Journal of Counseling Psychology © 2015 American Psychological Association

2015, Vol. 62, No. 2, 280 –288 0022-0167/15/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/cou0000054

Making a Decision to Forgive

Don E. Davis Joshua N. Hook

Georgia State University University of North Texas

Daryl R. Van Tongeren Cirleen DeBlaere and Kenneth G. Rice

Hope College Georgia State University

Everett L. Worthington, Jr.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Virginia Commonwealth University

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Prominent models and interventions designed to promote forgiveness have distinguished one’s decision
to forgive from achieving forgiveness as an end state, but because of a lack of a strong measure, there
is a weak research base on making a decision to forgive. Thus, in three studies, the authors developed
the Decision to Forgive Scale (DTFS) and examined evidence for its reliability and construct validity.
The article focused on distinguishing making a decision to forgive from achieved level of forgiveness.
Scores on the DTFS showed evidence of reliability, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging from .92
to .94, and a 1-week temporal stability coefficient of .68. Using several strategies, the authors demon-
strated that the DTFS is empirically distinct from the Transgression-Related Interpersonal Motivations
scale (TRIM; McCullough et al., 1998). Namely, a 3-factor confirmatory factor analysis that included the
DTFS and the 2 TRIM subscales showed excellent fit, suggesting these instruments assess 3 different
constructs. The DTFS was only moderately related to the TRIM subscales, was more strongly related to
stage of change than the TRIM, and predicted subsequent TRIM scores in a cross-lagged model. Finally,
although decisions to forgive generally suggested greater forgiveness, these constructs interacted to
predict existential distress. Namely, as decisional forgiveness increased, revenge was more strongly
related to existential distress. Overall, the DTFS shows considerable promise for further clinical and basic
research applications.

Keywords: forgiveness, measurement, positive psychology

Scientific research on forgiveness has burgeoned in recent years,
with work linking forgiveness to mental and physical health and
identifying key correlates (for a review, see Fehr, Gelfand, & Nag.,
2010), such as empathy (McCullough, Worthington, & Rachal,
1997), benevolent attributions about the offender (Fincham, 2000),
and cultural influence (Hook, Worthington, & Utsey, 2009;
Sandage, Hill, & Vang, 2003). Furthermore, there is a thriving
applied literature focused on forgiveness interventions (for a meta-
analytic review, see Wade, Hoyt, Kidwell, & Worthington, 2014).
Counseling psychologists have played prominent roles in this
work. For example, they have developed (a) forgiveness interven-
tions for a variety of specific contexts, including group therapy
(Wade et al., 2014), couples therapy (Greenberg, Warwar, &
This article was published Online First January 26, 2015.
Don E. Davis, Department of Counseling and Psychological Services,
Georgia State University; Joshua N. Hook, University of North Texas;
Daryl R. Van Tongeren, Hope College; Cirleen DeBlaere and Kenneth G.
Rice, Georgia State University; Everett L. Worthington, Jr., Virginia Com-
monwealth University.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Don E.
Davis, Department of Counseling and Psychological Services, Georgia
State University, P.O. Box 3980, Atlanta, GA 30302-3980. E-mail:
ddavis88@gsu.edu
Malcolm, 2008) and enrichment (Worthington et al., in press), or
treatment of older adults (Allemand, Steiner, & Hill, 2013); (b)
theory and research on forgiveness and appraisals of justice
(Worthington, 2006) and on stress-related outcomes (Berry &
Worthington, 2001; Orcutt, 2006; Wade, Vogel, Liao, & Goldman,
2008); and (c) theory and research on adapting of forgiveness to
client’s specific needs and culture (Davis et al., 2013; Hook et al.,
2009; Worthington et al., 2010).
One such idea is the distinction between making a decision to
forgive and one’s actual level of forgiveness (Worthington,
Witvliet, Pietrini, & Miller, 2007). This distinction is included
in much prominent theorizing and some research on promoting
forgiveness (Wade et al., 2014). For example, Worthington et
al. (2007) adduced research evidence to suggest that emotional
forgiveness was related more to physical and mental health than
was a decision to forgive, but decisions were more related to
relational and spiritual outcomes. However, despite the theo-
rizing and qualitative research support, the research base on
decisions to forgive has been hampered because prior attempts
to measure the construct resulted in a scale that did not show
adequate divergent validity with other measures of forgiveness
(Worthington, Hook, Utsey, Williams, & Neil, 2007). There-
fore, the purpose of the present article is to develop a measure
of one’s decision to forgive and to conceptually and empirically

