<%BANNER%>

Forgiveness in Children: The Child/Adolescent Dispositional Forgiveness Inventory

xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20110217_AAAABU INGEST_TIME 2011-02-17T17:54:37Z PACKAGE UFE0014962_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 53173 DFID F20110217_AABORI ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH leever_b_Page_55.pro GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
9377a1dc9b700c69bc0ed2dee5086800
SHA-1
e206c59f6e50962731a01781d295c2db5ca8f4c3
8423998 F20110217_AABOML leever_b_Page_39.tif
37ba76bbe9dc1e52324e625b71a7cdf5
f74c080a20b233acd0b66fa2466a81900d0899be
8355 F20110217_AABOWF leever_b_Page_25thm.jpg
9f8c181b8641e9d1fbdd64912eb14bd8
cc93c4bffb268370c677f5efebcc77d21380cf3b
49780 F20110217_AABORJ leever_b_Page_56.pro
92636c38d82e2bd4fa722de8f88a4421
edd7c9150c695a2b547a26f62f365fe3dc7af229
32667 F20110217_AABOWG leever_b_Page_20.QC.jpg
fc27eb1369a9442ec8c565b73757e85d
eb45a76cbc800d4feb5a1d0635d864225b830f37
49670 F20110217_AABORK leever_b_Page_57.pro
29f102fb923f4ae4d5fb0aa7bed10227
8b9495091ca01a213dd3529c877e4c673a4b1cd3
F20110217_AABOMM leever_b_Page_40.tif
d70f789fb8750acbc30223e186ac3175
8448b312244069493e5aec1b1caccef874c5029b
8845 F20110217_AABOWH leever_b_Page_62thm.jpg
decaf0cae52dc6780902f2254169f7e9
e908f7e429aa8a07d2efddead40f55c5d3eea2f4
46619 F20110217_AABORL leever_b_Page_59.pro
ada346fe357cc7b9734295f062ad9f89
42a6434b5793c8e140a2149e73e206585a54c8f0
F20110217_AABOMN leever_b_Page_41.tif
2c121cedcd9aed748e9e775df53e0a80
a8678dd9cbfdf9188dbf03b69182f5f367ef8613
29534 F20110217_AABOWI leever_b_Page_55.QC.jpg
ba83605af608354997dbc477b69dff73
ccdcd201d917593267abe38f0cc48d290fc34502
59913 F20110217_AABORM leever_b_Page_60.pro
6eeaae428958fbfd7ecbb574fd689cb8
3d1cfa3d674590d59d681c76d9194f207cfddb58
F20110217_AABOMO leever_b_Page_42.tif
d427a1b433399e45abb7596a2b658d81
5d68ec1e0e19df2cefd26db88c8520e2b1966085
32230 F20110217_AABOWJ leever_b_Page_64.QC.jpg
9608c6d7a7230de4adf4093be7a01f05
3c37c796d21b5362cfdc52d224f51e286d695f1c
54531 F20110217_AABORN leever_b_Page_61.pro
f48e1095ababea67f286d4ca458a91d6
66ec6135aa934b34f2b55ec28664f7b08c5065f8
F20110217_AABOMP leever_b_Page_46.tif
cec1c50cc58113f92154144368d541ac
8e4c7514aa68afe7cc907b58e79f6d6275b4063c
32800 F20110217_AABOWK leever_b_Page_27.QC.jpg
9dad8d1520b771a443624dccd15f6097
23f124612b4b197b9554c9a8bb8dcf09eb5d29d0
64228 F20110217_AABORO leever_b_Page_62.pro
e20fff1a2ae029dea697ddc04361d89a
0c7eda0c0c7783ea2af415e38bd9eb2d9abedb37
F20110217_AABOMQ leever_b_Page_47.tif
fb4b022b9368ea4b9c47aa5c47cf5a32
f1508d5df80cbfdbe7e83b1e9352caae54cf235f
34743 F20110217_AABOWL leever_b_Page_29.QC.jpg
dc1c0e6d7bb0c3feabacd37761d892f5
93f93b496246d9e9a08da1ad4c38edddbe134bc7
58023 F20110217_AABORP leever_b_Page_64.pro
633bd31e2cc296ff1b912196ca812918
eebb050c6df8efe8707748b90a013ab83c2fd70f
F20110217_AABOMR leever_b_Page_48.tif
af92987c25c5af1af5fc0c7583a7d151
bfd0c215e55ece82a84878334a231eb26dc8c7de
34997 F20110217_AABOWM leever_b_Page_21.QC.jpg
8205491764bc6fdd5bc0fafaa5e4a2f4
4d67eb00d96ea3fe0364147ad30b472edb9a6ca9
20704 F20110217_AABORQ leever_b_Page_65.pro
28c133b6212f213209244d18459c0df8
def138fa1d545ace1edd8525738ab4ab2af0315c
F20110217_AABOMS leever_b_Page_50.tif
125a48b225e32156e048c88fb9d0eebd
e589753a4d41e9b1bfb1c0f5b6218d9143400b80
25429 F20110217_AABOWN leever_b_Page_52.QC.jpg
9b4c1c2db1b587a32d6c968591c68877
c439f897b105474a579bd58f243242aeb9b05d3d
F20110217_AABOMT leever_b_Page_51.tif
5927247f3f24a0aee033404c91046177
9fc08c9c4fc723b626f899564bd7ec40b805246f
8551 F20110217_AABOWO leever_b_Page_11thm.jpg
9c1ef322382c8e6b728c5d369d876380
f14e07df0c4608823090cf90d8ed7b810c5e84d2
25122 F20110217_AABORR leever_b_Page_01.jpg
c42362c60e74ccfaff75dfa9069e7435
40de7c7c2a81fd8b05c9a3ab8e9440a737bf3632
F20110217_AABOMU leever_b_Page_52.tif
ba336808e75f965bf5544c9c338cf2a9
9b1aae869c99e4682bf88922f3565213e658b1ec
8100 F20110217_AABOWP leever_b_Page_61thm.jpg
d7eacc1c990332536fbef305535cdf0d
3d15356505678288fccabfe212007b5d37b18664
4679 F20110217_AABORS leever_b_Page_02.jpg
47a0b12d9f43aabec80fc2e66540e151
b165fc3d9177a30a3996a0d80b8135e311487dc8
F20110217_AABOMV leever_b_Page_53.tif
728d4295c2fafb064003ccf2ae0a13ea
2bba666e9fd6f6140dca9c94fba19f644906d101
33913 F20110217_AABOWQ leever_b_Page_44.QC.jpg
067d027f75368acf4fe7ce97f5e75fb7
59a20b7b8efb334c3a4e9b12108992d1961d5ce4
28737 F20110217_AABORT leever_b_Page_03.jpg
79d304382308ed9b2c5f089fc305e3e5
42fff27670ef6d0d122327f3b00924834210ac67
F20110217_AABOMW leever_b_Page_54.tif
96fd4b7438da239ac1519503b4f04921
72432be2a471610ff344e3d66ccc94881b814772
34148 F20110217_AABOWR leever_b_Page_40.QC.jpg
72c0c09bd269038c37e602db7476f0d3
d08c5b86bfe72868b1cfaa750b7fe6daa7c8e2f1
76041 F20110217_AABORU leever_b_Page_04.jpg
fb3f5e644e03ef57881ec5c3844c197a
32fabf248c274d4ffd26d0af52c1bce918233c54
F20110217_AABOMX leever_b_Page_55.tif
695fed21664a93eb32347f4b9298121a
b86bc91c061ee9efbcfcc0fc0d15390f1ebcfd1e
18199 F20110217_AABOWS leever_b_Page_53.QC.jpg
195b67ce23fc490fdae697e8de43347c
81320c0c2987493bd7b7d50e0b69c1328675ef9e
33206 F20110217_AABORV leever_b_Page_05.jpg
1c866bdff87e722a09195c63510d62ab
3716b475dd4aa5c8f9300967ffceb2a908a7cc75
106782 F20110217_AABOKA leever_b_Page_25.jpg
1ab715da8177fe8ca1df1e9a32597182
a6aed173ecc04e38ea2cd6ca0913f8d2c3664653
F20110217_AABOMY leever_b_Page_56.tif
9d97c903e0d3723fbd1928f5725f7b96
49bf893478cdd6d5f64096062d9707484eb5a2cb
7911 F20110217_AABOWT leever_b_Page_13thm.jpg
f1422dd61160ad2da0a7c3ebea2205f9
cb6d62246776c42948a00ae825dab977d67546d9
7678 F20110217_AABORW leever_b_Page_06.jpg
a231bebe1cd89034154e1d11ca83881c
327ff142e0276ca26636be49b36a7bb753174efe
33136 F20110217_AABOKB leever_b_Page_63.QC.jpg
3e1dc37e4add313e049f125881a72d19
5e40a0424dd1c23b1ad5702028a6e6a2ff380b94
F20110217_AABOMZ leever_b_Page_57.tif
0f2b7491af0c9bb24881772b7a67eed7
aab510e2259398ce1c5161cbe5df91b6eeb936a2
6478 F20110217_AABOWU leever_b_Page_52thm.jpg
4f790148f828446640ec5cff6211696e
f18acb04b1d2ce5ceeaae55a43dbba0f6adbe401
77599 F20110217_AABORX leever_b_Page_07.jpg
2a9fa9222be1c07ea4853624bde318ce
8ec68b663db971a6c7a5961c1a1bc5d0d17db271
2067 F20110217_AABOKC leever_b_Page_36.txt
97e625c66df834ae6cc89a126480802e
fc2290db8a6e0ba8762efd44c09c0c0a00190bec
31123 F20110217_AABOWV leever_b_Page_14.QC.jpg
a635121271d565063d9a64fbf8d8362e
81a9387ac104a71e67615777940632ef006535cb
11373 F20110217_AABORY leever_b_Page_08.jpg
0ca7cba6e393d96a4a4602c5ad5ad405
6c73b8aa7c516f21a851c2e61f3f0c0bc0fd2f0d
1051971 F20110217_AABOKD leever_b_Page_55.jp2
264c5ca615ad045a344bc8964016f719
