Tendency to Forgive Scale (TTF), a brief measure of dispositional forgiveness. Study 1 showed that romantic partners' ratings of targets converged with targets' self-ratings, and Study 2 demonstrated that higher scores on the TTF were associated with lower offense accessibility. Study 3 examined the TTF's relation to self-reported depression symptoms, both independent of and interacting with attitudes toward forgiveness and dispositional vengeance. Lower TTF scores were associated with higher degrees of depression, especially for individuals with positive attitudes toward forgiveness or those low in dispositional vengeance, although neither of these latter variables displayed significant zero-order relations with depression. Finally, Study 4 examined relations between the TTF, dispositional empathy, another recent measure of dispositional forgiveness, and the dimensions of the Big Five, providing both convergent and discriminant validity evidence for the TTF.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
In the citing paper
“Several studies support a similar correlation between forgiveness and empathy (Brown, 2003; Fincham, Paleari, & Regalia, 2002; Macaskill, Maltby, & Day, 2002).”
From Gratitude and forgiveness: convergence and divergence on self-report and informant ratings. (2010) · cites this paper as Brown, 2003
In the citing paper
“As with anger, character strengths also show inverse relations with depressive symptoms (Brown, 2003; Watkins, Woodward, Stone, & Kolts, 2003).”
From Gratitude and forgiveness: convergence and divergence on self-report and informant ratings. (2010) · cites this paper as Brown, 2003
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The CES-D Scale: A Self-Report Depression Scale for Research in the General Population
Radloff, L. S. (1977) · Applied Psychological Measurement · doi:10.1177/014662167700100306 · Cited by 53,267
Multiple regression: testing and interpreting interactions
(1992) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.29-3352 · Cited by 36,647
Society and the Adolescent Self-Image
Rosenberg, M. (1965) · doi:10.1515/9781400876136 · Cited by 30,126
Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach.
Davis, M. H. (1983) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113 · Cited by 10,272
Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect.
Higgins, E. T. (1987) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.94.3.319 · Cited by 7,219
(1991) · Cited by 7,187
Responses to depression and their effects on the duration of depressive episodes
Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (1991) · Journal of Abnormal Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-843x.100.4.569 · Cited by 4,529
Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships.
McCullough, M. E., Jr. Worthington Everett, L., & Rachal, K. C. (1997) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-3514.73.2.321 · Cited by 1,666
Immune neglect: A source of durability bias in affective forecasting.
Gilbert, D. T., Pinel, E. C., Wilson, T. D., Blumberg, S. J., & Wheatley, T. P. (1998) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.3.617 · Cited by 1,547
Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships: II: Theoretical elaboration and measurement
McCullough, M. E., Rachal, K. C., Sandage, S. J., Worthington, E. L., Brown, S. W., & Hight, T. L. (1998) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.6.1586 · Cited by 1,435 · cited 4×
“These results complement previous results obtained by McCullough et al. (1998) with regard to ruminative thoughts about a particular offense, as well as the negative correlation reported by Berry et al. (2001) between scores on their dispositional forgiveness scale and a measure of aggressive…”
BackgroundResultInfluential
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- McCullough, M. E., Hoyt, W. T. & Rachal, K. C. (2000). What we know (and need to know) about assessing forgiveness constructs. In M. E. McCullough, K. I. Pargament, & C. E. Thoresen (Eds.), Forgiveness: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 65-88). New York: Guilford.
- McGary, H. (1989). Forgiveness. American Philosophical Quarterly, 26, 343-351.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Narcissistic admiration and rivalry: disentangling the bright and dark sides of narcissism.
Back, M. D., Küfner, A. C. P., Dufner, M., Gerlach, T. M., Rauthmann, J. F., & Denissen, J. J. A. (2013) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0034431 · Cited by 1,255
Changes in Dispositional Empathy in American College Students Over Time: A Meta-Analysis
Konrath, S., O’Brien, E. H., & Hsing, C. K. (2010) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1177/1088868310377395 · Cited by 1,058
The road to forgiveness: A meta-analytic synthesis of its situational and dispositional correlates
Fehr, R., Gelfand, M. J., & Nag, M. (2010) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0019993 · Cited by 749
Beyond positive psychology? Toward a contextual view of psychological processes and well-being.
McNulty, J. K., & Fincham, F. D. (2011) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/a0024572 · Cited by 535
Too Proud to Let Go: Narcissistic Entitlement as a Barrier to Forgiveness.
Exline, J. J., Baumeister, R. F., Bushman, B. J., Campbell, W. K., & Finkel, E. J. (2004) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.87.6.894 · Cited by 465
Metadata
- Authors
- Brown, R. P.
- Affiliations
- University of Oklahoma (US)
- Corresponding author
- Brown, Ryan P.
- ORCID
- Brown, Ryan P.
- Venue
- Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2003-06
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 759-771
- ISSN
- 0146-1672 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-7433
- OpenAlex
- W2008629635
- Cited by
- 505
- References
- 44
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 37 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 35 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 28 · 2013: 28 · 2012: 20
- FWCI
- 11.12
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- Locations
- Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- SHAREOK (University of Oklahoma; Oklahoma State University; Central Oklahoma University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Forgiveness and Related Behaviors
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Emotions and Moral Behavior
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Keywords
- dispositional forgiveness, construct validity, depression, empathy, Big Five personality traits, romantic partners, convergent and discriminant validity
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Courtship, Depression, Emotions, Female, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Male, Predictive Value of Tests, Psychological Tests, Regression Analysis, United States, Reproducibility of Results
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
