The Forgiveness Reconciliation Inventory: A model for assessing ...

The Forgiveness Reconciliation Inventory: Amodel for assessing and processing issues offorgiveness, conflict and reconciliationRichard S. BalkinTexas A&M University-Corpus Christirichard.balkin@tamucc.eduAACE National Assessment and Research ConferenceSeptember 8-10, 2011Fort Worth, TX

Forgiveness Theory• Interpersonal forgiveness (Enright andthe Human Development Study Group,1991; Murray, 2002; Scobie & Scobie,1998; Walton, 2005)• Intrapersonal forgiveness (Hall &Fincham, 2005; Scobie & Scobie, 1998;Walton, 2005)• Forgiveness and reconciliation (Berecz,2001; Enright and the HumanDevelopment Study Group, 1994;Macaskill, 2005; Powers, 1994)Balkin, R. S., 20112

Religious Conceptualization ofForgiveness• Secular (Enright, Freedman and Rique ,1998; Tagney, Fee, Reinsmith, Boone, &Lee, 1999)• Christian (Walker & Gorsuch, 2004)• Jewish (Cohen, Malka, Rosen, & Cherfas,2006)• Hindu (Akanksha and Etienne, 2010)Balkin, R. S., 20113

Decision ModelBeneficialRemorse/changeNo remorse/changeNon-beneficialBalkin, R. S., 20114

Assessing a Client’s Likelihoodto Forgive• Forgiveness Scale (Rye, 1998)• Forgiveness Likelihood Scale (Rye, 1998)• Forgiveness Reconciliation Inventory (Balkin)Balkin, R. S., 20115

Forgiveness Scale• Designed to measure forgiveness toward a particularoffender• developed as part of an earlier study involving collegewomen who had been wronged in a romanticrelationship• 15 items using a Likert-type format with responsepossibilities ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5(Strongly agree).Balkin, R. S., 20116

Forgiveness Scale• Respondents are instructed to think about how theyhave responded to the person who wronged ormistreated them. • Sample items include “I spend time thinking aboutways to get back at the person who wronged me”and “If I encountered the person who wronged me Iwould feel at peace.” • Higher scores on this scale reflect greater forgivenesstoward an offender.• Two subscales: Absence of Negative (.86) andPresence of Positive (.85)Balkin, R. S., 20117

Balkin, R. S., 20118

Forgiveness Likelihood Scale• developed as part of an earlier study involving collegewomen who had been wronged in a romanticrelationship (Rye, 1998). Balkin, R. S., 20119

Forgiveness Likelihood Scale• Ten scenarios were developed involving hypotheticalwrongdoing.• Scenarios were designed to assess a variety of typesof wrongdoing (e.g., infidelity, slander, theft) to whichcollege students would likely be able to relate andprovide a meaningful judgment. Balkin, R. S., 201110

Forgiveness Likelihood Scale• Respondents are instructed to imagine that thescenarios happened to them and then consider thelikelihood that they would be willing to forgive theoffender. • The scale uses a Likert-type format with responsepossibilities ranging from 1 (Not at all likely) to 5(Extremely likely). Balkin, R. S., 201111

Forgiveness Likelihood Scale• Sample items include “One of your friends starts anasty rumor about you that is not true. As a result,people begin treating you worse than they have in thepast. What is the likelihood that you would choose toforgive your friend?” and “Your significant other has a‘one night stand’ and becomes sexually involved withsomeone else. What is the likelihood that you wouldchoose to forgive your significant other?” Balkin, R. S., 201112

Forgiveness Likelihood Scale• Higher scores on this scale reflect increasedwillingness to forgive.• The instrument produces one scale score with strongreliability estimates (.81).Balkin, R. S., 201113

Balkin, R. S., 201114

Balkin, R. S., 201115

Forgiveness Reconciliation• Researcher developedInventory (FRI)• Based on a theoretical model of interpersonal andintrapersonal forgiveness• Strong psychometric propertiesBalkin, R. S., 201116

Decision ModelBeneficialRemorse/changeNo remorse/changeNon-beneficialBalkin, R. S., 201117