6060df17f3d401f6ff457a04178370a62dd18f2e
1610 F20110217_AABOPA leever_b_Page_53.txt
1ad3a2755a9bf1fbe141ae12e091c45b
9c1a1a066f4e02564da63d50c552f4737a03ad65
90861 F20110217_AABORZ leever_b_Page_09.jpg
192c0136414d42e09650a5d5078b595c
141dfdee67bc3d201c11b37fafa5706c32ffb148
F20110217_AABOKE leever_b_Page_28.tif
b1ec96d6ee7b95f27aef041a3b61bf27
a6be58c66c359678ac674e43121b3440d1dd92d3
7725 F20110217_AABOWW leever_b_Page_12thm.jpg
7875307311107ac11ce0a15e8d785b1a
d919e546191a499b1a659ac7eff2d8857b177019
2116 F20110217_AABOPB leever_b_Page_55.txt
1fcad2e866585d883771846e9b5527cd
7e1795a47019b7b4f6c50cd4ab193b6cf48562a5
F20110217_AABOKF leever_b_Page_07.tif
b9775bac46185532e16df335ec08cbef
c6889a92e9cbdac36ee86106925a825fd8de78b7
8181 F20110217_AABOWX leever_b_Page_28thm.jpg
849f97b5a91e2efd51f085fda78e0a85
cd020fe121ce3a5c997e9797d3ae27a13504e2c0
1940 F20110217_AABOPC leever_b_Page_56.txt
2d52b4f36ab65c77b60a41e38c118f05
c87a7e35b43694e0e45f7636bfa5e23ab02f7a29
F20110217_AABOKG leever_b_Page_62.tif
00123481d51cfe64860ac51b0003500a
3eec31687ac7befee84434767bf1202a67b857cd
841476 F20110217_AABOUA leever_b_Page_07.jp2
71945447b3d847ea0a2fe750c74d60f3
b8a437a9cdf514afd838a7ad6e07721696296a6e
8523 F20110217_AABOWY leever_b_Page_29thm.jpg
258dbbffb01481a7dfc0093e426097cd
5a67d043288fd6f0916d71f1a3f2bd50e920cd6f
1931 F20110217_AABOPD leever_b_Page_57.txt
21c03df5105147ed1489e24ada1ce469
6ce4b2b936ba212d0468628ec2330c8eac993f41
1051976 F20110217_AABOKH leever_b_Page_60.jp2
699cc0166e0643efab149c7f0205d987
59c1a1c4102d2fac0d1929925fbadea9127c060d
997720 F20110217_AABOUB leever_b_Page_09.jp2
b163e9cce5f02fb035322c703faa3ecd
84943c7ef7eb308c8a92725b6da140f1679ee1f3
7701 F20110217_AABOWZ leever_b_Page_33thm.jpg
6e1cc53a5fff2f5fe36197071120b9b2
f7b5cda29ec4de63150d9d6fa6f73b31a22a48e9
423 F20110217_AABOPE leever_b_Page_58.txt
798d46bbed42cf4b947cc0e0f795493a
cadf667d602046cc6f04b6515979441849409109
4725 F20110217_AABOKI leever_b_Page_31thm.jpg
ba12c3a8e1d5e5ea7506f0f7be2b4a8e
16998b5e944eab07132a26eea98eccde159eae77
1051941 F20110217_AABOUC leever_b_Page_10.jp2
d358302dad7f513b6cd8b3ad1504e81e
07e4adcd808618f65b184a88da44e886fd3079fb
1922 F20110217_AABOPF leever_b_Page_59.txt
e98742ab14d735a3b72f2b778bcc54c0
4434a3168eb0df733ffec60cea090afa9322ac82
2296 F20110217_AABOZA leever_b_Page_05thm.jpg
7379cd9af7a5a850ff13a74a9b7f2a5f
6fd9144b25859623b18420361b55fa7e50d0e1aa
2008 F20110217_AABOKJ leever_b_Page_47.txt
6222f34372b970e56b184fffcc038386
2ac73c56c276d3328616f9be5128803cd1b49345
1051977 F20110217_AABOUD leever_b_Page_11.jp2
2551ac318ff2a0ec854f99ffec59a199
7585b50efd7b7861864a2988bb5ad28677edb521
2443 F20110217_AABOPG leever_b_Page_60.txt
1b338776af350624fd7ec0febe7012be
a9532afa1d002e6d1510eee7336cd8bdbdea12b5
7895 F20110217_AABOZB leever_b_Page_18thm.jpg
9fc20d2a72b609c1b8e8468d752dd0e4
df6c80ca4c8c1d349bad8659eff760e2ac7605bb
1051970 F20110217_AABOUE leever_b_Page_12.jp2
2f85fed756e1b85d80bcb1f276c7ed9d
8fcbe830ab090d9e2ccd99319836b294aa9e8382
2251 F20110217_AABOPH leever_b_Page_61.txt
91cc21bae1bbd4b516bab7bf8f5832b5
b8dcc6e0aff84e6fa4bec83882a4303f502d1d00
8477 F20110217_AABOZC leever_b_Page_21thm.jpg
d595edf32ad32d4c86c6cc59514a82fa
91de3dfc667474c0e116e0361427dc1294dc6bd5
31276 F20110217_AABOKK leever_b_Page_13.QC.jpg
19885227a1fe4fcee800966037da89af
8c9de35aa6b83c07c62802b8f42286933b1b5704
1051969 F20110217_AABOUF leever_b_Page_13.jp2
f7e54f53390616a416f2f3708ee58662
c13917c15326e31b207954b0bd94bb40a8fb1f6f
2642 F20110217_AABOPI leever_b_Page_62.txt
88ec15fedf93be9fe0a08adadf876662
6fe6d07db51928e065f15030e03b22ac800e7272
8121 F20110217_AABOZD leever_b_Page_22thm.jpg
8131ac1c92d178622eb00a67778f5dfb
0501a87ce42dadb5c7cfeddc7787089bd44cdf85
4297 F20110217_AABOKL leever_b_Page_15thm.jpg
3324d47cd89e731b104a5efe30c229d4
f1dfcfdfd74590acaa7ba76cfee897edbb879314
1051881 F20110217_AABOUG leever_b_Page_14.jp2
ea9a31e401c248cb7a9bfbbab3ff6822
1cccdcf71a380a61a2e8faf19bdfa69cef20cc1c
2495 F20110217_AABOPJ leever_b_Page_63.txt
ebd91c03b9100382beb9a8a667ddd731
f0a7bdc3482bb529786069b8204dfa2aefb44834
8481 F20110217_AABOZE leever_b_Page_23thm.jpg
dda2ab5c3336282bca6acd29fe62539e
3ced0ff7e531e6fa83a337f6e78ba0d80e28199a
F20110217_AABOKM leever_b_Page_20.tif
fb54c2ed3ed0dfaee5fa1d477bfb10af
b7d3361a4f786c8035b0423c51fc673c5e9b7d1c
575879 F20110217_AABOUH leever_b_Page_15.jp2
e2fb902b961610ae32bff6bb11112c13
589dda80e79f494ec65fecb2a1b102a46fea90c3
2410 F20110217_AABOPK leever_b_Page_64.txt
9b13eeecb16fa5234756b8976d72862b
a3a05e6c9337a44b4f481c9a34c9224c8f3e9c6d
8239 F20110217_AABOZF leever_b_Page_24thm.jpg
e2b627b7fbb72acb071278ef42a1490c
093c5a3fd773cda637e3f72d75f565102f5e700b
169 F20110217_AABOKN leever_b_Page_08.txt
5b048808f9baf613eeab6cb57a7a5591
3945b921f7030d777036a39a35fb009c5484cfc0
1026425 F20110217_AABOUI leever_b_Page_16.jp2
69c7e8ddf97c92dc7eb97a9a53dc1221
8a33f04ecabbfaffc7d3ec522460d7ae5d7f2eba
877 F20110217_AABOPL leever_b_Page_65.txt
38079ee71949f500d7bcdae3f56711ab
d9fe0cffc9deb41ec8374964adde7b1735aa5166
8484 F20110217_AABOZG leever_b_Page_26thm.jpg
6d4f1f8a0a50be28eaa2bfdc4981f3ee
1f814864344b5a6103f775936b033ff2a5f05894
8099 F20110217_AABOKO leever_b_Page_40thm.jpg
ff2b16f5930badeb2652c760183e41be
64e7ab7b0d6324cba9d5cc7f1b3c94e2c022bf0c
1051947 F20110217_AABOUJ leever_b_Page_19.jp2
075afd67e9edba21468d62f5f2464153
82dfa8fb25e20dc1ec4876185ef1cbc1655a45aa
7907 F20110217_AABOPM leever_b_Page_01.pro
7a8d3f61ed195b0fb7886d915f486c9a
92b898ae2aa9e793da5caa2751d5b8e31867c848
8372 F20110217_AABOZH leever_b_Page_27thm.jpg
cdb245a50c05ffde2c8c3289648d6f26
081596437b94e35582b75fd883b689888f1f4a11
127612 F20110217_AABOKP leever_b_Page_62.jpg
d02c8b7a5552b89bdf898aa6cc95b474
cefe04f7a1b0e143bb32d8a5b52acd901faf53dd
1051985 F20110217_AABOUK leever_b_Page_20.jp2
c13222eaa6cc48551d41118d446ea24f
3c8a528e4b492abd95e455dec587ee8325c964b0
1200 F20110217_AABOPN leever_b_Page_02.pro
07442777824e47866a997264a1260226
6ebb12ca4e7edab9955e265cd62793e094a6daca
8464 F20110217_AABOZI leever_b_Page_36thm.jpg
0e8ca1ec746b5264e7e18bb4d5df571e
5879a4b679d47dc7657e66a2100e4d85ddaf0189
1051952 F20110217_AABOKQ leever_b_Page_33.jp2
0700e46f9d479f56156f41af8f05f225
e568fb159f8147c8ec21aa588e0f613879afca09
1051908 F20110217_AABOUL leever_b_Page_22.jp2
c553a4f81f73aac7482e0cfc62130d0c
b539ad3e5a534c8261661114da5c37850bb4b74a
12414 F20110217_AABOPO leever_b_Page_03.pro
605cfece1d3aa2e12284da71e4f55b9d
1ceadc85295683f8c51e1ac8be2112b3f85fcfa3
5795 F20110217_AABOZJ leever_b_Page_37thm.jpg
89ec450608428b0bf0c9abc6f5c282a7
6a6bd5376b980154403e509ada1858739f362f45