280
 DECISION TO FORGIVE
distinguish decisional forgiveness from forgiveness as an end
state.
From a stress-and-coping perspective (Exline, Worthington,
Hill, & McCullough, 2003; Worthington, 2006), offenses are in-
terpersonal stressors that can lead to unforgiving emotions (e.g.,
resentment, bitterness, anger) and motivations via appraisals of
injustice, which are threatening. For example, consider Sarah who
recently found out that her partner of 10 years has been involved
in a sexual affair for 6 months. Complicating her recovery, she
feels pressure from her family and spiritual community to forgive.
Feeling guilty because she believes that she should forgive, based
on her spiritual beliefs, she also feels afraid of being exploited
again. If Sarah attended an intervention based on any of the leading
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
models for promoting forgiveness, she would learn a more precise
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
definition of forgiveness. Forgiveness involves a reduction of
negative (and perhaps an increase in positive) cognition, emotions,
and motivations toward an offender, and these changes often lead
to positive behavioral changes (Exline et al., 2003). Thus, forgive-
ness is not excusing, justifying, exonerating, accepting, moving on,
seeking justice, forbearing, forgetting, or reconciliation. In addi-
tion, she would learn that, for severe betrayals for which hurt and
resentment does not dissipate rapidly within a few weeks (Mc-
Cullough et al., 2003; McCullough, Luna, Berry, Tabak, & Bono,
2010), forgiveness will likely require an effortful process that
involves two parts.
The first part involves making a decision to forgive (DiBlasio,
2000; Enright & Fitzgibbons, 2000; Exline et al., 2003). Making a
decision to forgive involves committing to apply energy and effort
to regulate negative emotions, thoughts, and behaviors until un-
forgiving emotions (e.g., hurt, resentment, bitterness) are substan-
tially reduced. Indeed, for severe offenses, victims decide to for-
give without knowing how much energy, effort, or time will be
required, or if forgiveness is even possible. Decisions to forgive
may occur in discrete moments—like flipping a switch (e.g.,
making a clear and memorable decision to forgive)— especially if
the decision is publicly acknowledged through a public ritual or
communication (Hook et al., 2009). This step is important because
the remainder of the intervention assumes that the client is willing
to work on forgiving the offense.
The second part involves learning strategies to promote forgive-
ness, based on the particular theoretical model. For example, in the
REACH Forgiveness model (Worthington, 2006), after deciding to
forgive, clients are taught that greater forgiveness is achieved
through a process of emotional replacement, as the victim trans-
forms unforgiving emotions with positive, other-oriented emotions
such as empathy, sympathy, compassion, or love (Exline et al.,
2003). Thus, clients learn to alter their story about the offense in
ways that reduce negative rumination and practice various activi-
ties designed to promote other-oriented emotions, such as empathy
or gratitude.
This distinction may be especially helpful for clients who feel
cultural pressure to forgive from their family or community (Davis
et al., 2013; Hook & Worthington, 2008; Hook et al., 2009). In our
example, Sarah felt an obligation to forgive that will likely inter-
fere with healing. Although Sarah wants to forgive, it relieved
pressure when her counselor told her that forgiveness does not
require repairing the relationship. The concept of decisional for-
giveness also helped her develop realistic expectations of herself.
She accepted her current level of forgiveness. She made a legiti-
281
mate decision to seek greater forgiveness, but she was now more
compassionate toward and patient with herself. Relieved of guilt,
she had greater energy to work toward forgiving while also setting
appropriate boundaries and developing coping skills to engage in
gradual healing.
Although decisional forgiveness is considered an early step in
the prominent models of promoting forgiveness, the construct has
a meager research base of only a handful of published studies
(Holeman et al., 2011; Hook et al., 2013; Hook, Worthington,
Utsey, Davis, & Burnette, 2012; Watkins et al., 2011). All used the
same unpublished measure—The Decisional Forgiveness Scale
(DFS; Worthington et al., 2007)—which has substantial limita-
tions. Most notably, that measure showed poor evidence of diver-
gent validity, being much too strongly related (i.e., rs as high as
.70; Hook, 2007) to the most widely used measure of forgiveness
(i.e., the Transgression-Related Interpersonal Motivations Scale
[TRIM]; McCullough et al., 1998). In addition, compared to the
TRIM, the DFS did not show a distinct pattern of relations with
other constructs. Thus, our goal in the present article was to
develop a measure of decisional forgiveness and differentiate it
conceptually and empirically from the TRIM.
One reason that the initial version of the DFS may have had
such poor evidence of divergent validity is that items were based
on a highly nuanced distinction between behavioral intentions and
forgiving motivations or emotions (Worthington et al., 2007).
Indeed, items on the DFS (e.g., “I will try to help him or her if he
or she needs help”; “I will try to get back at him or her” [reverse
scored]) appear conceptually very similar to items on the TRIM
(e.g., “I’d find it difficult to act warmly toward him/her”; “I’m
going to get even”). This fine-grained distinction between behav-
ioral intentions and motivations did not hold up well empirically.
In the current article, we focused on a more basic distinction: If
forgiveness is an endpoint that involves substantially reducing
negative (and in some situations increasing positive) thoughts,
emotions, and motivations toward the offender, then deciding to
forgive involves making a deliberate commitment to apply energy
and effort to move toward that endpoint. Indeed, consistent with
Prochaska and DiClemente’s (1982) Transtheoretical Model of
Change, clients may enter treatment with a range of motivations to
forgive: They may (a) feel vehemently opposed; (b) be considering
the idea, but fear forgiveness will leave them vulnerable to exploi-
tation; (c) have decided to forgive, but be exploring ways of
increasing forgiveness; (d) have decided to forgive and be actively
employing coping strategies; or (e) feel that they have achieved
complete forgiveness. Forgiveness interventions usually seek to
allow clients to express this ambivalence and have their complex
feeling validated before asking clients to move toward a decision
or commitment to working on the goal of forgiveness.
This approach is informed and aligned with core themes of
counseling psychology such as strength-focused interventions
(Fowers, 2005) and emphasis on common factors such as therapy
alliance (e.g., Flückiger, Del Re, Wampold, Symonds, & Horvath,
2012). For example, before moving into application of intervention
activities, assessing the degree to which clients have made a
decision to forgive helps the therapist or group leader negotiate
and clarify the tasks and goals of therapy to establish a strong
therapy alliance. Although forgiveness interventions have strong
evidence of efficacy, there may be ways to enhance their potency
by tailoring treatment to client’s degree of decisional forgiveness.
 282 DAVIS ET AL.
For example, clients with high levels of decisional forgiveness
may not benefit from spending several hours completing activities
designed to reduce ambivalence and increase alignment with the
therapy goal of forgiving. Likewise, clients with low decisional
forgiveness may not benefit from engaging in activities or inter-
ventions designed to teach skills to promote forgiveness if they
have not made forgiveness a goal. Furthermore, promoting deci-
sional forgiveness may relieve pressure to forgive in communities
that strongly obligate forgiveness or reconciliation (Davis et al.,
