State Self-forgiveness Scale (SFFA & SFB)

Abstract

The State Self-Forgiveness Scale (SSFS), conceptualized across two distinct yet interconnected dimensions known as Self-Forgiving Feelings and Actions (SFFA) and Self-Forgiving Beliefs (SFB), is a prominent psychometric instrument developed by Michael J. A. Wohl, Lise DeShea, and R. L. Wahkinney (2008). Designed to capture situational, event-specific fluctuations in how transgressors relate to themselves following interpersonal or intrapersonal offenses, the SSFS assesses whether an individual has successfully navigated the emotional and cognitive repercussions of personal wrongdoing. The scale comprises 17 items evaluated on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Not at all) to 4 (Completely). Items 1 through 8 operationalize the SFFA subscale, measuring positive, compassionate, and accepting emotional displays alongside the cessation of self-punishment and self-rejection. Items 9 through 17 constitute the SFB subscale, appraising global cognitive self-evaluations and worthiness versus moral condemnation and self-loathing. Psychometric investigations across diverse adult and collegiate samples establish robust internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients frequently exceeding .85 to .90 across both subscales. Confirmatory factor analyses validate its correlated two-factor structure over unidimensional models. Moreover, construct validity is underscored by anticipated patterns of convergent associations with state guilt, state shame, genuine repentance, psychological well-being, depressive symptomatology, and self-compassion, as well as distinct divergent properties differentiating genuine self-forgiveness from pseudo-self-forgiveness or moral excusing. The instrument is widely utilized within social psychology, clinical assessment, psychotherapy outcome monitoring, and restorative justice contexts.

Keywords

State Self-Forgiveness Scale, self-forgiveness, SFFA, SFB, interpersonal transgression, guilt, shame, self-compassion, psychometrics, moral repair, situational coping, Wohl.

Authors

The State Self-Forgiveness Scale was constructed and psychometrically validated by:

• Michael J. A. Wohl, Ph.D. — Professor of Psychology at Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. His extensive research focuses on conflict resolution, interpersonal and collective transgressions, state self-forgiveness, psychological well-being, and gambling behavior.
• Lise DeShea, Ph.D. — Quantitative psychologist and biostatistician formerly affiliated with the University of Oklahoma and academic healthcare institutions, specializing in multivariate psychometrics and structural equation modeling.
• R. L. Wahkinney, M.S. — Researcher affiliated with the Department of Psychology at the University of Oklahoma, contributing to early theoretical conceptualizations and empirical investigations into the emotional aftermath of personal transgressions.
• Brandon J. Griffin, Ph.D. (Significant downstream psychometric evaluator) — Clinical psychologist and researcher, notably affiliated with Virginia Commonwealth University and the Department of Veterans Affairs, whose randomized controlled trials expanded the clinical utility and workbook-based delivery of the instrument.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the State Self-Forgiveness Scale (SFFA & SFB) is to provide an empirical, event-specific measurement tool capable of quantifying an individual’s psychological reconciliation with themselves following a specific, self-identified moral or interpersonal wrongdoing. Unlike dispositional or trait self-forgiveness inventories—which assess general tendencies to let go of self-directed negative emotions over time—the SSFS was engineered to detect micro-level, situational fluctuations in self-forgiveness tied directly to a focal wrongdoing (Wohl et al., 2008). In contemporary psychological science, wrongdoing routinely disrupts an individual’s moral self-concept, eliciting debilitating affective states such as rumination, self-hatred, and moral distress.

From a research standpoint, the scale allows investigators to capture temporal processes in the aftermath of a violation. Transgressions inevitably trigger complex affective cascades. The SSFS enables researchers to delineate between authentic, restorative self-forgiveness and defensive psychological maneuvers such as self-exoneration, pseudo-forgiveness, or hedonistic moral disengagement. By decoupling affective and behavioral responses (captured by SFFA) from cognitive-evaluative identity judgments (captured by SFB), the scale grants researchers fine-grained insight into which components of the self-forgiveness architecture are malleable to experimental manipulation, apology dynamics, victim empathy, or restorative justice conditions.