F20110217_AABOKR leever_b_Page_43.tif
bc7fe3a935b3437213945ed2feda8d5d
76c5433600596c93ca3acf35eb43e0f3aad9c9b7
1051982 F20110217_AABOUM leever_b_Page_23.jp2
0b4898d0411d737c2879178777560162
66cd9eac281e1a762a31bb684a616d3a26851fba
8272 F20110217_AABOZK leever_b_Page_39thm.jpg
e32e5750375cbbdb623b020e121bea2f
b8a2e4d4308feba08bf8a2f61d8b426e8ec4d958
1051925 F20110217_AABOKS leever_b_Page_21.jp2
4d682276cafdc55285890de9957bc58b
94b036794c06edf47b71ca0ed55f0f6b5acd2378
1051944 F20110217_AABOUN leever_b_Page_24.jp2
ed640868880629316510820f45326c78
c2d539c54f89b5a50e5f6e8f192d4a6be1564859
72834 F20110217_AABOPP leever_b_Page_04.pro
a8cd7da45cbafa4e1aad5cb8ebe99972
98d12de5abfe9a90c0e0b8d6894afad0a3aa4eaa
8921 F20110217_AABOZL leever_b_Page_41thm.jpg
86c562e4796e9a1371dda7450076b20e
98e86f7c03a4257425ce1aef28e0f5c7b4f70468
45361 F20110217_AABOKT leever_b_Page_16.pro
650c11eca51770a1eb66cf4aa9f6209e
a0209649796576b9a48181c8a0150cb23fb59d0c
1051962 F20110217_AABOUO leever_b_Page_26.jp2
c9e229b2b46fdcca76bfe1d72f265d69
a8b7088c7862138911432f7c0fb1efb1305196b5
27616 F20110217_AABOPQ leever_b_Page_05.pro
d654ca99829eb65ea70d0684f8763613
1ffdab40c80b942b28c9d20d475286042271bf3e
8208 F20110217_AABOZM leever_b_Page_42thm.jpg
b0b969cdfe7fdb448cd862b372f32046
9277d569b9fa32ca23994dbb77092d98628f8239
1051968 F20110217_AABOUP leever_b_Page_27.jp2
1258052e78489d53a32158c28d5921f3
6b1a1c4809277e47c55c36523c638a842e427fcd
3790 F20110217_AABOPR leever_b_Page_06.pro
72f44e20b9ac6531fda10292922bee31
79ad2584abad49decfc7745dba3fecef38ad8551
F20110217_AABOKU leever_b_Page_49.tif
cbfff2cfa9e6fbb0d8c0ffcd38eaac8d
9f15faa4771bfde618b653011ceaacf47362a4dd
8334 F20110217_AABOZN leever_b_Page_43thm.jpg
9e9a2d02ed4dd22334f21873d0857fd9
cc12e98586ecb30488f796951e5df5a5abd14994
1051957 F20110217_AABOUQ leever_b_Page_28.jp2
1f9cb6109463166c8000aa605c926e6a
3eaf59f2cb7d20129a5ae17b03bb47224950d5b0
36273 F20110217_AABOPS leever_b_Page_07.pro
3341aafaa816e7c127b2f960ec0366ee
e829e44a0f76a3a2603266f15306edc67aaf7bc2
1133 F20110217_AABOKV leever_b_Page_08thm.jpg
71da016b03131fdccbc208f58a62878d
d45a934dd2b885c237c506c3b3deb90ad21b00bb
6361 F20110217_AABOZO leever_b_Page_46thm.jpg
76463dc2d31a3f2169ab19fbf37ce818
465a4f39a6e683546422c9315bb231a44e7a4632
1051913 F20110217_AABOUR leever_b_Page_29.jp2
1aeff6859db389c01bec88567b51995c
b49136cfb095e54f2c9cfae9d5adf85a324c4cd6
4175 F20110217_AABOPT leever_b_Page_08.pro
c548c958ecb6b7fb8e82b4c478954acf
1433d59789c91ffdfc166ff1bff4e38c10913b97
1051915 F20110217_AABOKW leever_b_Page_18.jp2
5fe16ac74493b7233364b701223aba49
948d6d08573da81743e9a2988a3be86b31f99194
8668 F20110217_AABOZP leever_b_Page_47thm.jpg
6d67437b4f1dab30349053e77d316b14
e9e337f6f64e94b54a109a53bd401c81ceae5d03
637674 F20110217_AABOUS leever_b_Page_31.jp2
53aa60116be824c831db18230f3f74ef
45b31e7a780f3b39e4a3ed5d44eb37b929faa059
44882 F20110217_AABOPU leever_b_Page_09.pro
ec5679d64b9f82cc96ac79293f2a8948
ef4a18ae2f9b636e908e485933c20133a290031e
F20110217_AABOKX leever_b_Page_14.tif
057c0ca5d557ecac3fed8152c93fbbc2
40738031de5971158f7bf115026b479ec2fe1ee3
2124 F20110217_AABOZQ leever_b_Page_48thm.jpg
257365add1eaa47a3d09a96a958fdfa3
7efeb77a5e58f2cfaef23bbbfc7913426f0b2295
975199 F20110217_AABOUT leever_b_Page_32.jp2
aae536c208ec591591bdbba726ff643c
83240aa6249204f072c022ce1edf410ae629ca5f
50264 F20110217_AABOPV leever_b_Page_10.pro
33ee04312f83d32f8cada0e64ea192bf
d4d17c89f9b273fb0b55e83f9fd0d3aaf509caef
1024574 F20110217_AABOKY leever_b_Page_49.jp2
5017f93305a41f15071f6fc83944241e
56070f503ed47cc24c5ac0d3fa91fefae1e706f0
7405 F20110217_AABOZR leever_b_Page_49thm.jpg
3afdf0a9e3cf41f26a1d249405b015d5
c9c001937c0b5d9b77a9f6fbb766c9b6336ca162
53111 F20110217_AABOPW leever_b_Page_11.pro
4bd9f25b9407b203faf2dcfa5735c488
162b4e555f4ec73087190cf77dbc8d078fa836af
27715 F20110217_AABOKZ leever_b_Page_02.jp2
b3f66dc3608634726582a6fa45ce06d8
5d7855bce285e104e969c3be3ad7b45b84bdfa87
F20110217_AABOZS leever_b_Page_53thm.jpg
8b34e1189e23eb8a96d5c419c80d25cc
6040bfc6e87d15d98c1316d77547feb707d005a9
1051942 F20110217_AABOUU leever_b_Page_34.jp2
3d759aa84ef8436af286f75e2287a3b5
2b5604872978dafd259341dca82bfa69054a2d28
47961 F20110217_AABOPX leever_b_Page_12.pro
48409504efbe6dbf880fe783ef3cf48e
875e462ae39859eb270a419213f746a0a858fcb2
2333 F20110217_AABOZT leever_b_Page_54thm.jpg
8fc182840b8f4b29ebf893cace2b8055
02a1e2571064651c425f20ea90a78ff806206edb
1051918 F20110217_AABOUV leever_b_Page_35.jp2
8508b9b88f5d4c6996518e936a8c5f32
ec55ef1a0d46c7a896cca2b727af340d2bc40e97
F20110217_AABONA leever_b_Page_58.tif
b39239442fcb37fbf8a1a5df9dde90e9
6996cace6ba31ad739b431a247b46f754aecc6cc
48798 F20110217_AABOPY leever_b_Page_13.pro
4f45b30712c4b8436cf0761688181947
afd958259cc3042e9bfecb17452aeef864a9d7e4
7726 F20110217_AABOZU leever_b_Page_55thm.jpg
cacc60ac28b00ddb49d1e5bf1d5d0cc1
49f5d565bfc06cb779b42758708f11bc55365778
1051981 F20110217_AABOUW leever_b_Page_36.jp2
2d973cc127f5f52e18d84e3e15fe63e6
0ca15ba4779edb91527600d935631d05c9c8d664
F20110217_AABONB leever_b_Page_59.tif
c79fadb4d36de76105992417be1824fe
5dc710a37a1a9639d216c79f4dd1dffb7dab33ce
25594 F20110217_AABOPZ leever_b_Page_15.pro
c496b1c364bae812907269cdbe155f7d
3647c56f57c9b3053b6ff1257e418f992346ff3f
7162 F20110217_AABOZV leever_b_Page_56thm.jpg
840426d6dca5fe6a53e7b46ec4d1228d
46ca8bed4340e68fb20bf72a1f375a0f91f746e4
769375 F20110217_AABOUX leever_b_Page_37.jp2
8b76ca0cd186eb18d43a427ded582b9a
32bbff380e29ff24fd1e9ae851d42b5bd4b75d33
F20110217_AABONC leever_b_Page_60.tif
e83d2018131699f70e1dd8d5af5a5bfd
caa75b35219b5042c4486d709e8af5e62aae8717
1834 F20110217_AABOZW leever_b_Page_58thm.jpg
a619d97e8d0e42f41ee05e32077eb1f7
862db2001c4ce7b0805f353407558c052cbc344b
837047 F20110217_AABOUY leever_b_Page_38.jp2
cb435a0aa132f8542f90f6101b822bd4
c680f7351098cde46c547bae15cfa34afb19d2f4
F20110217_AABOND leever_b_Page_61.tif
f1110b7ff382032bda88c21422f1ab0c
069822a647873e76382b3515927a5a6245fbe679
103789 F20110217_AABOSA leever_b_Page_10.jpg
e70f5227acb73a42227fb2a8f417f177
56f663f0b1af79236c7ad52967f15d772d8f5d86
7182 F20110217_AABOZX leever_b_Page_59thm.jpg
eb7338cf6b2d058d9e5d30d75c607e25
8997eb20ac0ba8b91615e6f5e06670e215168be7
F20110217_AABOUZ leever_b_Page_39.jp2
4d03d0b00fc22ea6761ed290d49d2c17
5013291c7f026d193ddc83bf40388c5b07e2e3ce
F20110217_AABONE leever_b_Page_63.tif
2ec4cae70e79e17662bdb1e3bf5b0893
bfe63027eff6347ed812907b57b62e15e5c5736b
108169 F20110217_AABOSB leever_b_Page_11.jpg
93386e78be78858344d3e1ed41872126
1425cb022bdcff3bbe4c627513edec6f21fe8b91
8319 F20110217_AABOZY leever_b_Page_63thm.jpg
cd2e3726b178f219f58ba3fe480c48d6
