Cited by 127Forgiveness and Related BehaviorsReligion, Spirituality, and PsychologySocial and Intergroup Psychology

Forgiveness: An Exploratory Factor Analysis and Its Relationships to Religious Variables

Gorsuch, Richard L., Hao, Judy Y.·1993·Review of Religious Research

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/3511971

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Of the 20 best studies on R/S and altruism, 15 (75%) reported positive relationships and two (10%) found negative associations.

    “of the 20 best studies, 15 (75%) reported positive relationships [108–113] and two (10%) found negative associations [114, 115] (both concerning organ donations, which some religions prohibit).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gorsuch, R. L., & Hao, J. Y.
Venue
Review of Religious Research
Publisher
JSTOR
Published
1993-06
Volume
34
Issue
4
Pages
333
ISSN
0034-673X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2328519638
Cited by
127
References
16
Citations by year
2023: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 6
FWCI
1.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Review of Religious Research (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Forgiveness and Related Behaviors
  • Social Sciences › Health › Religion, Spirituality, and Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
Keywords
forgiveness, religiosity

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