2013; Hook et al., 2009), which may provide avenues for adapting
interventions to the unique challenges that clients face based on the
way their community understands and practices forgiveness. These
are exciting and promising possibilities, but they cannot be ex-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
plored until a measure to access decisional forgiveness has been
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
developed.
The Present Studies
The purpose of the present studies was to develop a brief yet
psychometrically sound measure of making a decision to forgive.
Based on our definition, we created content-valid items designed
to assess one’s decision to forgive a specific offense. In Study 1,
we used factor analysis to establish the factor structure of the
Decision to Forgive Scale (DTFS). We then sought to evaluate the
psychometric properties of the scale, including evaluating evi-
dence of reliability and construct validity. We were particularly
focused on demonstrating that the DTFS was distinct conceptually
and empirically from the TRIM (McCullough et al., 1998), given
that this was the greatest limitation in prior attempts to assess the
construct.
To that end, we examined the following five hypotheses. First,
in Study 1, we used confirmatory factor analysis to test a model
that loaded the decisional forgiveness items and TRIM items on
separate, correlated factors. We hypothesized that this model
would show good fit, which would provide evidence that deci-
sional forgiveness is distinct from the two subscales of the TRIM
(i.e., avoidance and revenge motivations).
Second, we examined the relation between the DTFS and the
TRIM subscales. We hypothesized that the DTFS would be mod-
erately and positively related to the TRIM subscales (McCullough
et al., 1998). Correlations of .60 or higher would cause us to
question whether we were measuring a sufficiently distinct con-
struct.
Third, we examined the correlations among the DTFS, the
TRIM, and a single-item measure of one’s stage of change regard-
ing forgiveness (i.e., Prochaska & DiClemente, 1982). Namely, we
wanted to see that these two constructs were not just empirically
distinct, but also show conceptually meaningful differences in their
relations to other constructs. If the DTFS assesses the degree to
which one has decided to commit to a process of reducing negative
emotions, thoughts, and motivations toward an offender, then it
ought to be strongly related to this measure. Thus, we expected
that the DTFS would be more strongly correlated to stage of
change than the TRIM.
Fourth, in Study 2, we examined how DTFS scores were related
to TRIM scores over time. Namely, decisional forgiveness is
theorized to mobilize individuals to work toward the goal of
achieving greater forgiveness. We recruited participants who had
experienced a recent offense. In a cross-lagged model, we exam-
ined whether decision to forgive at Time 1 predicted unforgiveness
at Time 2.
Finally, although the DTFS should generally be negatively
related to the TRIM subscales, we wanted to show that it is
conceptually important when both are high (as might occur in the
beginning of an intervention when participants have made a deci-
sion to forgive, but they have not yet applied strategies to promote
forgiveness). Accordingly, we recruited participants who had ex-
perienced a recent betrayal by a religious/spiritual leader. We
picked this context because we believed it might reflect a partic-
ular situation in which individuals would feel pressure to make a
decision to forgive, yet still harbor unforgiving emotions toward
the offender. We hypothesized not only would the DTFS be
negatively related to the TRIM, but these two scales would also
interact with each other to predict existential distress. Specifically,
we expected that when scores were high on both the DTFS and the
TRIM, this would be associated with higher levels of existential
distress than when TRIM scores were high, but DTFS scores were
low. Support for these five hypotheses would provide strong
evidence for the distinction between decisional forgiveness and
forgiveness as an end state.
Study 1
In Study 1, we sought to develop the DTFS. We hypothesized
that the DTFS would have a single-factor structure and would
show evidence of internal consistency. We also tested three hy-
potheses focused on distinguishing the DTFS from the TRIM.
First, we hypothesized that a three-factor confirmatory factor anal-
ysis with items from the DTFS and TRIM loading on separate
factors would show good fit. Second, we hypothesized that the DTFS
would be only moderately related with subscales of the TRIM. Third,
we hypothesized that the DTFS would be more strongly related to
stage of change than the TRIM.
Method
Participants and procedure. Participants were 432 under-
graduates (298 women, 134 men) from a large, university in the
Southeastern United States. The mean age was 26.0 (SD ⫽ 7.2).
The sample was diverse in terms of race/ethnicity (48.4% Black/
African American; 31.3% White; 9.7% Asian/Pacific Islander;
5.3% Latino/a; and 4.6% Other; and 0.7% Did not respond). The
sample was predominately religious/spiritual (86.6%) and hetero-
sexual (89.8%). Participants (all 18 years of age or older) com-
pleted the survey in exchange for a small amount of course credit.
After indicating consent online, participants completed demo-
graphic questions. They then recalled a specific offense and com-
pleted questionnaires assessing how they perceived the social
context of the offense and how they coped with that offense.
Measures
Decision to forgive. Informed by prior theory and research,
the first author generated an initial list (N ⫽ 9) of content-valid
items based on our conceptualization of making a decision to
forgive. Two of the coauthors (experts who had published fre-
quently in the area of forgiveness research) reviewed this initial list
and suggested revisions. The final item pool involved six items: “I
have decided to forgive him or her”; “I made a commitment to
forgive him or her”; “I have made up my mind to forgive him or
 DECISION TO FORGIVE
her”; “My choice is to forgive him or her”; “My choice is to
release any negative feelings I have”; and “I have chosen not to
intentionally harbor resentment toward him or her.” Participants
were asked to rate their agreement with items using 5-point ratings
ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Forgiveness. The 12-item TRIM (McCullough et al., 1998)
was used to assess one’s experience of forgiveness. The TRIM has
two subscales: Revenge (five items; e.g., “I’ll make him/her pay”)
and Avoidance (seven items; e.g., “I keep as much distance be-
tween us as possible”). Items are completed using 5-point ratings
from (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Higher scores (i.e.,
higher avoidance or revenge motivations) indicate greater unfor-
giveness (hence less forgiveness). The TRIM is the most widely
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
used measure of forgiveness (Fehr et al., 2010). McCullough and
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
colleagues (1998) reported Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for
scores on both subscales ranging from .85 to .93 and estimates of
3-week temporal stability ranging from .44 to .65. Scores on the
scale showed evidence of construct validity, with subscales being
negatively correlated with other measures of forgiveness, relation-
ship satisfaction, and commitment (McCullough et al., 1998). For
the present study, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was .90 for
revenge and .80 for avoidance.
Stage of change forgiveness. We adapted a single-item mea-
sure that has been used regularly in motivational interviewing
research (e.g., Cook & Perri, 2004) to examine participants’ read-
iness to work on forgiving an offense: “Please find the statement
that best describes the way you feel right now about the person
who hurt you.” The item was rated using a 5-point rating from 0
(I am not considering forgiveness) to 4 (I have already forgiven).