b8fb47ebb2b1b223edcfc2372da460c7ece33040
F20110217_AABONF leever_b_Page_64.tif
24a45eb20a243989afd71eb86a8652b6
3af1d9dd73b421f8f4378deeefae98f171e2cb14
96433 F20110217_AABOSC leever_b_Page_12.jpg
926bd0d946298b4c7b0331367026e9c3
01c580e320cbd66239f59c93f5d3cf431088fd0d
F20110217_AABONG leever_b_Page_65.tif
c365e409ec5bcc11b782c50097058792
706c9b60de20d89091e8e536daf58ab48de500fb
F20110217_AABOXA leever_b_Page_34thm.jpg
027423658438515f335106130cefa864
27d6e8e5d5a061ed56a93a94831d4955b829f778
98721 F20110217_AABOSD leever_b_Page_13.jpg
a840e092c9914ad3656cc5b893409df6
07f8f62575a549eec4b7b41a33e4675a295d48bd
7919 F20110217_AABOZZ leever_b_Page_64thm.jpg
e0bd37ff9f8d7e5cb1d72c3e377ac428
45357942c8a7ac8ee4e8e5b4b7446b7520fff941
461 F20110217_AABONH leever_b_Page_01.txt
ea6e41402841acfff36a5deb877fa03b
bdef1e9df18e45fce37a6b328c5dce46bd816375
33548 F20110217_AABOXB leever_b_Page_50.QC.jpg
3f228612c7a3804f711a236a46936df9
88511e140a6c9f1e68521c1f4fb3afeca2b05076
2079 F20110217_AABOIJ leever_b_Page_28.txt
88db18e22ddfd652ab35e98dad05eafa
2080ddef35b9c5b5de7d7b670710a7973b949536
98405 F20110217_AABOSE leever_b_Page_14.jpg
87f4e36e66f74b04aff9fbb3d4c2cc5a
6321e208704362bfa71a8e89a0f0545687e3c3fa
548 F20110217_AABONI leever_b_Page_03.txt
e06ae2f39d02905ed3d5ac9673ca4a4d
45820db21d399d9a9d49f8c87f98b5fb2ef116f4
6060 F20110217_AABOXC leever_b_Page_07thm.jpg
97286dfeeb09595ff9ef62c790a49680
13170f7dbed59600d0e98dbb2306fcf1ab9121e5
102914 F20110217_AABOIK leever_b_Page_17.jpg
97a2dd4b38ef578c3f2a05c75cd69430
95c12df283d38000e25b764b59e76d8e7b5245d3
53922 F20110217_AABOSF leever_b_Page_15.jpg
e6d578cbd4f247a964037f0868153bbd
e380b2285e0dcbfaed9e8e1ea51ea9dc2ee5709d
2951 F20110217_AABONJ leever_b_Page_04.txt
6b53ee343a21d8177b79403a072e96ee
7b493c9794bfebe816dc00389b80fcedfc80c8b8
7771 F20110217_AABOXD leever_b_Page_30thm.jpg
d87f644ef830b4e29bb300fc894ae2cf
ddc5f6ab450bcce3ebe5f5307d145282be1ff8b5
7159 F20110217_AABOIL leever_b_Page_57thm.jpg
9b48b20c896aa544e9ce78a07ba33250
0fcad612642ec541a0de6c5f398752b2f272068f
93839 F20110217_AABOSG leever_b_Page_16.jpg
cec7b72ca022b3bd801c6414393959d4
88b7a1027e900ee82a17ce99f4440da5419e50ba
1221 F20110217_AABONK leever_b_Page_05.txt
cc8631acd7f2ffd307863a92dfc7f760
827906116db9fa25723b4a55ec2ef035006920a3
7172 F20110217_AABOXE leever_b_Page_32thm.jpg
c3c5d578da6e893ea190a0c5db6b3764
779739f9c845439a9af4410bb2ec72271eb86a2d
8399 F20110217_AABOIM leever_b_Page_60thm.jpg
48f887abd722cd7735cbaf78a7067414
892b14e567e9a2e9c4129243bd7d165cc3c9903b
99880 F20110217_AABOSH leever_b_Page_18.jpg
a161dcd104208d2e97dfd033909e2cb4
d28ef5b092898358cc8a4ea3118dcdcb2bdc65c9
239 F20110217_AABONL leever_b_Page_06.txt
c99ec84114edc2ec69d8f9fdea3e55f9
baa2ba4ef35d460470d81b020d64730e2ebb51ed
8365 F20110217_AABOXF leever_b_Page_20thm.jpg
7075445baffb326de29079beb8c0a33c
a6ccd60c6c5ab66b48c3d10e3cb48721fcd9fb68
37571 F20110217_AABOIN leever_b_Page_46.pro
d666bcce302396edfbece114470e58ae
caa546c17cf25634ade61a21f2d66b66aad42163
100123 F20110217_AABOSI leever_b_Page_19.jpg
942a3c9af85db46eb14878f80fe63379
610f68ed8a4ec35b888208a3f290f4345eb84918
1626 F20110217_AABONM leever_b_Page_07.txt
7a19436117dc492a12ff4d3d254e373b
e609687eaeac4889e92b6da4705532ff3d761d56
4164 F20110217_AABOXG leever_b_Page_04thm.jpg
d7fb72644b10fa296bf674355bcf56a0
1e9572829b95cad870b143bf582b1d9170b8239e
60635 F20110217_AABOIO leever_b_Page_63.pro
ccce64b140d69fbde4f4ffb6e072131f
c5e6b88502f40682b15e10b8debf7f6ea0ff6555
107406 F20110217_AABOSJ leever_b_Page_20.jpg
baf3e95e94d9fe5f48c838c27384a714
fee29ef1c444097032fe3b74180b5c195118114e
F20110217_AABOXH leever_b_Page_17thm.jpg
dc619380615930c3c6b87a6172e861b5
33359a256eddbef810705f5578f31625bd6fd9ca
1017 F20110217_AABOIP leever_b_Page_15.txt
5649b511374239c9c35d9742366c867c
da0dbced135c8ae9b3f0085adcc52af07139f9e8
106858 F20110217_AABOSK leever_b_Page_21.jpg
adee050513e660d95b8b0aef334f55a4
0563c3cb7d4c47a066d943611aea3d7c1cf36fea
1839 F20110217_AABONN leever_b_Page_09.txt
599cc0685be33d9f3a2b6baeca0c7198
4e205697d9ac07ff2c6ce6ab60095e2ba11c3d39
8027 F20110217_AABOXI leever_b_Page_19thm.jpg
605bdf193edaa9b06f2a083fc8826719
5c64d639dcadd010fcdf2d9d5196e3905d08dfbb
559 F20110217_AABOIQ leever_b_Page_54.txt
9969803b8f6c1f91fdc3b3b35bab8fb2
533de6876140e33ce58c8546aa57f43230a2c0e7
102395 F20110217_AABOSL leever_b_Page_22.jpg
fc353d6b8e15cf732033612d6ded25d2
ae2a45ccd4151f9fb5de4d7d822212ac752e6853
2080 F20110217_AABONO leever_b_Page_11.txt
1d8c31e0daec5d6d92205a5855e88f78
544ea6215bb3dc14c1f93465c5e97fdbdf5da4e3
8324 F20110217_AABOXJ leever_b_Page_05.QC.jpg
9d3c12a84e8c3c845bb0fea263c11506
4f3b23e89baeaf568d19ae10013b6a5a01c07332
9729 F20110217_AABOIR leever_b_Page_58.pro
313b21da8bc737c089b9ccb8ced74664
bd07a514edf361f18d3276af2a004fb7fb70575e
103022 F20110217_AABOSM leever_b_Page_23.jpg
08f7f1277d60f71f2c7a1a89d537e6bc
1ea329affc0c7f024394dd0681f4dbefcc64db78
1891 F20110217_AABONP leever_b_Page_12.txt
dd1af4663e565d21dcf5c71fd895677b
4991466c3a6b6b24cb386477df63441d87c82579
31405 F20110217_AABOXK leever_b_Page_12.QC.jpg
d79f1599d45ebf2cb64787f1756f7283
e903d62415f73e2befbc0507a9fbf2ca5c915a6d
55730 F20110217_AABOIS leever_b_Page_53.jpg
507ab1ccc057ba2309644599f7427526
54bdad082f5f6c2140f4a968817f2863ff8ba483
101587 F20110217_AABOSN leever_b_Page_24.jpg
deed7cce96a6d671a86f06ec1da21252
e2760b72a914ddb39639d881fa1e04590d6a503e
917 F20110217_AABOXL leever_b_Page_06thm.jpg
aca58b4d737a0684baade5d2fa67fb89
1890896ce496ba7d6d24f132a2d3dac8b96ca6fd
48869 F20110217_AABOIT leever_b_Page_14.pro
7bf0e337fd59d33f44e4a8cec9112409
f578d134a9fe0f610aa8ff0c250ef86a3605ffb7
102070 F20110217_AABOSO leever_b_Page_27.jpg
79c4c286a7d6370a04f52c2cefd3792d
8f3b166d19f81952c5747f33a5240cf35895caae
1918 F20110217_AABONQ leever_b_Page_13.txt
a5615f386ac60f3bc80de4190e02caad
d5819695538b62e26302490a65bbcb86fab0a7b5
106608 F20110217_AABOXM UFE0014962_00001.xml FULL
9658ca42c596fcc0b653d4e681689157
78f586e54c5fc8efaee45fc894c5d050295dd65c
1972 F20110217_AABOIU leever_b_Page_10.txt
57302364a244f7cede37f51d5d5a6691
f296c108029e374a92abfcf94614c088ad597e8e
105410 F20110217_AABOSP leever_b_Page_28.jpg
3b7c1db77a4e775e1525f04b71302034
6f03776ac030bc5fb6bcbbd36eb4300dbfe09c6b
1921 F20110217_AABONR leever_b_Page_14.txt
77c4dbfc7ba1e37b46bc012912b960e2
9d286ecef43b915019692eebd83010715ea9502d
7789 F20110217_AABOXN leever_b_Page_01.QC.jpg
346f50f3155b97594ac891afd579c18c
51db692a744ecb2b66ee0a6d607260c6c83097db
8299 F20110217_AABOIV leever_b_Page_35thm.jpg
143bde7c7a928888096e642ab1374bd4
9dba03ff68fe56faaf22a889a2b6d69e1b71a34c
