See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/380167470

A validation study of the Bolton Forgiveness Scale (BFS-15) in India

Article in Mental Health and Social Inclusion · April 2024

DOI: 10.1108/MHSI-02-2024-0029

CITATIONS READS

0 6

3 authors, including:

Palav Mehta Mahimna Vyas

Amity University Mumbai University of Bolton
2 PUBLICATIONS 3 CITATIONS 26 PUBLICATIONS 37 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Mahimna Vyas on 29 April 2024.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

A validation study of the Bolton
Forgiveness Scale (BFS-15) in India
Palav Mehta, Mahimna Vyas and Nirja Shah

Abstract Palav Mehta is based at the

Purpose – This study aims to validate the Bolton Forgiveness Scale (BFS) created by Amanze and Amity Institute of
Carson (2019) for the Indian population. Behavioural and Allied
Design/methodology/approach – The data for the validation of the BFS was collected (Total N ¼ 813) in Sciences, Amity University
two phases (Phase-I, N1 ¼ 613 and Phase-II, N2 ¼ 200) through online surveys. SPSS 26 and AMOS Mumbai, Panvel, India.
were used to establish the psychometric properties of the scale through internal consistency and Mahimna Vyas is a PhD
confirmatory factor analysis.
Scholar at the Department
Findings – The results indicated the validation of the BFS in the Indian context, with a high internal
of Psychology, University of
consistency (a ¼ 0.847). Confirmatory factor analysis validated the factor structure and items, along with
Bolton, Bolton, UK and a
face validity.
Research Assistant at the
Research limitations/implications – This study offers comprehensive suggestions on the approaches
to forgiveness, addresses biases, advocates for qualitative exploration and emphasizes rigour for the VIA Institute on Character,
future research on forgiveness. Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.
Originality/value – The present study validates the BFS for future use for the Indian population. The Nirja Shah is based at the
authors offer comprehensive suggestions on the approaches to forgiveness, address biases, advocate Amity Institute of
for qualitative exploration and emphasize rigour for future research on forgiveness. Behavioural and Allied
Keywords Forgiveness, Validation, India, BFS-15, Confirmatory factor analysis Sciences, Amity University
Paper type Research paper Mumbai, Panvel, India.

1. Introduction
1.1 What is forgiveness?
Forgiveness is a prominent concept being featured ubiquitously in a wide range of religious
and literary discourses. According to Sandage et al. (2003), forgiveness is seen as an
essential quality of character that is based on a certain cultural reality that in turn affects and
influences social connections and interactions. Considering this, research on forgiveness
formulation should consider these diverse cultural manifestations. Given the increasing civic
turmoil on the contemporary global stage, the study of forgiveness is mandated now more
than ever to provide practical policy-related insights to the global populace.
As contemporary research delves into the intricacies of forgiveness, its definition undergoes
variation based on the specific facets under consideration. According to Amanze and
Carson (2019), forgiving is a process that involves bolstering and developing the ability to
offer the person who has done the wrong an opportunity to prove their innocence. This
helps the victim of the offence to accept and let go of the hurt and its consequences.
Numerous studies in the past have documented cultural similarities in the understanding of
forgiveness. For instance, Owen (2008) posits that emotional reactions such as empathy
and sympathy for the offender, as well as behavioural reactions such as lowering negative
reactions to the offender, are similar across cultures. At the same time, literature has also
drawn attention to cross-cultural variabilities. Kadiangandu et al. (2007) suggested that the
perception of forgiveness differs between collectivistic and individualistic cultures. In

DOI 10.1108/MHSI-02-2024-0029 © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 2042-8308 j MENTAL HEALTH AND SOCIAL INCLUSION j
 collectivistic cultures such as China and Japan, the emphasis is on an interpersonal
perspective, focusing on the outward expression of forgiveness to the transgressor. In
contrast, individualistic cultures such as the USA, conceptualize forgiveness as an
intrapersonal construct, emphasizing the internal emotional process. In addition, the
associations between forgiveness and personality traits such as neuroticism and
agreeableness observed in individualistic cultures (McCullough et al., 2005) were not
substantiated in collectivistic cultures (Fu et al., 2004).

