Forgiveness plays a crucial role across the human lifespan. It serves as a buffer against hostility, mitigates victimization, and fosters interpersonal harmony. Therefore, implementing forgiveness education programs for children and adolescents is imperative to prevent pathological behaviors and enhance emotional well-being and quality of life. Effective implementation of forgiveness education requires comprehending how individuals perceive forgiveness and the circumstances under which they choose to grant it. Enright (1991) proposed a social cognitive developmental model of forgiveness that aligns with Kohlberg’s moral development theory. The model comprises six levels of forgiveness: Revengeful, compensational, expectational, lawful expectational, social harmony, and love. These levels not only represent the evolution of an individual’s capacity for forgivenessbut also influence their decisions and actions concerning forgiveness. Despite the model’s significance, measuring forgivenesslevels poses a challenge due to the reliance on the Understanding Forgiveness Interview, which constrains large-scale data collection and thus impedes further research and practical applications.

The aim of this study was to develop a self-report Forgiveness Level Assessment tool that can effectively measure forgiveness levels and analyze factors affecting an individual’s ability to forgive. The study also monitored changes in forgiveness levels among junior high school students over a 1-year period by using this tool. Accordingly, the study involved three phases: (1) Developing and psychometrically testing the Forgiveness Level Assessment tool, (2) exploring factors influencing forgiveness levels, and (3) conducting a longitudinal follow-up survey to monitor the progression of forgiveness among junior high school students over 1 year.

The first phase involved three stages: Test item design, pilot testing, and formal analysis. Initially, the study designed 11 hypothetical situations reflecting forgiveness considerations in daily interactions among adolescents and their family, peers,and teachers. These included scenarios related to privacy invasion, loss of property, tardiness, academic dishonesty, father’sgift, wrong change, social rejection, romantic complications, academic responsibilities, leadership difficulties, and pranks.Each hypothetical situation depicted a narrative through which the main character confronted various incidents and grievances,thereby enabling a comprehensive evaluation of their forgiveness levels.

For example, in the scenario titled “A Gift from Father,” the protagonist’s friend borrowed a guitar that, although not valuable, had immense sentimental value because it was a birthday gift from the protagonist’s late father. Weeks later, the friend discarded the guitar, mistaking its aged appearance for lack of value. This situation deeply angered the protagonist, not only because of the guitar’s loss but also because it was a precious memento from their father.

The researchers crafted similar test items to evoke empathy from participants and encourage them to project themselves into the story’s characters, which in turn would trigger forgiveness-related thought processes. Each scenario was followed bytwo questions. The first question posed to participants was as follows: “What is the level of injury that the main character in thestory has suffered?” Participants provided their response on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (“very minor”) to 5 (“very severe”),with a higher score indicating greater perceived harm. The second question was as follows: “Which way do you think will helpthe main character forgive?” Participants were provided with six options corresponding to the levels of forgiveness detailedin forgiveness development theory (Enright, 1991). These were scored from 1 to 6, with a higher score indicating a greater understanding of and capacity for forgiveness in the decision-making process. Participants could complete the test within 30 min.

After the construction of the test items, the researchers collected data from 118 participants. A preliminary analysis led to the elimination of three items. Consequently, the final version of the test comprised eight items. The evaluation of thepsychometric properties of this version indicated better fit with the partial credit model, as demonstrated by item mean square values ranging from 0.92 to 1.13. Moreover, a residual principal component analysis revealed that the first component’sstandardized residual eigenvalue was 1.60, signifying the tool’s unidimensionality. The tool’s reliability was robust, with anitem separation reliability of .97 and an item separation coefficient of 5.69. This signifies the tool’s capability to distinguish between eight levels of difficulty with reasonable accuracy and confirms the stability of the difficulty ordering. Furthermore,the participant separation reliability was .75, with a participant separation coefficient of 1.73, indicating the tool’s efficacy indistinguishing participants into at least two ability levels. The item difficulty analysis demonstrated that the thresholds of theitems formed a hierarchical order, with higher scores corresponding to higher ability values, consistent with the theoretical expectations of the forgiveness development model. Finally, the differential item functionality analysis across genders revealed that all items performed consistently, without bias. In summary, the Forgiveness Level Assessment tool was demonstrated to be effective and reliable as a research instrument.

Regarding factors influencing forgiveness levels, this study examined changes in the forgiveness levels of 473 first-year junior high school students across three dimensions: Gender, offense type, and perceived severity of the offense. Independent samples t-tests revealed no gender differences in cognitive understanding of forgiveness. However, this result does not imply parity in the propensity to forgive between the genders, because numerous complex factors can affect the progression from cognitive understanding to the behavioral response of forgiveness. In addition, a repeated-measures analysis of variance demonstrated significant differences in forgiveness levels among different types of offensive events, undermining the hypothesized universality of forgiveness responses. The analysis indicated that the ability of individuals to forgive variedaccording to the nature of the offense encountered. Furthermore, the study’s results highlighted the influence of perceived offensive severity on forgiveness abilities. The participants demonstrated lower forgiveness levels when confronted with offenses they deem seriously injurious, thus confirming the critical role of perceived harm in shaping forgiveness responses.

To conduct a longitudinal survey of changes in forgiveness among junior high school students over a 1-year period, this study employed a latent growth model over three time points. Analysis of data from 365 first-year junior high school students who completed all three surveys revealed a strong fit between the hypothesized model and the observed data: χ2(2) = 0.12, p > .05, comparative fit index = 1.00, normed fit index = 1.00, root mean square error of approximation = .00, standardized root mean square residual = .01. The analysis further demonstrated a mean intercept factor of 3.03 (t = 80.81, p < .05), indicating significant individual differences in initial forgiveness abilities among the students. The variance of the intercept factor was 0.11 (t = 2.36, p < .05), underscoring significant individual differences at the outset. However, the mean of the slope factor was estimated at 0.05 (p > .05), suggesting no significant change in forgiveness levels over the 1-year period. Enright et al. (1989) and Huang (1990) have suggested that the expectational stage of forgiveness greatly influences adolescent forgiveness levels, which do not change significantly over time. This may explain the lack of significant growth in forgiveness levels among the junior high school students over the 1-year period in this study. Thus, these results imply that educational intervention aimed at promoting forgiveness development within a shorter time frame are necessary.