105686 F20110217_AABOSQ leever_b_Page_29.jpg
4b13a64b725b96d59076b64509207bbd
7aabe1fbe7902ada02cd0f133cb77d271e45b7b9
1880 F20110217_AABONS leever_b_Page_16.txt
443b209a5df9a4ec4b2f56df3236f20a
767426053bb2a37073e0ba78a9b009ffa9a2b8bf
1599 F20110217_AABOXO leever_b_Page_02.QC.jpg
20d8fb1ce82a378269aa3bde72b7ec35
7b90ba5a8393a5e12fdbaaf29ca60b0e175135ee
29726 F20110217_AABOIW leever_b_Page_16.QC.jpg
cad4f3924a68e7769ec82d9758c241aa
e5510471e0bcb87b47fcf61136db0aa2f60da381
97773 F20110217_AABOSR leever_b_Page_30.jpg
70354022eb91a6ba8bfee219ceba4a7d
b59e01d29231f4afbf8cb5e438813a5573fc18d0
2014 F20110217_AABONT leever_b_Page_17.txt
03fbf502b4c5dc7ba698e5f48e61fa23
6de71a40fc27eba7baae1f8c7d44f4da59444d65
8953 F20110217_AABOXP leever_b_Page_03.QC.jpg
2b78b85ce490e6e72327a22b054b87b9
8b04e8fe1b7be9ddb90424df6846db41e0d92b3f
52222 F20110217_AABOIX leever_b_Page_28.pro
70ddf3b9e4dd82dbb9c68bd5dd13e2d5
f18c789a37ae8160fd0103e420612cb1ebb4b33c
1929 F20110217_AABONU leever_b_Page_18.txt
4fc1f1d6a414221935b653e5cde77038
1ef615594f5e45f7048e6cc0980c63c34d040739
16889 F20110217_AABOXQ leever_b_Page_04.QC.jpg
a1deeebdf7788afdf0526a6040fa7b3c
e235b32aed722b9cbb1a8421b1e7564475b9d830
8385 F20110217_AABOIY leever_b_Page_10thm.jpg
5c5c03f8043e4e952ca2ef868a64b425
75a8ef8c83b112afee55202762676a44f9dc6669
59863 F20110217_AABOSS leever_b_Page_31.jpg
2d0e5029085fd151b66be350636e1256
b98753025eff82dd9888397c1e2af9072775d248
1949 F20110217_AABONV leever_b_Page_19.txt
73dd191230ce3ccba5cf485637f989cb
6d8b6ea4cdcfb2f79026b76acd7227c25d5bcbe2
29230 F20110217_AABOXR leever_b_Page_09.QC.jpg
3dd3080ae62c47960e3e8d099b3c6e49
4f8afc2c2a6cb5d59966f0c6da80eec7ccb53c3f
51340 F20110217_AABOIZ leever_b_Page_29.pro
e9bb0f7b5d95a655127423b89a3a020a
a48bfb34976d661e25333f3472bca6d8c8433b40
90075 F20110217_AABOST leever_b_Page_32.jpg
35392f287ac7a52c62ad0787173834cb
6fdc68a830abca32177a8961b7bac1dd473d73a3
2222 F20110217_AABONW leever_b_Page_20.txt
b197ab856b414e26950cc3dd3b9e81fb
70239fd255e632f6ff1db7db0ae29bcea747df2a
33545 F20110217_AABOXS leever_b_Page_10.QC.jpg
a7b4e9582f02275f9e22abdeaa290a2c
21ab6ffc7cc6e73e3f4212adc92aabfb7ca1d2b4
95647 F20110217_AABOSU leever_b_Page_33.jpg
a30316391a480ca30c11fb5bed61670e
e0da00ca1a0757a4e90a52cf4648279fe16ee2b2
2117 F20110217_AABONX leever_b_Page_21.txt
15772c89d4f880ed69c398968de0d7f5
a23919e44fd45758647d37a4aab8e67615b404ed
34817 F20110217_AABOXT leever_b_Page_11.QC.jpg
bfe2cddd5c445425bce1d9f7bc3357e2
f5be5bbf8f6749a0156ec9b63a14608726c76268
102370 F20110217_AABOSV leever_b_Page_34.jpg
8272637cca09b2a9f93c431968c547dd
e83fe4433c56f2ae69e5f272e587f6f394eb9029
35879 F20110217_AABOLA leever_b_Page_36.QC.jpg
f5074995eb05023b77b3d881d9789f46
8e0b1c4f643a0e832325dcd0bff077545280c605
1987 F20110217_AABONY leever_b_Page_22.txt
607e1ad0d909c0b866b24cf472e257ed
ba1a5fc0a704be70ac5979119964f92be2dae276
F20110217_AABOXU leever_b_Page_17.QC.jpg
75f95a49daf408704b251d199af0c502
8aef15391fa59317b06107457225b1454d1f1165
108272 F20110217_AABOSW leever_b_Page_36.jpg
d65f79bb0250047cc73b6f95ea813f07
8a8f63437bfabf5a56e5ce173bdd1dc986d00960
F20110217_AABOLB leever_b_Page_45.tif
a3da636e7dcf31bc93380e114fe760e7
799c16473e1cde311544da02936f4fb47d408a03
2034 F20110217_AABONZ leever_b_Page_23.txt
df37faf91f8d9f66e41a5d83414fc04d
be32af3a82bbc3f5172275f83bf7259a34a530a1
31545 F20110217_AABOXV leever_b_Page_18.QC.jpg
3d20e917095ec09567f696766b6270c2
62980dc2ec26d73ce3da62a18b80010296a04f13
71027 F20110217_AABOSX leever_b_Page_37.jpg
c12c898d848927000fcee300438d7c61
6fb1bcd19def44d941a8234eb1770b933c53f6f6
78708 F20110217_AABOLC UFE0014962_00001.mets
dd5a77eaa77ac106855c0374b5fbba0e
4d525dda028a6ab0df19797e49af1ed475c45e54
31570 F20110217_AABOXW leever_b_Page_19.QC.jpg
272dd51c8d659c2740a880461da77a7b
180186583a050a564b73fb7aa71468036a57c2d9
51306 F20110217_AABOQA leever_b_Page_17.pro
e39881894805da7f4abb7eb834343ff0
40393abab2c8cb3d92d8dd74dd7a661be8f78178
78493 F20110217_AABOSY leever_b_Page_38.jpg
d4c3405677e685a88ac7abb1d0b8e1ac
9baea5989f7e8d9ba63ca1f36a233d6cc9a255c4
49013 F20110217_AABOQB leever_b_Page_18.pro
b5e7772aaacb8ef0be26fe02314a89c5
f6b31434984f697fedc4a0f7497a87753162bc51
100131 F20110217_AABOSZ leever_b_Page_39.jpg
a0d6a15dba16bd45903de6ae49baa6a0
c78c1c13a242cb199b352ba8251507a572c9d177
32594 F20110217_AABOXX leever_b_Page_22.QC.jpg
9a7e3ba45c7ebe76728cda1af8cf437d
e742b8144608ba0cf1a60bef20370e8125f72fe8
49289 F20110217_AABOQC leever_b_Page_19.pro
36eb55c87482748286e29748aebd980f
62153a0d3dcadaea536241b19434e774bbc0aff8
F20110217_AABOLF leever_b_Page_01.tif
6ed83124449b367e0b129081746c1e7e
1a75d18c5ed66ab516b16fc92ff0d007519661ec
33242 F20110217_AABOXY leever_b_Page_23.QC.jpg
53b204b0e188abff32a4a8080e05df48
a7c3c5faad807e670f24a68c1a3d5f2c6985a143
55474 F20110217_AABOQD leever_b_Page_20.pro
bb5ed5469390ff6db758679463118097
57ae336bd5b66f3f3e41aa99ba4bf70a3e882748
F20110217_AABOLG leever_b_Page_02.tif
113ba89ff946cd398dff93997e1a5b7b
ebed49a46f6e9a6396bd9374190863bec87b952d
F20110217_AABOVA leever_b_Page_40.jp2
3ac233e24a4efb6621bcdac6b98f0d2a
97757a61efd03614e8d6bb6055a9614f40e0bf97
34249 F20110217_AABOXZ leever_b_Page_25.QC.jpg
330c0b523cd984400fb4bf8130bee3b3
f7f31a8eccb410ede6b7be99e8796fa88912bcb1
53254 F20110217_AABOQE leever_b_Page_21.pro
0d7d80b4ebcfe8a5d990a22859c2f7b5
7c11e4f797f0508dfe840349693199ec5c63ae61
F20110217_AABOLH leever_b_Page_03.tif
00412cae2f8c4ad8a8692a2827cc0e59
ee3c234f250be3525b986cc0bc2978d452c7ea98
F20110217_AABOVB leever_b_Page_43.jp2
13d8efc6f361017be2eed625f5369156
5f5063f5e5fc819a7a4e735680ba2dd8ac56b614
50593 F20110217_AABOQF leever_b_Page_22.pro
9c0a625f629c979ebb5b63cbe6e7450e
568b4647c7769dc252273d322cf273356a30278a
F20110217_AABOLI leever_b_Page_04.tif
48cf1e4786fc93c4879cae8fb70f03ee
46396553334e8a40fbb2011bff972026f74823dc
1051980 F20110217_AABOVC leever_b_Page_44.jp2
a67d6b02245a80ac9179f9568144d7b1
24400d16dbe454edef31802fafbdbb5a5b16f2fa
51896 F20110217_AABOQG leever_b_Page_23.pro
435075eb2ff9504bd018b47a53f933b6
d12fc15a53618e0a8e56804a91fa79be92bda5c7
F20110217_AABOLJ leever_b_Page_05.tif
b3ca851b384fc6d56791e230efcefaab
e2cdb14eca1303970bb28d03d5c52c2843a8ab3a
1051983 F20110217_AABOVD leever_b_Page_45.jp2
a51912e7c37a83b00ed53982b13a6dce
aac4f53a61aa30948dc8d3061a9a544511d7c336
50257 F20110217_AABOQH leever_b_Page_24.pro
8aa26fd6848b1ba65fee5bc0d2407e18
25e67ff6be0aa5410ed7f815dbdc8f8b6a87e1fe
F20110217_AABOLK leever_b_Page_06.tif
3f18901f3fb67a8c7ee51c4413319c26
92dfa1470e6419583cfc60bf1fc9e309e62f1e5f
740422 F20110217_AABOVE leever_b_Page_46.jp2
6be75e5e638c9bf64682b9662e007103
40b3a6755fbc68bbd8999637730926a0c75d1dd8