Clinically, the instrument serves as an invaluable diagnostic and outcome monitoring device. Clients who present with treatment-resistant depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) stemming from moral injury, substance abuse relapse guilt, or chronic somatic distress often struggle with unyielding self-condemnation. Clinicians use the SSFS to assess baseline levels of punitive self-treatment, observe whether therapeutic interventions reduce internal hostility, and determine whether clients begin acknowledging their inherent worth without denying culpability. The SSFS serves as a standard evaluative outcome metric in manualized interventions, such as self-forgiveness workbooks, acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) protocols, and emotion-focused therapies (Griffin, 2014).

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct operationalized by the State Self-Forgiveness Scale represents a multi-tiered motivational, emotional, and cognitive transformation. In the psychometric paradigm established by Wohl, DeShea, and Wahkinney (2008), self-forgiveness is defined as a willing relinquishment of self-resentment, self-punishment, and moral self-loathing in the wake of an acknowledged transgression, accompanied by the gradual fostering of self-compassion, self-benevolence, and restored self-esteem. Importantly, self-forgiveness within this framework does not constitute condoning, excusing, or minimizing the wrongdoing. Rather, it demands that the transgressor accept responsibility while simultaneously separating the negative behavioral act from their core, ongoing human worth.

Dimension 1: Self-Forgiving Feelings and Actions (SFFA)

The first dimension, Self-Forgiving Feelings and Actions (SFFA), encompasses items 1 through 8. This dimension measures affective and behavioral inclinations directed toward the self when contemplating the specific wrongdoing. It gauges two complementary poles: the reduction of punitive, hostile action tendencies and the emergence of benevolent, compassionate emotional expressions. When an individual violates their own ethical standards, they frequently engage in cognitive self-punishment, manifested in deliberate self-derogation, emotional deprivation, and inward rejection. The SFFA dimension measures the cessation of these punitive actions (e.g., lower scores on reverse-scored items such as “…punish myself” and “…put myself down”) alongside the active presence of warm, accepting, and soothing behavioral orientations (e.g., “…feel compassionate toward myself” and “…show myself acceptance”).

Dimension 2: Self-Forgiving Beliefs (SFB)

The second dimension, Self-Forgiving Beliefs (SFB), comprises items 9 through 17. This dimension evaluates the cognitive, identity-level appraisals that individuals construct regarding their fundamental nature following a violation. In the immediate aftermath of a failure, individuals often conflate moral behavior with essentialized identity, concluding that doing something bad makes them fundamentally rotten, malicious, or irredeemable. The SFB dimension measures whether an individual can preserve a balanced, nuanced moral identity despite having committed a fault. It evaluates positive core appraisals (e.g., “…acceptable”, “…decent”, “…worthy of love”) versus toxic, shame-infused overgeneralizations (e.g., “…awful”, “…a bad person”, “…rotten”). Without resolving these negative beliefs, emotional relief remains superficial and fleeting.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical architecture undergirding the State Self-Forgiveness Scale integrates models of moral emotions, cognitive appraisal theory, and clinical frameworks of moral repair. Central to this theoretical foundation is the distinction between guilt and shame articulated by June Price Tangney and colleagues. Guilt is an adaptive, behavior-focused moral emotion oriented around the appraisal, “I did a bad thing.” It motivates tension reduction, reparative gestures, confession, and prosocial restitution. Shame, in contrast, is an incapacitating, self-focused moral emotion characterized by the appraisal, “I am a bad person.” Shame engenders psychological withdrawal, defensiveness, self-directed disgust, and internal disintegration.

Wohl et al. (2008) incorporated this theoretical nuance directly into the SSFS. The SFB subscale maps directly onto the resolution of chronic shame states by measuring whether individuals can abandon global, shame-based condemnations (e.g., believing one is “rotten” or “horrible”) and embrace balanced self-appraisals (e.g., recognizing that one remains “decent” and “worthy of love”). Meanwhile, the SFFA subscale maps onto the emotional resolution of guilt-induced distress, steering the transgressor away from self-flagellation and toward healing, constructive personal accountability.