1.2 Forgiveness as a character strength

Apart from these, a relatively new and novel way of looking at forgiveness is as a strength of
one’s character. Character strengths represent positive traits of personality that reflect ones’
fundamental identity, produce positive consequences for oneself and others, while
contributing to the greater good (Niemiec and Pearce, 2021). In the character strengths
classification, forgiveness is classified under the virtue of temperance and is defined from
forgiveness as a process approach (Peterson and Seligman, 2004). This classification
conceptualises forgiveness as practising forgiveness, acceptance and second chances
and conjoins it with “Mercy”. As forgiveness is an important aspect of personal
development, it helps people build and sustain meaningful connections even when they
face societal challenges. It entails being willing to give up the right to harbour resentment,
unfavourable judgments and indifferent attitudes toward someone who has mistreated us
unjustly. Forgiveness also entails cultivating values such as compassion, generosity and
even love, which are not always earned but help the healing process (Enright et al., 1998).

1.3 Forgiveness in the Indian context

Nearly all religions acknowledge and advocate for forgiveness (McCullough et al., 2005). In
the Hindu religion, forgiving is regarded as a valuable attribute. The term “  is
(ksama)”
˙
generally used to express forgiveness, and it is frequently associated with words like “कृपा
(krpa)”, “  and “
(daya)”  translated meanings ranging from compassion
(karuna)”,
˙ ˙
to kindness. Moreover, according to Manusmrti, forgiveness is one of the foundational ten
˙
virtues (Rye et al., 2000). Numerous narrations discuss the importance of forgiveness; in
particular, the Yoga Sūtras of Patañjali and the highly regarded Hindu scripture, the S rīmad
Bhagawad Gīta, both discuss it extensively. From a psycho-historical vantage, forgiveness
has had a spiritual and transcendental significance in the Indian cultural milieu. While such
an analysis is beyond the scope of the current validation study, an independent scholarly
venture promises to enrich the sociocultural and ontological perspectives on forgiveness.

1.4 Forgiveness and mental well-being

While ideas on the concept of forgiveness differ, it is widely agreed that it benefits
individuals (Worthington, 2006). Some regard forgiveness as a central trait capable of
liberating an individual from a negative association with the one who has transgressed
against them (Thompson et al., 2005). The identification of forgiveness as an adaptive
coping mechanism and its correlation with psychological well-being have been supported
by empirical research (Rasmussen and Lopez, 2000; Van Oyen Witvliet et al., 2001). Its
capacity to reduce negative thoughts and feelings resulting from interpersonal complaints
is the main reason for this association (Wade et al., 2014). Contrarily, unforgiveness, which
is typified by feelings of wrath, antagonism, resentment, enmity and rumination (Worthington
et al., 2001), has been found to positively correlate with psychopathological markers and
stress in several studies (e.g. Berry and Worthington, 2001; Maltby et al., 2001; Mauger
et al., 1992; Van Oyen Witvliet et al., 2001).

j MENTAL HEALTH AND SOCIAL INCLUSION j

1.5 Forgiveness in other measures
The growing interest in forgiveness as a fundamental element of human nature has led to an
increase in research, prompting the development and enhancement of several tools for
assessing forgiveness. These measures aim to yield a comprehensive picture of forgiveness
from multiple perspectives, including emotional, psychological and behavioural dimensions.
The Bolton Forgiveness Scale (BFS) assesses trait forgiveness on three dimensions:

1. CTLG;
2. DPF; and

3. GBD.
For the authors of BFS-15, forgiveness is a process that entails raising and boosting the
threshold to give others the benefit of the doubt, allowing the offended to confront and
release the burden of the hurt and its negative consequences, as well as the emergence of
a positive attitude toward the offender (Amanze and Carson, 2019).
The Enright Forgiveness Inventory (EFI-30) was created to provide a psychological assessment
for Enright’s theory of interpersonal forgiveness. The EFI-30, in contrast to the BFS-15, views
forgiveness as a moral duty of goodness from the victim’s end towards the offender after
interpersonal injustices (Enright and Fitzgibbons, 2000). Furthermore, the theory holds that to
forgive someone, a person must be able to separate the offender from their actions and
behaviours along with viewing them as fully human. However, the Heartland Forgiveness Scale is
a trait forgiveness measure that emphasizes the process of granting forgiveness. Forgiveness is
viewed as a multidimensional construct that includes forgiveness of oneself, other people and
events beyond one’s control (for example, an illness or natural calamity) (Thompson et al., 2005).
This study’s aim was to validate the BFS created by Amanze and Carson (2019) for the
Indian population. Generally, there are two objectives of validation studies:

1. to verify if a scale developed for another population is usable for the native population,
Indian population in this case; and

2. to identify if there are any errors stemming from cultural/societal differences in the
scale, so we can further minimize or eliminate these issues completely.
While forgiveness is considered as a positive trait universally, the expression of forgiveness
and the aspects involved differ culturally (Ho and Worthington, 2018). Hence, before using
the scale on Indian population, it is imperative that the researchers examine the reliability
and the appropriateness of the items – that were originally developed for a different cultural
and geographical background – for the Indian sample.

