multidimensional nature of forgiveness. The literature highlights a need for integrating gratitude into forgiveness interventions

to enhance their efficacy (Bono & McCullough, 2006; Toussaint & Friedman, 2009). Therefore, we developed the “Gratitude-

Integrated Forgiveness Program” and explored its effects on gratitude, forgiveness, and well-being.

The aforementioned program was developed on the basis of the forgiveness framework proposed by Thompson et al. (2005),

which comprises forgiveness of others, forgiveness of self, and forgiveness of situations. After obtaining consent from Wu et al.

(2017), we condensed their college student gratitude course into two units (6 hours) and administered it before the forgiveness

course. Thus, we combined forgiveness with gratitude, as recommended by Bono and McCullough (2006) in their study on

interpersonal forgiveness and psychological well-being.

The course order was determined on the basis of research indicating that gratitude can predict forgiveness and serves as

its foundation. Thus, the course began with gratitude and then transitioned to forgiveness. The gratitude component focused

on appreciating the present and being content with what one has. The five dimensions of gratitude incorporated in the program

included “gratitude for adversity,” which involves appreciating the challenges and growth that adversity brings. This dimension

closely aligns with the forgiveness of situations dimension, which involves accepting uncontrollable events in life. Thus, the

course transitioned from gratitude for adversity to situational forgiveness. After situational forgiveness, the course addressed

“forgiveness of self” before addressing “forgiveness of others.” This order was maintained considering that “forgiveness of self”

is generally less challenging. It allowed the participants to first cultivate self-compassion by forgiving themselves for previous

mistakes, which then served as a foundation for extending forgiveness toward others.

This study included 60 college students from Kaohsiung. They were recruited through online advertising and divided

into experimental group (n = 30) and control group (n = 30). After the exclusion of two participants who dropped out, the

experimental group comprised 28 students. A quasi-experimental design was adopted for the present study. Before the

intervention, pretests were conducted using the Gratitude Questionnaire-Six Item Form (GQ-6), Heartland Forgiveness Scale,

and Mental Health Continuum-Short Form. All three scales demonstrated good internal consistency, which confirmed their

reliability. Construct validity was supported by confirmatory factor analysis, with overall fit indices meeting the required

standards, indicating that the overall model fit for each scale was ideal (McCullough et al., 2002; Thompson et al., 2005). Hsiao

et al. (2023) developed a Chinese version of the Heartland Forgiveness Scale (Thompson et al., 2005). This questionnaire was

also administered in the present study. It exhibited strong internal consistency (Cronbach’s α: .78 to .87). The pretest scores were used as covariates to account for the effect of nonrandom assignment.

During the intervention, the experimental group participated in an 18-h gratitude-integrated forgiveness course, which was

conducted over 6 weeks, with 3 hours of instruction per week. By contrast, the control group received no intervention. After

the experiment, posttests were conducted using the scales used for pretests. The pretest and posttest scores were statistically

analyzed to compare gratitude, forgiveness, and well-being between the experimental and control groups.

The results were as follows: (1) The course significantly enhanced gratitude. The effect of the intervention on the GQ-6

score, analyzed through covariance analysis, exhibited an F(1, 57) value of 4.36 (p < .05), indicating a significant posttest

effect for the experimental group. This finding revealed an immediate effect of the intervention on the overall gratitude of the

experimental group after adjustment for the pretest effect. (2) The course significantly enhanced forgiveness, particularly overall

forgiveness and forgiveness of self. However, it exerted no significant effect on forgiveness of others or situations. The effect

of the intervention on the forgiveness scale score, analyzed through covariance analysis, exhibited an F(1, 57) value of 6.24

(p < .05) for overall forgiveness and an F(1, 57) value of 5.33 (p < .05) for forgiveness of self, indicating significant posttest

effects for the experimental group in these domains. However, the course exerted no significant effect on forgiveness of others,

F(1, 57) = 2.53 (p > .05), or forgiveness of situations, F(1, 57) = 3.05 (p > .05). Therefore, after adjustment for the pretest

effect, the intervention exerted immediate effects on overall forgiveness and forgiveness of self, but not on forgiveness of others

or situations. (3) The course significantly enhanced overall well-being. The effect of the intervention on the well-being scale

score, analyzed through covariance analysis, exhibited an F(1, 57) value of 16.87 (p < .001) for overall well-being and an F(1,

66) value of 4.30 (p > .05) for psychological well-being. This result revealed a significant posttest effect on the overall wellbeing

of the experimental group, highlighting an immediate intervention effect on the overall well-being, but not psychological

well-being, of the experimental group after adjustment for the pretest effect. Approximately 25% and 42% of the participants

exhibited improvements in emotional and social well-being, respectively.

The aforementioned findings indicated that the course significantly enhanced gratitude, forgiveness, and well-being. After

the intervention, the students exhibited immediate increases in their gratitude levels, attributable to the course content, which

aligns well with the indicators of the GQ-6. Furthermore, the strong association between forgiveness and gratitude, along with

the integration of forgiveness concepts into the course, might have exerted a complementary effect. After the intervention, the

students exhibited immediate improvements in overall forgiveness and self-forgiveness, likely attributable to the structured

and progressive approach of the forgiveness of self dimension, which resonated deeply with the participants. Hall and Fincham

(2005), building on Enright’s (1996) model, described self-forgiveness as a process involving the stages of revelation, decision,

work, and outcome. This stepwise approach encourages individuals to reflect on their mistakes, take corrective actions,

adopt a forgiving attitude toward themselves, and ultimately release negative emotions. Our findings revealed no immediate

improvements in the forgiveness of situations or forgiveness of others domain. The lack of improvement in the forgiveness of

situations may be attributable to the short duration of the course and the absence of previous intervention studies specifically

targeting this dimension, which was analyzed solely on the basis of the definition proposed by Thompson et al. (2005). This

result underscores room for improvement in course design. Forgiving others is inherently challenging; improvement in this

dimension may require more time than the course allowed and targeted interventions. Although we referenced process-based

therapies from meta-analyses (Baskin & Enright, 2004; Recine, 2015), the course did not effectively enhance individuals’ ability

to forgive others.

After the intervention, the students exhibited immediate improvements in emotional and social well-being. This finding

is consistent with that of a study indicating a strong correlation between self-forgiveness and overall well-being (Davis et

al., 2015). The course’s emphasis on self-forgiveness likely mediated these improvements, fostering emotional healing and

strengthening interpersonal relationships. Furthermore, the gratitude component, which was adapted from Wu et al.’s (2017)

gratitude curriculum for college students, contributed to the observed increase in social well-being, reaffirming the findings

of Wu et al. regarding the positive effect of gratitude on well-being. However, no significant improvement was noted in

psychological well-being. This can be explained as follows: (1) The harmful events addressed during the course might not have

been sufficiently severe to facilitate deep psychological healing. (2) The course did not limit the target of forgiveness to close

individuals, forgiving whom would be relatively easy and would enhance psychological well-being (Karremans et al., 2003).

Future studies should clearly differentiate the sources of the course’s effects and expand its application to diverse populations and regions. In addition, the course can be administered in a “counseling group” format to investigate the

relationship between forgiveness and other research variables. From a practical perspective, students’ beliefs about forgiveness

can be nurtured through multiple channels. Given the structured nature of the course, extending the time allocated to forgiveness

of others and focusing on specific individuals for a long period may enhance the effectiveness of the intervention.