We are aware of the limitations of singe items (e.g., difficulty
estimating reliability). However, given that no multiple item scales
existed to assess stage of change for forgiveness, we decided to
begin by adapting this single item measure. Cook and Perri (2004)
found a .91 correlation between stages classifications based on a
single item and those based on multiple-item scales.
Results and Discussion
To refine the DTFS, we conducted a confirmatory factor
analysis. The covariance matrix was analyzed with MLR esti-
mation using MPLUS 7.11 (Muthén & Muthén, 2008). Missing
data (less than 3% across items) was handled with full infor-
mation maximum likelihood. Items of the DTFS were used as
indicators of a single factor. Fit indices were used to evaluate
the fit of the model—the chi-square value, the comparative fit
index (CFI), and the root-mean-square-error-approximation
(RMSEA). As a rule of thumb, a CFI around .95, an RMSEA
equal or less than .06, and a standardized root mean squared
residual (SRMR) equal to or less than .08 suggest good fit (Hu
& Bentler, 1999). The one-factor model showed adequate fit,
␹2(9) ⫽ 43.13, p ⬍ .001, CFI ⫽ .96, RMSEA ⫽ .09 (95%
confidence interval [CI] ⫽ .04, .13), SRMR ⫽ .04. Standard-
ized factor loadings ranged from .58 to .96. Given that the
RMSEA was high, we dropped one poor item (i.e., I have
chosen not to intentionally harbor resentment toward him or
her) that, based on modification indices, was too strongly
related to another item. After dropping this item, the one-factor
model showed excellent fit, ␹2(5) ⫽ 9.14, p ⫽ .104, CFI ⫽ .99,
RMSEA ⫽ .04 (95% CI ⫽ .00, .09), SRMR ⫽ .01. Standardized
283
factor loadings ranged from .57 to .96. The Cronbach’s alpha
coefficient was .93. Skew and kurtosis scores for the DTFS
were less than one (i.e., ⫺.91 and .22, respectively).
After evaluating the factor structure, next we tested three hy-
potheses related to construct validity of the DTFS. First, we
examined a three-factor model including items from the TRIM
(i.e., five items for decision to forgive, five items for revenge
motivations, and seven items for avoidance motivations). Factors
were modeled as correlated. This model also showed excellent fit,
␹2(116) ⫽ 258.71, p ⬍ .001, CFI ⫽ .97, RMSEA ⫽ .05 (95%
CI ⫽ .05, .06), SRMR ⫽ .04. Second, to examine our hypothesis
that the DTFS would be moderately and negatively related to the
TRIM subscales, we examined the factor correlations. As pre-
dicted, the DTFS showed moderate relations with the revenge,
r ⫽ ⫺.39, p ⬍ .001 and avoidance, r ⫽ ⫺.47, p ⬍ .001 motiva-
tions, suggesting that these measures assess related yet distinct
constructs.
Third, we examined whether the DTFS was more strongly
related to the stage of change item than the TRIM subscales. To
test this prediction, we examined a model with the stage item
(manifest variable) regressed simultaneously on latent factors
based on the DTFS and the TRIM, and we used the model test
command to compare the magnitude of these paths. The overall
model showed excellent fit, ␹2(130) ⫽ 277.10, p ⬍ .001, CFI ⫽
.97, RMSEA ⫽ .05 (95% CI ⫽ .04, .06), SRMR ⫽ .04. As
predicted, the stage of change item was more strongly related to
the DTFS (b ⫽ .81, p ⬍ .001) than it was to the Avoidance
(b ⫽ ⫺.45, p ⬍ .001; Wald test ⫽ 122.14, p ⬍ .001) or Revenge
(b ⫽ ⫺.36, p ⬍ .001; Wald test ⫽ 110.27, p ⬍ .001) subscales.
Taken together, the results of Study 1 provided evidence for the
factor structure and estimated internal consistency of the DTFS.
Furthermore, in Study 1, we also provided initial evidence of the
construct validity of the DTFS relative to the TRIM. These find-
ings present initial evidence that making a decision to forgive is
different than the process of forgiving.
Study 2
In Study 2, DTFS to accumulate further evidence for the reli-
ability of the scale, we examined the temporal stability of the
DTFS. We examined additional evidence that decisional forgive-
ness is distinct from forgiveness as an end state. Prior work has
demonstrated that TRIM scores tend to decline rapidly in the first
few weeks after an offense (McCullough, Luna, Berry, Tabak, &
Bono, 2010). We hypothesized that decision to forgive would
predict TRIM scores one week later.
Method
Participants and procedure. Participants were 80 undergrad-
uate students (48 women, 32 men) from the same university as
Study 1. The mean age was 24.8 (SD ⫽ 7.14). The sample was
diverse in terms of race/ethnicity (40.0% Black/African American;
28.7% White; 12.5% Asian/Pacific Islander; 7.5% Latino/a; and
7.5% Other; and 3.8% did not respond; see Appendix for M and
SD across Studies 1–3). The sample was predominately religious/
spiritual (89.6%) and heterosexual (92.5%). To be in the study,
participants had to identify an offense that had occurred to them
within the past three months. They completed the survey in ex-
 284 DAVIS ET AL.
change for a small amount of course credit. They indicated consent
online and then completed a set of demographic questions. Next
they recalled a specific offense and completed the DTFS and the
TRIM. They were emailed a follow-up survey one week later that
included the DTFS and the TRIM.
Measures. Participants completed the DTFS (Cronbach’s al-
pha coefficients were .93 at Time 1 and .92 at Time 2) and TRIM
(Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for avoidance were .95 at Time 1
and .96 at Time 2; for revenge, they were .89 at Time 1 and .91 at
Time 2). These measures were described in Study 1.
Results and Discussion
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
First, we hypothesized that the DTFS would show evidence of
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
temporal stability. This hypothesis was supported. The 1-week
test-retest correlation for the DTFS was .68 (p ⬍ .001). This
suggests that around 46% of the variance in scores at Time 2 was
explained by scores at Time 1. For a state measure, which must
detect changes over time (see McCullough et al., 2010), the mag-
nitude of this correlation was consistent with our expectations.
Second, we hypothesized that decision to forgive would predict
subsequent forgiveness. We tested this hypothesis with a cross-
lagged path analysis on the manifest variables using MPLUS.
Missing data (less than 3%) was handled with full information
maximum likelihood. This model simultaneously regressed Time 2
scores for the DTFS and the TRIM subscales on Time 1 scores,
controlling for correlations among DTFS and TRIM subscales at
Time 1, as well as at Time 2. Results are presented in Figure 1. As
predicted, simultaneously estimating other paths in the model,
DTFS scores at Time 1 were negatively related to Revenge
(b ⫽ ⫺.39, p ⬍ .001) and Avoidance (b ⫽ ⫺.19, p ⫽ .029) scores
at Time 2. These results provide initial evidence that making a
decision to forgive was associated with increased forgiveness over
time.
Taken together, the results of Study 2 provided additional evi-
dence of the estimated reliability and construct validity of the
DTFS. Namely, the DTFS showed evidence for estimated tempo-
ral stability. In regard to construct validity, decision to forgive
predicted forgiveness scores a week later after controlling for prior
level of forgiveness. This is consistent with the idea that making a
decision to forgive may increase forgiveness and provides addi-
tional evidence for the distinction.
Figure 1. Cross-lagged model in Study 2. T1 ⫽ Time 1; T2 ⫽ Time 2.
Study 3
The primary goal of Study 3 was to examine whether the
interaction between decisional forgiveness and forgiveness is con-
ceptually important. Generally, making a decision to forgive and
forgiveness ought to align (i.e., negative correlation between the
DTFS and TRIM subscales), but we wanted to see whether their
misalignment (as might occur early in an intervention when a
client decides to forgive but has yet to employ strategies to work
toward this goal) would predict stress-related outcomes. Accord-
ingly, we recruited participants who had experienced a major
offense by a religious/spiritual leader within the last year. Specif-