2. Methods
This validation study was performed in two phases. After the initial data collection and
analyses in Phase-I, for reliability through Cronbach’s alpha and confirmatory factor
analysis, an item of “Developing positive feelings” subscale, did not meet the cutoff criteria
for factor loading. Hence, Phase-II began after consulting experts and paraphrasing that
item. Another round of data was collected, and analyses were done to find that this new
item had successfully met the required criteria for factor loading. As the overall methods
were similar for both phases, this section elaborates on both phases simultaneously. Further
distinctions are made in the results section that are elaborated through the discussion.

2.1 Participants
The study’s sample population consisted of total 813 individuals (Phase I – 613 þ Phase II –
200). The whole sample included 460 females (56.58%), 332 males (40.83%) and 10

j MENTAL HEALTH AND SOCIAL INCLUSION j

 genderfluid as well as non-binary individuals (1.23% each). Additionally, the participants
varied on the basis of age, native states (of India), marital statuses, religions, geographical,
social, educational and familial backgrounds to get a more representative sample. Further,
sample characteristics distribution can be seen in Table 1. The sampling was done through
purposive sampling method, and all the participants were adults and had a minimum high
school English reading and comprehension level. Participants were recruited through
phones, emails, social media sites and face-to-face as well. All the participants were
informed about the study and their consent was taken before their voluntary participation in
the study began and their responses were recorded.

2.2 Measure
As the original scale was already in English, it did not require any translation and was used
as it is, without harming the face validity of the measure. Consent was sought from the
original authors before the administration. The BFS (Amanze and Carson, 2019) is a 15-item
self-report measure used to assess an individual’s forgiveness. The scale has four scores
calculated across three subscales, coming to terms and letting go (CTLG), developing
positive feelings (DPF), and giving benefit of doubt (GBD) subscale; along with a total score
of forgiveness. This scale is rated on a six-point Likert scale ranging from 1: Always false of
me to 6: Always true of me and the scores range from minimum 15 to maximum 90. The
factorial loadings for the original scale ranged between 0.70 and 0.51. The original BFS
measured both test-retest and Cronbach’s alpha reliabilities. The original, total Cronbach’s
alpha was 0.82, whereas subscales had varying alphas as mentioned here – CTLG – 0.78,
DPF – 0.67 and GBD – 0.60.

2.3 Data analysis

The data was analysed through IBM SPSS 26. The Kolmogorov–Smirnov test was used to
know if the data is normally distributed. The Phase-II data (p > 0.05) confirmed the normality
for the total BFS score; hence, parametric tests were used for descriptive analysis.
Cronbach’s alpha (!) was used to measure the internal consistency for total BFS score as
well as all three subscales for both phases because as suggested by Zumbo et al. (2007), it

Table 1 Participant’s demographics

Demographic Characteristic N ¼ P1 þ P2

Age range 18–30 582 ¼ 419 þ 163

31–40 69 ¼ 56 þ 13
41–50 95 ¼ 82 þ 13
51–60 57 ¼ 49 þ 8
61–70 11 ¼ 8 þ 3
Gender Female 460 ¼ 344 þ 116
Male 332 ¼ 256 þ 76
Non-binary 11 ¼ 5 þ 6
Gender fluid 10 ¼ 7 þ 3
Education High school graduate 137 ¼ 118 þ 19
Undergraduate degree 271 ¼ 185 þ 86
Graduate degree 380 ¼ 288 þ 92
Doctorate 25 ¼ 22 þ 3
Socio-economic background Not enough to satisfy my needs 44 ¼ 32 þ 12
Enough to satisfy my needs 473 ¼ 364 þ 109
More than enough to satisfy my needs 296 ¼ 217 þ 79
Location Urban 750 ¼ 565 þ 185
Rural 63 ¼ 48 þ 15
Notes: N ¼ Total Sample; P1 ¼ Phase 1; P2 ¼ Phase 2
Source: Table by authors

j MENTAL HEALTH AND SOCIAL INCLUSION j

is the least biased estimate for the consistency of items for a Likert-type rating scales.
AMOS was used to conduct the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to verify the factor
structure, for the Indian sample, and to measure the loadings of each item on the subscale,
along with the inter-item correlations. Considering the characteristics of the data of the
present study, the maximum likelihood method was used, with indirect, direct and total
effects calculated. Additionally, the minimum acceptable level of the correlation coefficient
was decided to be kept at 0.30. As mentioned above, CFA was carried out twice, and both
are described as Phase I and Phase II in the results section.