The scale also draws heavily upon Everett L. Worthington Jr.’s dual-process model of forgiveness and Hall and Fincham’s integrative theoretical model of self-forgiveness. According to these frameworks, authentic self-forgiveness requires navigating an emotional journey that transitions through guilt, empathetic understanding toward the victim, restitution, and ultimately the replacement of self-directed negative emotions with self-compassion and benevolent self-regard. If self-forgiveness occurs prematurely—prior to taking responsibility—it becomes moral complacency or pseudo-forgiveness. The SSFS is explicitly predicated on the prompt, “As I consider what I did that was wrong…”, which anchors the participant’s attention directly onto their acknowledged culpability. This structural feature guarantees that the assessed self-forgiveness represents genuine moral repair rather than avoidant denial.

Validity

Extensive psychometric investigations have established robust validity parameters for the State Self-Forgiveness Scale across both collegiate and clinical samples.

Construct and Convergent Validity

Construct validity is substantiated by significant, theoretically coherent relationships with established indices of psychological well-being, moral affect, and self-evaluation. In the primary validation studies conducted by Wohl et al. (2008), both the SFFA and SFB subscales exhibited robust positive correlations with subjective well-being, life satisfaction, and generalized self-esteem. Crucially, the subscales correlate negatively with measures of state guilt and state shame, with SFB displaying particularly potent inverse correlations with shame-proneness and self-blaming depression.

Subsequent psychometric work by Griffin (2014) in a clinical trial context confirmed that improvements on the SSFS correlated positively with validated metrics of self-compassion (such as the Self-Compassion Scale) and negatively with the Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R), indicating that state self-forgiveness directly reduces post-transgression intrusive thoughts and psychological avoidance.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity analyses demonstrate that the SSFS captures a construct distinctly separated from narcissism, social desirability, and defensive exoneration. Wohl et al. (2008) administered the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale and established non-significant or negligible correlations with SSFS subscale scores, confirming that affirmative responses reflect genuine introspective resolution rather than impression management. Furthermore, the scale reliably differentiates individuals who have processed remorse from those who practice pseudo-self-forgiveness; the latter typically endorse high self-acceptance but register low scores on acknowledged offense severity and restitution commitment.

Criterion and Predictive Validity

Predictive validity is demonstrated across experimental paradigms and clinical trials. In randomized controlled evaluations of self-forgiveness workbooks (Griffin, 2014), participants assigned to active intervention conditions demonstrated statistically significant increases in both SFFA and SFB scores relative to waitlist controls, with effect sizes ranging from moderate to large (Cohen’s d = 0.50 to 0.82). Furthermore, baseline SSFS scores significantly predict subsequent reductions in psychosomatic symptoms, psychological distress, and interpersonal avoidance over multi-week follow-up intervals.

Reliability

The State Self-Forgiveness Scale demonstrates exemplary internal consistency across diverse empirical investigations. In the seminal psychometric series reported by Wohl, DeShea, and Wahkinney (2008), the reliability estimates across distinct study phases consistently met or exceeded standard benchmarks:

• Self-Forgiving Feelings and Actions (SFFA): Cronbach’s alpha coefficients routinely fall within the range of α = .82 to .88.
• Self-Forgiving Beliefs (SFB): Cronbach’s alpha coefficients typically range between α = .87 and .91.
• Total Composite Scale: When combined into an aggregate metric, the full 17-item scale demonstrates exceptional internal reliability, frequently yielding α ≥ .90.

In applied intervention contexts, such as Griffin’s (2014) randomized trial evaluating a psychoeducational self-forgiveness workbook, internal reliability values remained remarkably stable at pre-test, post-test, and follow-up assessments, maintaining alpha coefficients above .85 across all measurement intervals. Test-retest reliability reflects the intended nature of a state-level measurement instrument: while showing reasonable temporal stability over short intervals without intervention (r ≈ .70 over 1 to 2 weeks), the scores demonstrate substantial, statistically significant responsiveness following cognitive-reappraisal tasks, moral restitution manipulations, or structured therapeutic work.

Factor Analysis

During the initial scale construction phase, Wohl et al. (2008) subjected an exploratory pool of candidate items to exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using principal axis factoring with oblique (Promax) rotation, accommodating the theoretical intercorrelation between feelings, actions, and beliefs. The scree plot examination, Kaiser-Guttman criterion (eigenvalues > 1.0), and parallel analysis unmistakably indicated a robust two-factor solution that accounted for the majority of the common variance.