ically, we predicted that DTFS scores and TRIM subscales would
interact to predict existential distress, such that the highest level of
existential distress would be associated with higher scores on both
the DTFS (high decision) and the TRIM (still high unforgiveness).
Namely, these are people who have made a strong and clear
decision to forgive but have made little progress achieving for-
giveness. We expected these people to feel more distressed than
people with low forgiveness (i.e., high TRIM scores) but no
intention to work on forgiving (i.e., low DTFS scores). This
pattern of findings would provide converging evidence that deci-
sional forgiveness is distinct from one’s current level of forgive-
ness.
Method
Participants. Participants were 335 undergraduates (206
women, 129 men) from the same university as Studies 1 and 2. The
mean age was 24.8 (SD ⫽ 6.8). The sample was diverse in terms
of race/ethnicity (43.9% Black/African American; 25.1% White;
13.1% Asian/Pacific Islander; 5.4% Latino/a; and 4.8% Other;
1.5% did not respond). The sample was predominately religious/
spiritual (89.6%) and heterosexual (92.2%). To be in the study,
participants had to have experienced a major offense committed by
a religious/leader. They received a small amount of credit for being
in the study. They indicated consent online, completed demo-
graphic questions, recalled the offense by a religious leader and
completed several questionnaires regarding how they perceived
the social context of the offense and how they coped with that
offense, including the DTFS, the TRIM, and a measure of exis-
tential distress.
ⴱ ⴱⴱ
p ⬍ .05. p ⬍ .01.
 DECISION TO FORGIVE
Measures. Participants completed the DTFS (␣ ⫽ .94) and
TRIM (revenge ␣ ⫽ .81; avoidance ␣ ⫽ .90). These measures
were described in Study 1.
Existential distress. Existential distress was assessed with the
7-item Negative Religious Coping subscale of the Religious Cop-
ing Scale-Brief Version (RCOPE-B; Pargament, Koenig, Perez,
2000; Pargament et al., 1998). Items were rated from 0 (not at all)
to 5 (a great deal). Higher scores indicate greater struggle. An
example item is, “Wondered whether God (or the Sacred) had
abandoned me.” The subscale demonstrated evidence of internal
consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging from .69
to .81 (Pargament et al., 1998). The RCOPE-B is one of the most
widely used measures of spiritual/existential struggle or alienation
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
and has been robustly linked with physical and mental health
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
outcomes, including physiological markers of distress (Ai, Park,
Huang, Rodgers, & Tice, 2007; Ai, Seymour, Tice, Kronfol, &
Bolling, 2009; Pargament et al., 1998). For the present study, the
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was .91.
Results and Discussion
We hypothesized that the DTFS would be negatively related to
the TRIM subscales, but that DTFS scores would moderate the
relation between the TRIM subscales and existential distress, such
that this relation between the TRIM subscales and existential
distress would be stronger at higher DTFS scores. To test this
hypothesis, we conducted a series of regression analyses with
centered conditional main effects entered in a first step and an
interaction term entered in a second step (Hayes, 2008). Missing
data at the item level (less than 3%) was handled by using the
mean of available items on the same scale. Correlations among
variables are reported in Table 1.
The first regression analysis examined whether DTFS scores
moderated the relation between revenge and existential distress.
The results are presented in Table 2. The conditional main effects
of revenge and decisional forgiveness accounted for 9% of the
variance in Step 1 (R2 ⫽ .09, p ⬍ .001), and the interaction term
accounted for an additional 3% of the variance in Step 2 (⌬R2 ⫽
.03, p ⫽ .001). Regarding estimates at Step 2, revenge was a
positive predictor of existential distress (B ⫽ .38, p ⬍ .01), but the
conditional main effect of decision to forgive on existential dis-
tress was not significant (B ⫽ .02, p ⫽ .638). The interaction term
was significant (B ⫽ .14, p ⫽ .001). To interpret this effect, we
conducted simple slopes analyses (see Figure 2), which revealed
that at low levels of decision to forgive (i.e., ⫺1 SD), the effect of
revenge on existential distress was not significant (B ⫽ ⫺.08, p ⫽
.146). However, at high decision to forgive (i.e., ⫹1 SD), revenge
Table 1
Correlations of Variables in Study 3
Variable 1 2 3 4
ⴱ ⴱ
1. Decision to forgive 1.00 ⫺.46 ⫺.49 ⫺0.09
2. Revenge 1.00 .38ⴱ .30ⴱ
3. Avoidance 1.00 0.10
4. Existential distress 1.00
M 3.85 1.75 2.95 1.59
SD 1.1 0.77 1.07 0.77
ⴱ
p ⬍ .01.
285
was associated with greater existential distress (B ⫽ .12, p ⫽
.023).
The second regression analysis examined avoidance as a mod-
erator. The conditional main effects did not predict significant
variance in existential distress in Step 1 (R2 ⫽ .01, p ⫽ .141), and
the interaction term did not predict existential distress in Step 2
(⌬R2 ⫽ .00, p ⫽ .309).
The results of Study 3 partially supported our hypothesis that
decision to forgive would moderate the relation between forgive-
ness and existential distress. In addition, once again, decision to
forgive was only moderately related to the TRIM. Thus, this study
provided additional evidence that the DTFS and the TRIM are
conceptually distinct constructs.
General Discussion
Prominent models of promoting forgiveness have emphasized
the distinction between making a decision to forgive and forgive-
ness as an end state. Despite its central place in theory on forgive-
ness, the research base on the construct is weak and in need of a
better measure. One attempt to measure the construct (e.g., Wor-
thington et al., 2007) showed very poor evidence of discriminant
validity, being too strongly related to another measure of forgive-
ness. Therefore, we sought to address this need by developing the
DTFS.
Attempting to sharpen the definition (e.g., Exline et al., 2003),
we conceptualized decision to forgive as a commitment to apply
effort and energy until unforgiveness (i.e., negative thoughts,
emotions, and motivations toward an offender) is substantially
reduced. This definition is more in line with the pragmatic dis-
tinction many interventions include that is designed to help clients
make a general decision to work on forgiving but also develop
patience and perseverance for a potentially extended forgiveness
process. Accordingly, items were developed based on this refined
definition, and the resulting scale showed initial evidence of reli-
ability, temporal stability, and construct validity. Establishing ev-
idence of construct validity is an ongoing process. Given problems
faced by Worthington et al. (2007), our primary focus in the
present studies was on evaluating whether the DTFS can be
distinguished from the most widely used measure of forgiveness
(i.e., the TRIM).
We used five strategies to evaluate this question. First, we
examined a three-factor confirmatory factor analysis (with DTFS
and TRIM items) and found excellent fit. Second, we examined
correlations between the DTFS and the TRIM, which showed only
moderate relations. Third, we compared the relation between the
DTFS and a criterion variable (i.e., stage of change) and found as
predicted that the DTFS was more strongly related to stage of
change than was the TRIM. Fourth, we examined whether DTFS
scores predicted subsequent forgiveness in a cross-lagged model,
which it did. Fifth, although DTFS scores were related to greater
forgiveness, we compared participants who had high decisions to
forgive with those with lower decisions to forgive. As we pre-
dicted, misalignment between decisions to forgive and forgiveness
were associated with greater existential distress, which shows
these two constructs do not necessarily align. Taken together, these
converging results provide a strong empirical evidence for the
distinction between a decision to forgive and one’s level of for-
giveness.
 286 DAVIS ET AL.