3. Results
As previously stated, this investigation’s main objective was to validate the BFS scale on an
Indian sample. The descriptive statistics, normality test values, skewness and corrected
item-total correlations, are mentioned in Table 2. In addition to this, the reliability analysis
found that the scale provided reliable psychometric properties with high Cronbach’s alpha
(! > 0.8). In addition to this, the study successfully established face and construct validity,
future research could increase its rigour by calculating convergent validity, by correlating
both versions of the BFS with other scales that measure forgiveness for various populations.
The original scale (Amanze and Carson, 2019) found Cronbach’s alpha to be 0.82.
However, this study showed a slightly higher inter-item correlation. The reliability values (!)
along with the mean item-total correlations for the full scale and three subscales are
mentioned in Tables 3 and 4, for Phase-I and for Phase-II.

Table 2 Descriptive statistics of the items

Corrected Item-
M SD Skewness Total correlation
Subscales Items P-I P-II P-I P-II P-I P-II P-I P-II

CTLG Item no. 1 4.71 4.6 1.004 1.16 0.805 1.025 0.259 0.426
Item no. 3 3.69 3.69 1.327 1.377 0.138 0.117 0.371 0.522
Item no. 6 4.53 4.43 1.324 1.387 0.856 0.773 0.368 0.371
Item no. 9 3.41 4.07 1.425 1.42 0.066 0.295 0.253 0.181
Item no. 11 4.02 3.79 1.404 1.415 0.31 0.373 0.542 0.567
Item no. 13 4.29 4.12 1.437 1.415 0.604 0.464 0.585 0.54
Item no. 15 3.91 3.66 1.52 1.401 0.302 0.116 0.612 0.613
DPF Item no. 2 4.07 3.8 1.383 1.388 0.424 0.249 0.596 0.553
Item no. 4 5.07 4.92 1.047 1.113 1.438 1.186 0.433 0.527
Item no. 7 4.21 3.99 1.366 1.441 0.425 0.289 0.517 0.579
Item no. 10 4.46 4.45 1.237 1.15 0.875 0.754 0.432 0.44
Item no. 14 4.03 3.61 1.428 1.527 0.47 0.184 0.468 0.328
GBD Item no. 5 4.51 4.52 1.251 1.147 0.873 0.768 0.43 0.464
Item no. 8 3.26 3.04 1.57 1.5 0.181 0.31 0.497 0.476
Item no. 12 4.82 4.7 1.107 1.047 1.081 0.728 0.501 0.531
Source: Table by authors

Table 3 Reliability statistics for Phase-I

Alpha (!) Mean Item-Total correlation

Bolton forgiveness scale 0.835

Coming to the term and letting go [BFS-CTLG] 0.67 0.38
Developing positive feelings [BFS-DPF] 0.68 0.43
Giving benefit of doubt [BFS-GBD] 0.53 0.34
Source: Table by authors

j MENTAL HEALTH AND SOCIAL INCLUSION j

 Table 4 Reliability statistics for Phase-II
Alpha (!) Mean item-total correlation

Bolton forgiveness scale 0.847

Coming to the term and letting go [BFS-CTLG] 0.69 0.41
Developing positive feelings [BFS-DPF] 0.65 0.39
Giving benefit of doubt [BFS-GBD] 0.53 0.32
Source: Table by authors

For both phases, after the reliability analysis, the 15-item scale was analysed for
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). For the first phase, the correlation coefficient value for
Item no. 4, “If I encountered the person who wronged me, I would feel at peace” was 0.27,
which failed to meet the cut-off criteria of 0.30. Owing to this, experts of psychology and
linguistics were consulted, and the word “encountered” was changed to “confronted”
because of the cultural negative connotations associated with the word.
For Phase-II, data was collected using the updated scale, and through CFA it was found
that Item no. 4 now had correlation value of 0.52. For other items and the subscales, CFA
showed acceptable values of factor loadings. Table 5 shows factor loadings as found in the
original 2019 study and for both phases of the present study as well.
The CFA correlation coefficients of the subscales coming to terms and letting go,
developing positive feelings and giving the benefit of the doubt and other items are shown
in Figure 1. Only the CFA done on the final version of the scale has been included in the
results section. However, both phases are analysed critically in the discussion section.