51897 F20110217_AABOQI leever_b_Page_25.pro
d5c73c4cb4c631501ffcf0226907a43d
d2de21b65facd3965f12318f38ec375246657751
F20110217_AABOVF leever_b_Page_47.jp2
cfda0cff2500123c4898795d54694142
7be724d945827cf3a16f623b7df751b8333ad001
F20110217_AABOQJ leever_b_Page_26.pro
0cbcb1511fb5f12f51c1a984a8f82ba3
9223d85ed3333efa011f62b5cddbc96f5250a446
F20110217_AABOLL leever_b_Page_08.tif
9a0d7d921515afca49fe911d91f9f1e9
970267cfe83528effa2fa610ddc298474346b30f
234682 F20110217_AABOVG leever_b_Page_48.jp2
3b5c3410139276809d08bf46e8ce4c35
bdf5fc1349e336c10afc3c8eea8eb6ff3a972f53
49805 F20110217_AABOQK leever_b_Page_27.pro
623989aba8ca2c08acd562d645de1932
6a0d439a00814e46df0e14c7cb7c5a1e4719b8c8
F20110217_AABOLM leever_b_Page_09.tif
779eec430910b46515c29b96b91658fa
42cf3160f992d1378a39b5fc06498b20bc17c223
1051978 F20110217_AABOVH leever_b_Page_50.jp2
cc830cacfa47b1642f04651d6f02efa8
ed25a5704fc2945061bc708a8fb46e5c8cbc726f
47803 F20110217_AABOQL leever_b_Page_30.pro
9030e8e42d082d471563de2698fb69b2
1d816efa2bcd0decdc9ce9d68342b1053a0b28be
F20110217_AABOLN leever_b_Page_10.tif
4e169c59649ee30a2a234111f55e4efb
635da822ac46aa7c9b14f5e8f906f2bcbb9ae748
1051974 F20110217_AABOVI leever_b_Page_51.jp2
30d58c60e84715123694694f16b45eaa
b0ec801aac6945f6f706541d236a9053770278b6
28157 F20110217_AABOQM leever_b_Page_31.pro
0615686cc6066f9215a352ddf953d6d4
3eee8eb55fab9730244cb589a1caadecc5cfa12c
F20110217_AABOLO leever_b_Page_11.tif
bb81f0fd4cb71637dd95968b8d21fbf9
5ab55aabe73f3bed301753ea52df088a9c269f77
848756 F20110217_AABOVJ leever_b_Page_52.jp2
303e0069c3f84f59e67c981bf4f2d311
b1fed653a7a170431f0a56adff882f75c3383c5f
F20110217_AABOLP leever_b_Page_12.tif
2bea0369e4ebecbf37ef991ca6dc6b86
e834dffab1b3f9225cba232bb5bce41e40c86c88
282600 F20110217_AABOVK leever_b_Page_54.jp2
58b6cd704924232c8f3bb7c035c772f5
2c7dc08463959cbee1271266443a69e7779a8b57
43349 F20110217_AABOQN leever_b_Page_32.pro
9b84aa1fc4e64c4bcd405ecc1c8ec735
926815d9e2127c3c49b03ba0e790907446054c20
F20110217_AABOLQ leever_b_Page_13.tif
5e4b7839b7c9cc7f2b84713e4dcbb32e
db6416677aeec9b8e97cc9cc473be905848a8ad8
F20110217_AABOVL leever_b_Page_56.jp2
1e4c2076f1f9fe433c7103d3b913ebe0
0a396383e9657b3122b857c36dbba6e7703fbe4f
47821 F20110217_AABOQO leever_b_Page_33.pro
fdcc8e15507e5a852a4ba910431d41c5
fdf39af8aaab3c79958998d6c51b10e79551f8e9
F20110217_AABOLR leever_b_Page_15.tif
4f8a19fb666798a2fdffa88312808f78
1dd7b2c83849c4f00dea33f2c3f29469f4a21fb4
F20110217_AABOVM leever_b_Page_57.jp2
82ce836696c813fac79454a5a3d5da5a
66194c07320fb3332abf6f15e6173817f9a9e1a5
49712 F20110217_AABOQP leever_b_Page_34.pro
50ff9e65b21a1074b16f7b6e38eb6b68
62a78f3e18f43f2f5198dc55691699c944db1f3b
F20110217_AABOLS leever_b_Page_16.tif
ad21c5d553c3067b3a8dd1b349487fea
bf734d70bb39a127389089fe1013f3d0fb52227a
214933 F20110217_AABOVN leever_b_Page_58.jp2
cbdffbcf6c56b92850bd8af03d1d3978
5f1aa71b3a66a691cd048130ff9f6f8c43beb43c
F20110217_AABOLT leever_b_Page_17.tif
0f66af702f6ea7bca46ecfb74243fee7
e073bf663408aa148c5457599eb41d2e08a70d2c
1045612 F20110217_AABOVO leever_b_Page_59.jp2
fccb34eaf5ebacf148761e75f02469c5
718c48458ccfbab934e178df2056a4093fae7120
50637 F20110217_AABOQQ leever_b_Page_35.pro
2e0e30d93aa8b0e01f3616e17e736356
039e0b8c76ecbdf018bf5a79a7e83b0fc82b04de
F20110217_AABOLU leever_b_Page_18.tif
0ac6034bd4682fb3c39d66f380c7f8e6
de127635d20fa715aa09c64401ec94236450ff38
F20110217_AABOVP leever_b_Page_61.jp2
ee2d0e825baee3fb34b4c6a430a594fc
64e09c0d5068f8f6feb43fea7c787018a18de31d
52620 F20110217_AABOQR leever_b_Page_36.pro
3b1d3ce24291291d0b1774fadb50137d
64b7b2fd9a334ec726588ff4ffcdd167c4887ed1
F20110217_AABOLV leever_b_Page_19.tif
85a4121f44a447c9996caee1654b667d
c7c045cdd8d8765148ef3bdfc80e7bc26dd8ef3b
F20110217_AABOVQ leever_b_Page_62.jp2
b67f94f2ee293958b33594be99343960
1999808da0cf945dd62dd3b2ca744c25702cabfa
33881 F20110217_AABOQS leever_b_Page_37.pro
bc077d50d0c9cf16b7aa4b719e539796
6d3ce01cd8e37e27d0bc09e1a5f5238f7bbe1d08
F20110217_AABOLW leever_b_Page_22.tif
66693e2441d2b630456276d9d380b42c
59e9af6eb1efcf544ff36a576fc7e2467fc7b708
1051955 F20110217_AABOVR leever_b_Page_63.jp2
cb4b84d4e9c8fbc4244424c21e5a9142
bc3e1f6ef32b77b0f3946e71746dbca4a6c11525
36929 F20110217_AABOQT leever_b_Page_38.pro
a7d80d9eea3228b4124a085bb4b9220a
2a718ff1b9cf33b8d266008706af85bfd5e248ab
F20110217_AABOLX leever_b_Page_23.tif
3878ecac1fdcbbae553ddc2517ff70ad
1453412e888ec1631169cdeb48f90db9e577e031
F20110217_AABOVS leever_b_Page_64.jp2
13a149ac65696212abd64eec941fde6e
853a470ad183c5dd836e4481d552b8ab5c753fd6
49403 F20110217_AABOQU leever_b_Page_39.pro
ae549a0214921771370ec6ecc07f9bfb
a4ca52916ef8c697f11e7f2f0caf38b7ebf47836
F20110217_AABOLY leever_b_Page_25.tif
6cb20c68687fa0549f26b7f1426b014a
7d3549f70b33274249fdcc1df0f8544c87c0e74c
492223 F20110217_AABOVT leever_b_Page_65.jp2
8de9e46831b6f9eea4524efa4ef645b9
b9ae08aa10e59bfd1ee42b95daa4a16e1d2e1043
50903 F20110217_AABOQV leever_b_Page_40.pro
07f174286933b9f91883eedc93547d57
129239da5e53dcbc0b28069386bb8ab37e97d6a3
51442 F20110217_AABOJA leever_b_Page_44.pro
8c181edb70de6a5d7ffd12512610a1d2
a43faaee2e99ddc39dce0fb5650f1d691ed0b364
F20110217_AABOLZ leever_b_Page_26.tif
788425e61fe255fc7afd0b90acef7b2a
2bf917afd60655cbac904674d1df607a2908c138
329963 F20110217_AABOVU leever_b.pdf
e43f5ccbcad4813857a3674eb584d2e4
f3f102aa993f1d00fad1fb72be6f397e3e973515
54690 F20110217_AABOQW leever_b_Page_41.pro
63beaf814831948db01a15f57389e796
fe01e11ef96d7667d7c51536fe261669de9643d5
1051963 F20110217_AABOJB leever_b_Page_42.jp2
6773fd0f6357db3a59c12a70a2d35ed8
57357c1c7c6ebac236941829927c872d3d46ff86
50327 F20110217_AABOQX leever_b_Page_42.pro
865e295dee248a616b49eaa8f8823b5a
4d2a1cd1c0ac61cc3e7d73247a217c57c30a39b6
7360 F20110217_AABOJC leever_b_Page_16thm.jpg
cb866bf53ea5b8f2eb2a8a6485213d7d
0bb46cb56cd08573281edf6648200686ff6c068a
24995 F20110217_AABOVV leever_b_Page_38.QC.jpg
1f1d5a13cdb605e349bafde2f9842479
eadc39e2692bb29078bcb4c40b9bb79a48409eb9
1978 F20110217_AABOOA leever_b_Page_24.txt
32c774c759c59967b7192c12c99eb1fa
9982d4f7d088d161998da355b52a3fcb51e87c6d
52493 F20110217_AABOQY leever_b_Page_43.pro
fe93fc6f932d0b2226712406648b1999
320cc48dfa3c5d840fb784ada1d796807bc20032
96982 F20110217_AABOJD leever_b_Page_56.jpg
7992f9d52ff63be08ae75076a9c2da23
8ead9f8ebdd96f73e6a3ccbd5a389e6ae9348431
7932 F20110217_AABOVW leever_b_Page_14thm.jpg
f555f73e1fb334bf7cac67366422d1b2
57ae49941102d8ee02330e33a12f7c73f5db553e
2061 F20110217_AABOOB leever_b_Page_25.txt
be56a073ffef9e249218ce0243daf19d
fb85be4a86af9ab52180750e9474de385cd27d39
49350 F20110217_AABOQZ leever_b_Page_45.pro
e7527c159d259d2fbec57beda2040e5a