Balkin, R. S., 201118

Participants• Two hundred participants were solicitedfrom nonclinical settings (N = 131, 65.5%)including undergraduate and graduatestudents on a university campus in the Southand consenting professionals from acommunity-based education program, andfrom clinical settings (N = 69, 34.5%)including a correctional setting, outpatientwomen’s recovery center, and domesticabuse shelter in the Northeast, and adomestic abuse shelter in the South.Balkin, R. S., 201119

Participants• Participants were 35 (17.5%) males and165 (82.5%) with the following ethnicbreakdown:• white (N = 115, 57.5%)• Latino/a (N = 47, 23.5%),• African American (N = 18, 9.5%)• Asian (N = 8, 4%)• other (N = 8, 4%)• missing (N = 4, 2%)Balkin, R. S., 201120

Analyses• EFA• Reliability estimation• Evidence of relationships to other variables:• canonical correlation to the FS• multiple regression to the FLS• Exploration of group differences betweenclinical and nonclinical participants• MANOVA and discriminant analysisBalkin, R. S., 201121

Factor Structure• Conducted EFA (N = 200)• fixed four-factor extraction• using MLE a promax rotation due tocorrelated factors (Dimitrov, 2010)• Eigen values and scree plots indicated a fourfactorsolution, consistent with thetheoretical underpinnings of the model• Accounted for 66% of the variance in themodelBalkin, R. S., 201122

Balkin, R. S., 201123

Psychometric Qualities ofthe FRI• Strong reliability (internal consistency)estimates (N = 200)• Exploration: .89 (.90, remove item 7)• Role: .85 (.88, remove item 9)• Change: .90 (.92, remove item 21)• Outcome: .93 (.93, remove item 23)Balkin, R. S., 201124

Psychometric Qualities ofthe FRI• Evidence of a strong relationship to theForgiveness Scale (Rye, 1998).• Conducted a canonical correlation• A significant relationship and strongeffect size accounting for 49% of thevariance [ = .49, F(8, 326) = 17.62, p< .001].• Increased positive attributes on the FRIcorrelated with higher degrees offorgiveness toward an offender.Balkin, R. S., 201125

Psychometric Qualities ofthe FRI• Evidence of a strong relationship to theForgiveness Likelihood Scale (Rye, 1998).• Conducted a multiple regression.• A significant relationship and strongeffect size accounting for approximately10% of the variance, F(4, 165) = 4.54, p= .002.• Increased positive attributes on the FRIcorrelated with higher likelihood toforgive.Balkin, R. S., 201126

DescriptivesScale N M SD Role Change Outcome FSneg FSpos FLSExplorationrolechangeOutcomeFSnegFSposFLS20020020020017317317320.1017.5522.0820.4733.5615.1624.286.066.216.436.957.914.838.92.46*.47*.57*.42*.67*.68*-.40*-.42*-.32*-.44*-.41*-.52*-.50*-.67*.51*-.22-.20-.09-.23.25*.32**p < .001Balkin, R. S., 201127

Group Differences• Conducted a MANOVA with a discriminant analysis post hoc across FRIsubscales between clinical and nonclinical populations• λ = .885, F(4, 195) = 6.22, p < .001Scale Correlation Coefficients Standardized CoefficientsExploration .19 -.39Role .88 .98Change .68 .58Outcome .50 -.36• Functions at group centroids:• Clinical: .49• Nonclinical -.26Balkin, R. S., 201128

Group DifferencesGroup N M SD dclinical 69 20.57 6.34 0.12Nonclinical 13119.85 5.92clinical 69 20.15 6.52 0.65Nonclinical 131 16.18 5.60clinical 69 24.26 6.09 0.54Nonclinical 13120.93 6.33clinical 69 22.25 7.45 0.39Nonclinical 13119.52 6.51Balkin, R. S., 201129

FRI ProfileBalkin, R. S., 201130

Sample Profile 1Balkin, R. S., 201131

Sample Profile 2Balkin, R. S., 201132

Sample Profile 3Balkin, R. S., 201133

Sample Profile 4Balkin, R. S., 201134

QuestionsBalkin, R. S., 201135