4. Discussion
The BFS has previously been validated and adapted for usage with Nigerian and British
people (Amanze and Carson, 2019). Acknowledging the continual nature of scale
validation, as suggested by Hinkin (1998), the current study sought to adapt the BFS for an
Indian population while also assessing its reliability and face validity. The statistical
analyses revealed that the BFS-15 is a reliable and valid tool for evaluating trait forgiveness
among the people of India.
The data collection consisted of two parts. In the first phase, confirmatory factor analysis
found a statistically low factor loading for Item 4 of the tool, which said, “If I encountered the

Table 5 Factor loadings

Subscales Item no. Amanze and Carson (2019) Phase-I Phase-II

CTLG Item no. 1 0.70 0.42 0.41

Item no. 3 0.67 0.52 0.63
Item no. 6 0.67 0.51 0.38
Item no. 9 0.61 0.61 0.18
Item no. 11 0.58 0.60 0.67
Item no. 13 0.57 0.56 0.62
Item no. 15 0.52 0.69 0.70
DPF Item no. 2 0.74 0.39 0.58
Item no. 4 0.70 0.27 0.52
Item no. 7 0.63 0.84 0.65
Item no. 10 0.58 0.65 0.45
Item no. 14 0.57 0.70 0.33
GBD Item no. 5 0.77 0.61 0.45
Item no. 8 0.74 0.68 0.53
Item no. 12 0.51 0.51 0.56
Source: Table by authors

j MENTAL HEALTH AND SOCIAL INCLUSION j

 Figure 1 CFA Phase-II

person who encountered me, I would feel at peace”. After consulting with a few field
professionals, it was noted that the term “encounter” has a variety of vernacular meanings
and perceptions, including extrajudicial executions by police or armed forces, purportedly
in self-defence when faced with suspected legal offenders, as well as other unpleasant
contacts and situations. As a result, the phrase was replaced with a less negatively
perceived word, “confront”. This can be defined as the act of opposing, meeting or dealing
with a challenging circumstance or person. With this update, the second phase of data
collection began. After the confirmatory factor analysis of the Phase-II data, it was found
that the correlational value for this item increased (see Table 5).
Comparing the results of this study to those of the British and Nigerian samples (Amanze
and Carson, 2019), it was discovered that the forgiveness alphas for both the total score
and the three forgiveness subscales are nearly identical to those of the Nigerian sample,
but significantly lesser than those of the corresponding British sample. These results

j MENTAL HEALTH AND SOCIAL INCLUSION j

 contradict the views and findings of past forgiveness studies in collectivistic and
individualistic cultures that found that the willingness to forgive may be more characteristic
of collectivistic cultures than individualistic cultures (Sandage and Williamson, 2007;
Kadiangandu et al., 2001, 2007; Paz et al., 2008).

5. Limitations
The present study has some limitations. Even though the study used a large and diverse
sample, it did not use a representative sampling method, which is difficult noting the range of
India’s cultures. This omission could have impacted the study’s external validity (the measure’s
large-scale generalisability). Moreover, as the scale relies on self-reporting by the participants,
the outcomes might have been affected by participant’s social desirability.

6. Implications and suggestions for further research

Continued study in this area is critical for deepening our understanding of forgiveness and
validating and adapting the tool for usage in varied communities. Below are some
implications and suggestions on what direction the future research done on the concept of
forgiveness, or this scale could take:
䊏 Thus far, the BFS-15 has had a population that has been from predominantly Abrahamic
religions (Christianity for UK and Islam for Nigeria). This highlights a potential bias
stemming from inherent religio-cultural underpinnings of the conceptualisation of
forgiveness in this scale. Future researchers could make a worthwhile contribution by
examining the concept of forgiveness from a geographic-specific approach, focussing
on the religio-spiritual underpinnings of forgiveness in South Asian contexts.
䊏 Taking inspiration from Ungar’s works (Theron et al., 2014; Ungar et al., 2021; 2023) on
resilience, steering future forgiveness inquiries towards uncovering the dynamics of
forgiveness in contexts of change would prove fruitful.
䊏 Additionally, qualitative inquiry directed at the subjective understanding and use of
forgiveness could be another potential line of research. When measuring forgiveness
through a quantitative approach, the level of hurt experienced and the relationship
between the parties involved could also be examined as moderating/mediating factors.
䊏 Furthermore, future research could increase its rigour by calculating the Convergent
Validity of BFS-15’s both versions, with other measures.