a5296eb4d79acaec5ce0758d6e29209efb3ea20d
F20110217_AABOJE leever_b_Page_21.tif
1ee6024db8e71800cc9b49d18b87df7e
d8e9536168ee7cd5973199ba55933f25f82f80d4
4260 F20110217_AABOVX leever_b_Page_08.QC.jpg
ce022441d15e053018bdf0e0c65e0a3e
dd3a0e44291ed9390d20e2ae613a66817455de94
2037 F20110217_AABOOC leever_b_Page_26.txt
e51bc9f7036e307fd74bf70b515c95b2
251c786b23330a2f3e0a060e8c488c27a7c1f633
23165 F20110217_AABOJF leever_b_Page_58.jpg
6624fc96922f31eeffe213741cdc8b55
93a6e5132941a7e0f9264e20aadc70e86d5cab46
101838 F20110217_AABOTA leever_b_Page_40.jpg
693ad70589854da8ee378cd581be5b7e
d8e534447e666c06d8d849a21a959f79ed8670b0
8536 F20110217_AABOVY leever_b_Page_50thm.jpg
0197897dd12ab653864d842e3fbae05c
f470b01fa3ed5069c24922dd8de18efa571145a4
1954 F20110217_AABOOD leever_b_Page_27.txt
35a4fe7cdd342f9be91ef6839dad1c2d
4c17d2b5d4886431e21bf42b9407bd4111f12013
103548 F20110217_AABOJG leever_b_Page_26.jpg
45f59a85d7c39f47599bbad21eae2c07
57edb8d0ce09dbf3627177580837e78fcdfa67c4
108440 F20110217_AABOTB leever_b_Page_41.jpg
ba70c8a1c3a2121bda4c2bfb6c23dbcd
562947169c87758f9dbf7186315b7e70596396a9
6589 F20110217_AABOVZ leever_b_Page_38thm.jpg
79e7efc0315c834f5388569b84c56f89
4972ab3a25efa09c4925235ff6cb869987518fd4
2020 F20110217_AABOOE leever_b_Page_29.txt
b24379a3ba74af905d51d2dcfaebb04b
68088bca96251e55e190a6e81225ea1896494457
32363 F20110217_AABOJH leever_b_Page_33.QC.jpg
faf3d91307d60c3a8d4173cc43b44165
be0a4d52070d583b6ede994928ed21ae22228968
100242 F20110217_AABOTC leever_b_Page_42.jpg
07234b0fd09f56b414cff4da72621c25
4a56613b199e646559256cf2417052ba742c47e7
F20110217_AABOOF leever_b_Page_30.txt
cd4e23b95fe43fe2a4d18bdef9b59f2a
f4f0d86b65a50ad1471712604dcc4d8f0460e95d
F20110217_AABOJI leever_b_Page_44.tif
cf9ad05fa6b1736f2b928c3413c28a45
c066c3f673af03834fc2564313c0f66bc7f54ada
4089 F20110217_AABPAA leever_b_Page_65thm.jpg
abab0a1a874bf47b21630038001c8081
fa1684c166707be688eef374605be7718c11b1bc
33960 F20110217_AABOYA leever_b_Page_26.QC.jpg
001ff094cba2e1672bd3089e56e0a78a
1cb8bb522a4aa27f764b6682d7d93e33292a892c
104895 F20110217_AABOTD leever_b_Page_43.jpg
bd41e383c66473c18cf814b2c3fc7b21
8d1e6516c1959e2bdcdf83c7df087a08ce29be11
1124 F20110217_AABOOG leever_b_Page_31.txt
7739ee86416ba54d00babd9e768ea363
11381aeb0820ee05f93ae7f2729caf6b68adc5da
34101 F20110217_AABOYB leever_b_Page_28.QC.jpg
7ce95dc947fe6d39045d2e99a1124ecc
9b05c56b5fbf0fbf342935a54df950e513f24422
104946 F20110217_AABOTE leever_b_Page_44.jpg
46d4eb6e14fe1dc0dce720086d50a908
3c3e96884932ad10bae4b83115ec4acee1e66b8d
1819 F20110217_AABOOH leever_b_Page_32.txt
318c0076697aaf042bf05ec8407754c3
ff24433ddaf7a83d7403bab1ba29932f149c2866
F20110217_AABOJJ leever_b_Page_25.jp2
2488af214cafe582e6baed0455dc3940
75f70103d96421800593c6ca2d2f97e69746807d
31792 F20110217_AABOYC leever_b_Page_30.QC.jpg
2d3a5d3612ef051bbe64b1ce9502bc0e
73610e46208e737bce9c0cef20030622d39dd6ee
69780 F20110217_AABOTF leever_b_Page_46.jpg
9a05a2fd1d82efb1cd19fd46427ca523
0fe5515cac346e9f789bc70e47d15f604ada3074
1964 F20110217_AABOOI leever_b_Page_33.txt
e8ba3df941f9a56daf1ec9d8aa5352fa
394604ea5bdda0e5ad8e42e2690e8e2d53c2f774
F20110217_AABOJK leever_b_Page_41.jp2
9b45097f1075fca2e5750bc69f6c7ebf
2b294953202a2cd48d23be989a2ac288e33b6c5b
19194 F20110217_AABOYD leever_b_Page_31.QC.jpg
e79dee6a0a77ac9406048b157ff2efbd
eb12aa5e6f92a4fe54579a790047389da0d667d5
103457 F20110217_AABOTG leever_b_Page_47.jpg
623ec1571c34f5473c789e49872af13a
f8a175ae885f3e7a6071e62ae957d499e00dab15
1958 F20110217_AABOOJ leever_b_Page_34.txt
3fb6f44a22078edfae92c73473845f41
c7a8d92babaf1c67ca14c08ed5db075b4de28ed9
32317 F20110217_AABOJL leever_b_Page_51.QC.jpg
3ac2c2d53079dccccce7b49de48ed720
450d38865dce85243663ae0151cd432c2dcf069e
28690 F20110217_AABOYE leever_b_Page_32.QC.jpg
f546eeb72567e93812b5ecbbbb94b905
68a6d105f083463306eeb95d746421416e675da7
24022 F20110217_AABOTH leever_b_Page_48.jpg
1ca931bde6c7b3e54ebfa430b50aad37
2bf353086c96951cd2e13874d5226da5875406f3
1992 F20110217_AABOOK leever_b_Page_35.txt
1297399b5e3d3b71f419763572079521
7501425be8d06e693ba14a0c0b771e377e4d2e7b
1051986 F20110217_AABOJM leever_b_Page_17.jp2
75d098554b892e0d0386be7d7e780dd0
6244bfd6b3e94db060854a2dc761ba57de0baed1
33874 F20110217_AABOYF leever_b_Page_34.QC.jpg
435f09938e1932b2c70aae9b4cb87594
0980853d0959f601df53016ad6324cbc6bb5d8f3
93365 F20110217_AABOTI leever_b_Page_49.jpg
dd8d471858ae0f5b1cc1b5f454f44870
f8d31f7524706f1650ee2c1e9d22f22445f2325d
1343 F20110217_AABOOL leever_b_Page_37.txt
b7ae93a6163002a03aefb414c79b4d26
aab56f63b71ed3a2e5457a4932b7365ff7bc77a5
94989 F20110217_AABOJN leever_b_Page_08.jp2
02e64c2d973a1c2e61fc96da119156cf
9dcd5654bcf1577297277090d566e89f8490f18f
33392 F20110217_AABOYG leever_b_Page_35.QC.jpg
37d2b908fa8e91035bc44409b8e9e51b
52ed20dd40c8614422333ebf7b18910a3c47be18
1649 F20110217_AABOOM leever_b_Page_38.txt
44e1ab1652191ebb1a5346051deaf13e
4e93a2153499fd7a854eb1f00d00050e2bd9efba
570768 F20110217_AABOJO leever_b_Page_53.jp2
e4ad885d99d6e8911eb68a1a3e3d344f
cda2890343a2cbc830a598a1c57641b3abf5d27c
103895 F20110217_AABOTJ leever_b_Page_50.jpg
ece2653c41f0152ba530113def6179ed
8f984c2e9e8264a0b5934962508e9f05bfd8ba3c
23720 F20110217_AABOYH leever_b_Page_37.QC.jpg
2185c871f7316893cb035d35d9a7647d
d63f72b0aea94bc23d8f491c9497179b7ba6f55d
1943 F20110217_AABOON leever_b_Page_39.txt
a2d48dceb40128c0a4df0c9700dde805
8221912480c445122ac2f5c70a437121bffaba2b
8245 F20110217_AABOJP leever_b_Page_45thm.jpg
ea662961fc92fd9c88daba8faea066a3
84c5dc13234d396747fba3c86fb2d418cd700efa
101643 F20110217_AABOTK leever_b_Page_51.jpg
745cd5006f885835517554e2db418e58
94652f1ca3e44de2150f5399f3ff04e2a07c7aa7
32923 F20110217_AABOYI leever_b_Page_39.QC.jpg
47af18196e6ec9164c02262abb5e7a2c
62a03d1becaf9ae62d3f2d6642e9c4d6df59e4d4
23181 F20110217_AABOJQ leever_b_Page_46.QC.jpg
602fd94e06248570d77bb45c6aba0e01
721cd0cb2531dcf021fb9a5661979b3d9d30980a
77891 F20110217_AABOTL leever_b_Page_52.jpg
48dfde51daafcdfa49729be77fcc8dbd
8215e99af76e3d4d3f070bccc57f3004db64f0c5
35171 F20110217_AABOYJ leever_b_Page_41.QC.jpg
461b0dd2657837a7b9bb249c52622a0f
f4ff673b22bafea0707db274a92a6562d0279cf6
2005 F20110217_AABOOO leever_b_Page_40.txt
371e60e427b0a4f82c1ed9d770d96692
c949cfef10f4b438337944a20db00b68d9cc28b8
100785 F20110217_AABOJR leever_b_Page_45.jpg
702ebf2cb44262e1c7b89f25335cc3a0
071d2dc1cb4a4d70fba26e99ed80ffa66dc3c3b9
28328 F20110217_AABOTM leever_b_Page_54.jpg
5f2733ec198f5d2479049b6a9ec93675
43f5d5c052e287748874260e59b215dd44f8bbec
32522 F20110217_AABOYK leever_b_Page_42.QC.jpg
5483ae603092f8d9a9b9f4954de3aa4c
43c60537fac5773639666fbf2b1066727f0fb214