Table 2
Hierarchical Regression Analyses in Study 3

Step Variables B SE ␤ t p ⌬R2

Existential distress on revenge and DTFS

1 (Constant) 1.59 0.04 39.47 .000 .09ⴱ
Revenge 0.33 0.06 0.33 5.53 .000
Decision to forgive 0.04 0.04 0.06 1.01 .313
2 (Constant) 1.65 0.04 38.28 .000 .03ⴱ
Revenge 0.38 0.06 0.38 6.32 .000
Decision to forgive 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.47 .638
Decision to Forgive ⫻ Revenge 0.14 0.04 0.19 3.25 .001

Existential distress on avoidance and DTFS

1 (Constant) 1.59 0.04 37.84 .000 0.01
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Avoidance 0.05 0.05 0.07 1.12 .265

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Decision to forgive ⫺0.04 0.04 ⫺0.06 ⫺0.88 .378

2 (Constant) 1.62 0.05 34.52 .000 0.00
Avoidance 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.90 .370
Decision to forgive ⫺0.05 0.05 ⫺0.08 ⫺1.17 .242
Decision to Forgive ⫻ Avoidance 0.04 0.04 0.06 1.02 .309
Note. DTFS ⫽ Decision to Forgive Scale; TRIM ⫽ Transgression-Related Interpersonal Motivations Scale.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .01.