7. Conclusion
Examining psychological instruments before employing them in future studies, particularly
when considering a country’s distinctive cultural characteristics is good practice (Biswas,
2009). This research study succeeded in attaining its aim to validate the BFS in the Indian
context. After two phases of data collection and statistical analysis, the results confirmed
that the BFS-15 is a reliable and valid instrument and can be used in the Indian context to
assess the trait forgiveness of individuals.

References
Amanze, R.U. and Carson, J. (2019), “Measuring forgiveness: psychometric properties of a new
culturally sensitive questionnaire: the Bolton forgiveness scale (BFS)”, Mental Health, Religion & Culture,
Vol. 22 No. 10, pp. 994-1010, doi: 10.1080/13674676.2020.1716211.
Berry, J.W. and Worthington, E.L. (2001), “Forgivingness, relationship quality, stress while imagining
relationship events, and physical and mental health”, Journal of Counseling Psychology, Vol. 48 No. 4,
pp. 447-455, doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.48.4.447.

j MENTAL HEALTH AND SOCIAL INCLUSION j

Biswas, M. (2009), “Measuring the construct of workplace forgiveness: a confirmatory assessment using
SAS proc calis procedure”, South Asian Journal of Management, Vol. 16 No. 4, p. 148.
Enright, R.D. and Fitzgibbons, R.P. (2000), Helping Clients Forgive: An Empirical Guide for Resolving
Anger and Restoring Hope, American Psychological Association eBooks, doi: 10.1037/10381-000.
Enright, R.D., Freedman, S. and Rique, J. (1998), “The psychology of interpersonal forgiveness”,
Exploring forgiveness, pp. 46-62.

Fu, H., Watkins, D. and Hui, E.K.P. (2004), “Personality correlates of the disposition towards interpersonal
forgiveness: a Chinese perspective”, International Journal of Psychology, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 305-316, doi:
10.1080/00207590344000402.

Hinkin, T.R. (1998), “A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires”,
Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 104-121, doi: 10.1177/109442819800100106.
Ho, M.Y. and Worthington, E.L. (2018), “Is the concept of forgiveness universal? A cross-cultural
perspective comparing Western and Eastern cultures”, Current Psychology, Vol. 39 No. 5,
pp. 1749-1756, doi: 10.1007/s12144-018-9875-x.
Kadiangandu, J.K., Gauche  (2007), “Conceptualizations of forgiveness”,
, M., Vinsonneau, G. and Mullet, E.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 432-437, doi: 10.1177/0022022107302312.
Kadiangandu, J.K., Mullet, E. and Vinsonneau, G. (2001), “Forgivingness”, Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 504-511, doi: 10.1177/0022022101032004009.
McCullough, M.E., Bono, G. and Root, L.M. (2005), “Religion and forgiveness”, in Paloutzian, R.F. and
Park, C.L (Eds), Handbook of the Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, Guilford Press, New York,
pp. 394-411.
Mauger, P.A., Perry, J.E., Freeman, T.P. and Grove, D.C. (1992), “The measurement of forgiveness:
preliminary Research”, Journal of Psychology and Christianity, Vol. 11, pp. 170-180.
Niemiec, R.M. and Pearce, R. (2021), “The practice of character strengths: unifying definitions,
principles, and exploration of what’s soaring, emerging, and ripe with potential in science and in
practice”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 11, p. 590220, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.590220.
Owen, A.D. (2008), “A Cross-Cultural study of the concept and process of forgiveness”.
 (2008), “Forgiveness: a China-western Europe comparison”, The Journal
Paz, R., Neto, F. and Mullet, E.
of Psychology, Vol. 142 No. 2, pp. 147-158, doi: 10.3200/jrlp.142.2.147-158.
Peterson, C. and Seligman, M.E.P. (2004), Character Strengths and Virtues: A Handbook and
Classification, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Rye, M.S., Pargäment, K.I., Ali, M.A., Beck, G.L., Dorff, E.N. et al. (2000), “Religious perspectives on
forgiveness”, in McCullough, M.E., Pargament, K.I., Thoresen, C.E. (Ed.), Forgiveness: Theory, Practice
and Research, Guilford, New York, pp. 17-40.
Rasmussen, H.N. and Lopez, S.J. (2000). “Forgiveness and adaptive coping”, Poster session presented
at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
Sandage, S.J., Hill, P.C. and Vang, H.C. (2003), “Toward a multicultural positive psychology”, The
Counseling Psychologist, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 564-592, doi: 10.1177/0011000003256350.