Factor Loadings

The first latent factor, corresponding to Self-Forgiving Feelings and Actions (SFFA), gathered items 1 through 8. Factor loadings for these items ranged from .54 to .83, with compassionate and accepting orientations loading positively and self-punitive inclinations loading negatively. The second latent factor, representing Self-Forgiving Beliefs (SFB), comprised items 9 through 17, with standardized loadings ranging from .61 to .87. Cross-loadings across factors were minimal, generally falling below .25, affirming distinct conceptual clusters.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Model Fit

Subsequent confirmatory factor analyses performed across independent samples validated the superiority of the correlated two-factor model over rival structural representations, such as a single general factor model or an orthogonal two-factor model. Goodness-of-fit indices supported the theoretical structure:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): .94 to .97
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): .93 to .96
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): .052 to .068 (with 90% confidence intervals within acceptable thresholds)
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): .041 to .055

The correlation between the two latent factors is typically strong and positive (r ≈ .55 to .70), demonstrating that while feelings, actions, and self-directed beliefs cohere within an overall state self-forgiveness macro-construct, they capture distinct empirical variance.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The State Self-Forgiveness Scale is a self-administered psychometric questionnaire featuring a brief, accessible format designed for ease of administration in empirical and applied clinical environments.

• Test Type: Self-report state psychological inventory.
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil questionnaire or digital survey platform.
• Item Count: 17 items total, divided across two structured stems.
• Stems:
  • Stem 1 (Items 1–8): “As I consider what I did that was wrong, I…”
  • Stem 2 (Items 9–17): “As I consider what I did that was wrong, I believe I am…”
• Response Scale: 4-point Likert-type response scale scored as follows:
  • 1 = Not at all
  • 2 = A little
  • 3 = Mostly
  • 4 = Completely
• Subscale Composition:
  • Self-Forgiving Feelings and Actions (SFFA): Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.
  • Self-Forgiving Beliefs (SFB): Items 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17.
• Scoring and Directionality:
  • Reverse-Scoring: Negatively worded items must be reversed prior to computing subscale or aggregate composite scores (i.e., recode 1 → 4, 2 → 3, 3 → 2, 4 → 1).
    • SFFA subscale reverse-scored items: Item 2, Item 4, Item 7, Item 8.
    • SFB subscale reverse-scored items: Item 11, Item 12, Item 14, Item 16, Item 17.
  • Subscale Scoring: Calculated as the mean or sum of the pertinent items following reversal. Higher subscale scores denote greater levels of self-forgiving feelings/actions and self-forgiving beliefs, respectively.
  • Total Score: The composite state self-forgiveness score is derived by computing the overall mean or total sum across all 17 recoded items.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The State Self-Forgiveness Scale was originally developed and published in 2008 by Michael J. A. Wohl, Lise DeShea, and R. L. Wahkinney in the peer-reviewed journal Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science / Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement. The instrument was developed within an academic research context and is widely accessible for non-commercial educational, psychological research, and clinical assessment purposes.

Researchers and mental health practitioners may typically utilize the scale without paying licensing fees, provided that appropriate scholarly attribution is accorded to Wohl et al. (2008) in any resulting publications, dissertations, or psychotherapeutic programs. Commercial deployment, inclusion within proprietary software or fee-based assessment platforms, or large-scale institutional distributions require prior written authorization and licensing agreements with the copyright holders (the authors and the Canadian Psychological Association / American Psychological Association).

References

• Griffin, B. J. (2014). Efficacy of a self-forgiveness workbook: A randomized controlled trial with university students (Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Commonwealth University). VCU Scholars Compass, Paper 3318. https://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/etd/3318/
• Hall, J. H., & Fincham, F. D. (2005). Self-forgiveness: The stepchild of forgiveness research. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 24(5), 621–637. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2005.24.5.621
• Tangney, J. P., Stuewig, J., & Mashek, D. J. (2007). Moral emotions and moral behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 345–372. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070145
• Wohl, M. J. A., DeShea, L., & Wahkinney, R. L. (2008). Looking within: Measuring state self-forgiveness and its relationship to psychological well-being. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science / Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 40(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1037/0008-400X.40.1.1
• Worthington, E. L., Jr., & Langberg, D. (2012). Promoting reconciliation after transgressions in personal and relational contexts. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 40(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/009164711204000102

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)