Our study had several limitations. First, all studies sampled
college students. Our samples were diverse in terms of race/
ethnicity, but not in age or educational background. It will be
important to establish norms for the DTFS based on samples more
diverse in a variety of variables. In addition, the DTFS should be
normed with diverse treatment-seeking populations.
Second, four of the five items on the DTFS included the word
forgiveness, which may in some samples lead these items to be too
strongly correlated with each other based on this common word.
The one item that did not explicitly mention forgiveness refers to
reduction of negative emotions, so the scale does not explicitly
reference increases in positive cognition, emotions, or motivations.
The scale may correlate more strongly with negative constructs
associated with forgiveness, such as anger or rumination, than it
does positive constructs such as empathy or conciliatory behaviors.
The present study was focused on distinguishing the DTFS from
the TRIM, but future work might work to situate making a decision
to forgive among a broader array of constructs (e.g., motivations or
intentions associated with forgiveness).
Third, our studies only used self-report measures. The definition
of forgiveness implies an intrapsychic change of cognitions, emo-
tions, motivations, and behaviors toward an offender. Although
self-report measures of forgiveness are useful, it may be important
to supplement self-report measures of forgiveness with physiolog-
ical measures of stress or behavioral indicators of forgiveness
(Dorn, Hook, Davis, Van Tongeren, & Worthington, 2014).
Fourth, with the exception of Study 2, our studies used cross-
sectional designs. Even Study 2 was limited by the use of only two
time-points. Researchers might include the DTFS in future exper-
imental or intervention studies. We hypothesize that successful
interventions promote rapid shifts in decisional forgiveness, which
might lead to subsequent increases in forgiveness over time. Fur-
thermore, we expect that clients who never make a decision to
forgive will be much less likely to benefit from forgiveness inter-
ventions. Being able to accurately identify these clients may help
researchers focus specific intervention strategies for clients who do
not want to forgive. Indeed, we are aware of no interventions that
specifically focus on clients who are highly opposed to the idea of
forgiveness, but it is very important to understand more about this
group. In some cases, perhaps these clients are reticent to forgive
for good reasons, and current interventions may have minimal
content focused on their particular reservations regarding forgive-
ness.

Figure 2. Graph of interaction of commitment to forgive with revenge
scores on spiritual struggle scores.
Conclusion
Although applied work on forgiveness has proliferated over the
last 20 years, there is still a need for more research on how to adapt
interventions to clients’ specific needs. The prominent strategies of
promoting forgiveness have focused on promoting a decision to
forgive, but very little is known about this construct. Advancing
research on different parts of the forgiveness process has important
implications for how to promote forgiveness in clients who are
ambivalent about whether they even want to forgive.
 DECISION TO FORGIVE
References
Ai, A. L., Park, C. L., Huang, B., Rodgers, W., & Tice, T. N. (2007).
Psychosocial mediation of religious coping styles: A study of short-term
psychological distress following cardiac surgery. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 33, 867– 882. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0146167207301008
Ai, A. L., Seymour, E. M., Tice, T. N., Kronfol, Z., & Bolling, S. F. (2009).
Spiritual struggle related to plasma interleukin-6 prior to cardiac surgery.
Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 1, 112–128. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/a0015775
Allemand, M., Steiner, M., & Hill, P. L. (2013). Effects of a forgiveness
intervention for older adults. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60,
279 –286. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0031839
Berry, J. W., & Worthington, E. L., Jr. (2001). Forgivingness, relationship
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
quality, stress while imagining relationship events, and physical and
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
mental health. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 48, 447– 455. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.48.4.447
Cook, C. L., & Perri, M., III. (2004). Single-item vs multiple-item mea-
sures of stage of change in compliance with prescribed medications.
Psychological Reports, 94, 115–124. http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/pr0.94.1
.115-124
Davis, D. E., Worthington, E. L., Jr., Hook, J. N., & Hill, P. C. (2013).
Research on religion/spirituality and forgiveness: A meta-analytic re-
view. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 5, 233–241. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1037/a0033637
DiBlasio, F. A. (2000). Decision-based forgiveness treatment in cases of
marital infidelity. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training,
37, 149 –158. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0087834
Dorn, K., Hook, J. N., Davis, D. E., Van Tongeren, D. R., & Worthington,
E. L., Jr. (2014). Behavioral methods of assessing forgiveness. The
Journal of Positive Psychology, 9, 75– 80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
17439760.2013.844267
Enright, R. D., & Fitzgibbons, R. P. (2000). Helping clients forgive.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1037/10381-000
Exline, J. J., Worthington, E. L., Jr., Hill, P., & McCullough, M. E. (2003).
Forgiveness and justice: A research agenda for social and personality
psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 337–348.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0704_06
Fehr, R., Gelfand, M. J., & Nag, M. (2010). The road to forgiveness: A
meta-analytic synthesis of its situational and dispositional correlates.
Psychological Bulletin, 136, 894 –914. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
a0019993
Fincham, F. D. (2000). The kiss of the porcupines: From attributing
responsibility to forgiving. Personal Relationships, 7, 1–23. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2000.tb00001.x
Flückiger, C., Del Re, A. C., Wampold, B. E., Symonds, D., & Horvath,
A. O. (2012). How central is the alliance in psychotherapy? A multilevel
longitudinal meta-analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 59, 10 –
17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0025749
Fowers, B. J. (2005). Virtue and psychology: Pursuing excellence in
ordinary practices. Washington, DC: American Psychological Associa-
tion. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/11219-000
Greenberg, L. J., Warwar, S. H., & Malcolm, W. M. (2008). Differential effects of
emotion-focused therapy and psychoeducation in facilitating forgiveness and
letting go of emotional injuries. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55, 185–
196. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.55.2.185
Hayes, A. F. (2008). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and condi-
tional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
Holeman, V. T., Dean, J. B., DeShea, L., & Duba, J. D. (2011). The
multidimensional nature of the quest construct forgiveness, spiritual
perception, and differentiation of self. Journal of Psychology and The-
ology, 39, 31– 43.
287
Hook, J. N. (2007). Forgiveness, individualism, and collectivism. Unpublished
master’s thesis. Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA.
Hook, J. N., & Worthington, E. L., Jr. (2008). Decisional and emotional
forgiveness: Implications for Christian spirituality and counseling.
Transformation, 2, 4 –5.
Hook, J. N., Worthington, E. L., Jr., Davis, D. E., Watkins, D., Hui, E.,
Luo, W., . . . Reyna, S. H. (2013). A China-New Zealand comparison of
forgiveness. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 16, 286 –291. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1111/ajsp.12033
Hook, J. N., Worthington, E. L., Jr., & Utsey, S. O. (2009). Collectivism,
forgiveness, and social harmony. The Counseling Psychologist, 37,
821– 847. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0011000008326546
Hook, J. N., Worthington, E. L., Jr., Utsey, S. O., Davis, D. E., & Burnette,
J. L. (2012). Collectivistic self-construal and forgiveness. Counseling
and Values, 57, 109 –124. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-007X.2012
.00012.x
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in
covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alterna-
tives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
10705519909540118
McCullough, M. E., Fincham, F. D., & Tsang, J. A. (2003). Forgiveness,
forbearance, and time: The temporal unfolding of transgression-related
interpersonal motivations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 84, 540 –557. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.3.540
McCullough, M. E., Luna, L. R., Berry, J. W., Tabak, B. A., & Bono, G.
(2010). On the form and function of forgiving: Modeling the time-
forgiveness relationship and testing the valuable relationships hypothe-
sis. Emotion, 10, 358 –376. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0019349
McCullough, M. E., Rachal, K. C., Sandage, S. J., Worthington, E. L., Jr.,
Brown, S. W., & Hight, T. L. (1998). Interpersonal forgiving in close
relationships: II. Theoretical elaboration and measurement. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1586 –1603. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/0022-3514.75.6.1586
McCullough, M. E., Worthington, E. L., Jr., & Rachal, K. C. (1997).
Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 73, 321–336. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514
.73.2.321
Muthén, B., & Muthén, L. (2008). Mplus user’s guide. Los Angeles, CA:
Muthén and Muthén.
Orcutt, H. K. (2006). The prospective relationship of interpersonal forgive-
ness and psychological distress symptoms among college women. Jour-
nal of Counseling Psychology, 53, 350 –361. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
0022-0167.53.3.350
Pargament, K. I., Koenig, H. G., & Perez, L. M. (2000). The many methods
of religious coping: Development and initial validation of the RCOPE.
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 56, 519 –543. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/
(SICI)1097-4679(200004)56:4⬍519::AID-JCLP6⬎3.0.CO;2-1
Pargament, K. I., Smith, B., Koenig, H. G., & Perez, L. (1998). Patterns of
positive and negative religious coping with major life stressors. Journal
for the Scientific Study of Religion, 37, 710 –724. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2307/1388152
Prochaska, J. O., & DiClemente, C. C. (1982). Transtheoretical therapy:
Toward a more integrative model of change. Psychotherapy: Theory,
Research, & Practice, 19, 276 –288. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0088437
Sandage, S. J., Hill, P. C., & Vang, H. (2003). Toward a multicultural
positive psychology: Indigenous forgiveness and Hmong culture. The
Counseling Psychologist, 31, 564 –592. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0011000003256350
Wade, N. G., Hoyt, W. T., Kidwell, J. E., & Worthington, E. L., Jr. (2014).
Efficacy of psychotherapeutic interventions to promote forgiveness: A
meta-analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 82, 154 –
170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0035268
Wade, N. G., Vogel, D. L., Liao, K. Y.-H., & Goldman, D. B. (2008). Measuring
state-specific rumination: Development of the Rumination about an
 288 DAVIS ET AL.