Sandage, S.J. and Williamson, I. (2007), “Forgiveness in cultural context”, Handbook of Forgiveness,
Routledge, pp. 65-80.
Theron, L.C., Liebenberg, L. and Ungar, M. (2014), Youth Resilience and Culture: Commonalities and
Complexities, Springer, doi: 10.1007/978-94-017-9415-2.
Thompson, L., Snyder, C.R., Hoffman, L., Michael, S.T., Rasmussen, H.N., Billings, L.S., Heinze, L.S.,
et al. (2005), “Dispositional forgiveness of self, others, and situations”, Journal of Personality, Vol. 73
No. 2, pp. 313-360, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00311.x.
Ungar, M., Theron, L. and Höltge, J. (2023), “Multisystemic approaches to researching young
people’s resilience: discovering culturally and contextually sensitive accounts of thriving under
adversity”, Development and Psychopathology, Vol. 35 No. 5, pp. 1-15, doi: 10.1017/
s0954579423000469.
Ungar, M., Theron, L., Murphy, K. and Jefferies, P. (2021), “Researching multisystemic resilience: a
sample methodology”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 11, p. 607994, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.607994.

j MENTAL HEALTH AND SOCIAL INCLUSION j

 Van Oyen Witvliet, C., Ludwig, T. and Laan, K.L.V. (2001), “Granting forgiveness or harboring grudges:
implications for emotion, physiology, and health”, Psychological Science, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 117-123, doi:
10.1111/1467-9280.00320.
Wade, N.G., Hoyt, W.T., Kidwell, J.E.M. and Worthington, E.L. (2014), “Efficacy of psychotherapeutic
interventions to promote forgiveness: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
Vol. 82 No. 1, pp. 154-170, doi: 10.1037/a0035268.
Worthington, E.L. Jr (2006), Forgiveness and Reconciliation: Theory and Application, Routledge,
New York, NY.

Worthington, E.L., Jr., Berry, J.W. and Parrott, L.III. (2001), “Unforgiveness, forgiveness, religion, and
health”, in Plante, T.G. and Sherman, A.C. (Eds), Faith and Health: Psychological Perspectives, The
Guilford Press, pp. 107-138.

Zumbo, B.D., Gadermann, A.M. and Zeisser, C. (2007), “Ordinal versions of coefficients alpha and theta
for Likert rating scales”, Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 21-29, doi:
10.22237/jmasm/1177992180.

Further reading
Ho, M.Y. and Fung, H.H. (2011), “A dynamic process model of forgiveness: a cross-cultural perspective”,
Review of General Psychology, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 77-84, doi: 10.1037/a0022605.
Newberg, A.B., D’Aquili, E.G., Newberg, S.K. and deMarici, V. (2000), “The neuropsychological
correlates of forgiveness”, Forgiveness: Theory, Research, and Practice.

Ohtsubo, Y., Masuda, T., Morikura, M., Noguchi, Y., Yamasue, H. and Ishii, K. (2019), “Is collectivistic
forgiveness different from individualistic forgiveness? Dispositional correlates of trait forgivingness in
Canada and Japan”, Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue Canadienne Des Sciences du
Comportement, Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 290-295, doi: 10.1037/cbs0000148.
Rutigliano, N.K.H., Barkevich, S. and Hurley, B. (2017), “Forgiveness in the workplace”, IGI Global
eBooks, pp. 877-889, doi: 10.4018/978-1-5225-1049-9.ch061.
 (2010), “Conceptualizations of forgiveness and forgivingness among
Tripathi, A.K. and Mullet, E.
Hindus”, International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 255-266, doi: 10.1080/
10508619.2010.507694.
Worthington, E.L. (1998), Dimensions of Forgiveness: A Research Approach, Templeton Foundation
Press.

Corresponding author
Mahimna Vyas can be contacted at: mahimnavyas16@gmail.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

j MENTAL HEALTH AND SOCIAL INCLUSION j

View publication stats