Interpersonal Offense Scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55,
419 – 426. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.55.3.419
Watkins, D. A., Hui, E. K., Luo, W., Regmi, M., Worthington, E. L., Jr.,
Hook, J. N., & Davis, D. E. (2011). Forgiveness and interpersonal
relationships: A Nepalese investigation. The Journal of Social Psychol-
ogy, 151, 150 –161. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224540903368541
Worthington, E. L., Hunter, J. L., Sharp, C. B., Hook, J. N., Van Tongeren,
D. R., Davis, D. E., . . . Monforte-Milton, M. (2010). A psychoeduca-
tional intervention to promote forgiveness in Christians in the Philip-
pines. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 32, 75–93.
Worthington, E. L., Jr. (2006). Forgiveness and reconciliation: Theory and
application. New York, NY: Brunner-Routledge.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Worthington, E. L., Jr., Berry, J. W., Hook, J. N., Davis, D. E., Scherer, M.,
Griffin, B. J., . . . Campana, K. L. (in press). Forgiveness-reconciliation
and communication-conflict-resolution interventions versus rested con-
trols in early married couples. Journal of Counseling Psychology.
Worthington, E. L., Jr., Hook, J. N., Utsey, S. O., Williams, J. K., & Neil, R. L.
(2007, October 5). Decisional and emotional forgiveness. Paper presented at
the International Positive Psychology Summit, Washington, DC.
Worthington, E. L., Jr., Witvliet, C. V. O., Pietrini, P., & Miller, A. J.
(2007). Forgiveness, health, and well-being: A review of evidence for
emotional versus decisional forgiveness, dispositional forgivingness,
and reduced unforgiveness. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 30,
291–302. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10865-007-9105-8

Appendix
Norms Across Studies 1–3 by Race

Black Asian Latino/a White

Variable n M SD n M SD n M SD n M SD

Decision to forgive 381 19.71a 4.98 96 17.16b 5.96 47 19.81ab 4.94 240 18.73a 5.99
Note. Different subscripts indicate that means were different from each other using a Bonferonni post hoc test at p ⬍ .05.

Received September 8, 2014

Revision received November 3, 2014
Accepted November 3, 2014 䡲