2140 F20110217_AABOOP leever_b_Page_41.txt
857e6a0efdc2b711c5240e832fab1707
75e7d3d05962d741048c87e05231a9c3c4976fda
8301 F20110217_AABOJS leever_b_Page_44thm.jpg
baf19cbf45bf26db0803da856d00feb8
74d60c5a31678a86053d4b89de872fde15db8b9b
106425 F20110217_AABOTN leever_b_Page_55.jpg
58567e24f5a655be47037e27135d1c2c
7914526aed904087111a7b1c20a32740c707d407
33760 F20110217_AABOYL leever_b_Page_43.QC.jpg
bcb3847416f8207fda1abaf9a3b33460
167d13c81cebdb2abe3d0f0fed5bd21b8a9b0ea9
1977 F20110217_AABOOQ leever_b_Page_42.txt
0691edaaa60b51fb5da9b9baa2b238a9
dd2d4321ed7c38c988e0aad16059c8a6808304ce
8418 F20110217_AABOJT leever_b_Page_51thm.jpg
cf3d78e8aa421a6b855e5ef79620f115
de4ea3c4d482e7ab6ab0961b4a2063132d921451
99834 F20110217_AABOTO leever_b_Page_57.jpg
69934e16c815866162d36167db028bc0
368a4021e568a2eefdf562110d10214caabfd18b
33456 F20110217_AABOYM leever_b_Page_45.QC.jpg
7f43215621bef1975e668208bd9f2053
0223e00058f12784d06d81dc699753ea751a9514
2095 F20110217_AABOOR leever_b_Page_43.txt
68549f5a351bec7b1f9ebbe4f5f05ef8
7592603fc9fb50cbff37eda8576ad0df4af126e5
1051975 F20110217_AABOJU leever_b_Page_30.jp2
b9ba6fd810c17eeb98ec896bc6a72fee
df49618fb2108aa7cd7a69ade25a8f77ca945edb
94818 F20110217_AABOTP leever_b_Page_59.jpg
8007f6484b26ec71174a9e96fc5fef3c
6751ffef478fa7b0c2e9e637a36a4608d15ac3c5
33425 F20110217_AABOYN leever_b_Page_47.QC.jpg
b0762f9979fa4345d59b912f97c1886b
d1e2afe7c8fd7815b01fdba57d940d1f55ef9738
2072 F20110217_AABOOS leever_b_Page_44.txt
08d21d0b74af58c5ac7a1b4c41b6513e
4374901c28781164b45672a992e48108944bf085
F20110217_AABOJV leever_b_Page_24.tif
caeddf5b3281d7f74b9acd51097f736a
bde31bc60c1fa9b2e3d8490bea64fc6031e6de7e
119568 F20110217_AABOTQ leever_b_Page_60.jpg
e1425db3553c458bd37fa4da2e4e214d
1180ef282d48ab34798e94da511155809dc83709
8098 F20110217_AABOYO leever_b_Page_48.QC.jpg
a5c209c4315aba0615ee2c52214dacb6
6cad8850f720ae1856be60954c8df7b766841ac3
1948 F20110217_AABOOT leever_b_Page_45.txt
4eeda119bfa6f7fab0cb33b1a88bb3ff
b500b39b9293981d9a302b2d4042cb2bc1cce100
127 F20110217_AABOJW leever_b_Page_02.txt
93ba7f164263b3513b96d86490eecc51
369b03b328b64280c2cdf1b4dc82a45b7ba8eac1
107348 F20110217_AABOTR leever_b_Page_61.jpg
6b927269a39f6d31795b5dcb7909c88b
ddf2777e1de40c651ff3720b9ef81fbf8b85fa7a
30300 F20110217_AABOYP leever_b_Page_49.QC.jpg
2c6370d0c42bb1aaa05d3ece4c4fc7d1
b20b6079829c941ee4cfe8ff6e3a442ce3d77128
1733 F20110217_AABOOU leever_b_Page_46.txt
46fe35da084c8e4ab9d09cb64d833731
18cd44999efa84ce2cc8f2da90a3698e54e982df
28006 F20110217_AABOJX leever_b_Page_57.QC.jpg
f38bce2015f886c8141aa77ffd708942
52cd8613533097f532980f43c3fa23059c9ea966
118801 F20110217_AABOTS leever_b_Page_63.jpg
7b1657f85778cf17ba2cce9732a2aa2c
2a6fbb5a5163ce95c58c42821e6410d75ef335e7
8183 F20110217_AABOYQ leever_b_Page_54.QC.jpg
29f2e0676d8b050ce4fc1885a2a10e75
cacf8b242bf3edf78c36afa51a05c60c49afea52
466 F20110217_AABOOV leever_b_Page_48.txt
064fe9b09db143c10604d570cd5b59d1
6b05ec2eb488e25470317b3b1443662f82daa73a
103149 F20110217_AABOJY leever_b_Page_35.jpg
a6cbd37fe8be0f99fc41e50ec44fe8c6
d145aaa93f3decb54abe27f04694b4360abdfa26
27582 F20110217_AABOYR leever_b_Page_56.QC.jpg
c27221c5a21e1572a6165ec255aa679e
da037528baf16be083a4a3834a1acf0bdff607d5
1885 F20110217_AABOOW leever_b_Page_49.txt
fd2bf23525fc609623643338d30b2485
df59ac612550303e620037d0248a42f00bf35e98
32334 F20110217_AABOJZ leever_b_Page_24.QC.jpg
9f75cf77fed3f78e882fb3df3bf649a4
6652fd75c0370ebb80193232395e31046d34161f
118356 F20110217_AABOTT leever_b_Page_64.jpg
7491d8204d95157481f8723ffa0eefda
e1c863e1eabc1f7522600f35a79eb74ec757c0fe
6516 F20110217_AABOYS leever_b_Page_58.QC.jpg
e6ed81b82043097caa8a43161e90f033
e85f022872b4e1513aa3d3bff688b22c29fc38dd
F20110217_AABOOX leever_b_Page_50.txt
3f26a5b408bdbdf928464871c5192af4
943ea82a642bd3a2a177559cc900b725b1329167
47273 F20110217_AABOTU leever_b_Page_65.jpg
35323f145454fb94568cb8ae7329d430
312aec8f214c9e2305e37b063c4d0ad1e1f6265b
28141 F20110217_AABOYT leever_b_Page_59.QC.jpg
7face7caeac1050a5309c767cd8c2400
53268971faf92c2232c46e88d9cf5914e971e80c
1983 F20110217_AABOOY leever_b_Page_51.txt
f78aeab3e559612c0704d93098f6948f
7675175790de82f40d8a870dd91591c23e756384
236336 F20110217_AABOTV leever_b_Page_01.jp2
5a3f5e2d0a7a2797cd11003027251e23
a0f6222b2ba1c7cb3be77858044196e6311a21c7
F20110217_AABOMA leever_b_Page_27.tif
24c71b74f6f91ca650ca079cec64a6b9
599f0d8574c9fee591375a7135a6381358ca6c07
34023 F20110217_AABOYU leever_b_Page_60.QC.jpg
bf982754704151041efc557ba9327d00
abbe164c37beb4afb2734d9339e3b039c7218b7d
1517 F20110217_AABOOZ leever_b_Page_52.txt
6bc78e7c02e8840ac526405414f6afd4
21c9829e19706c1e3ef323ca0ab8bcfc27ad9471
285500 F20110217_AABOTW leever_b_Page_03.jp2
484adbd4bb1f2d34286870dc57d1773c
4451d9ab95353862fd9162a1921bad089f34689a
F20110217_AABOMB leever_b_Page_29.tif
db28155f92cbd06644f40c3fd5ede999
75bcfe70b3d1e30c923278d87511010f1b229101
30723 F20110217_AABOYV leever_b_Page_61.QC.jpg
8221b909328a42e1df8868f6a9449223
827fad7651231cc4b27952ba91748d01de74e8a3
746712 F20110217_AABOTX leever_b_Page_04.jp2
d5bb3f1109578817ee1ac90600541abb
45da9c3824ce53c46caa2a8ccf741d76592a95b4
F20110217_AABOMC leever_b_Page_30.tif
359cbaff4a09b3b9b1bd20daf438bb21
e649ed70ede6f66253402bc48e910762df82a703
15879 F20110217_AABOYW leever_b_Page_65.QC.jpg
7606c5ca189c1c5ac15446ba5317adac
36557d256a676b3238b5900d03acbc1dabe73922
51063 F20110217_AABORA leever_b_Page_47.pro
c3a6a47c3f4609b400cf74cd0c13b5f0
281863c8f42e96fc0c7e129c8a876165d82a8184
304444 F20110217_AABOTY leever_b_Page_05.jp2
c4eff8729cd3e4db93200d9fa51fefb5
d040eb54be568a5245a93ecc19b9df2e0407d326
F20110217_AABOMD leever_b_Page_31.tif
d34093fea76deca889fd76397fb1f386
1d3edf4852d4b5e271e5b240b2614f775a280595
2240 F20110217_AABOYX leever_b_Page_01thm.jpg
e3cd2358f0463362625f0550ae3261c2
dc64cdd0425c2cca52f27c3368ca8f7f46b1f960
10676 F20110217_AABORB leever_b_Page_48.pro
a389f6b65de40a7cd09f9000a7531715
63004506cd1122350024125d5f56a8a3bc01a5f7
59814 F20110217_AABOTZ leever_b_Page_06.jp2
2950b6c9d4aa1a41cbd761cf9ff0424e
45f1ee1034314965277fdaaf55d192dc8f378d50
F20110217_AABOME leever_b_Page_32.tif
6f05862d4b9a1de7fdc582592bb96867
bd6f14b128e8b9e82fc65d7b1db8e07a561d7cd7
46012 F20110217_AABORC leever_b_Page_49.pro
30abba97786514c394029828f7bf6d0b
acc13949bc644f6165dbadbedf15032da9e4e6e8
F20110217_AABOMF leever_b_Page_33.tif
951aa9796dff2f933373a6ee1101026b
4ec0ecb6a3ba54033a24945b08a9766a72b02d00
628 F20110217_AABOYY leever_b_Page_02thm.jpg
ac1e9e3c7af0728dbbbad502bec0fa62
0418f77e9554493c98ed5208f3edac7d5b455d14
2459 F20110217_AABOWA leever_b_Page_06.QC.jpg
207d1a9c40df63aa25c1f946ec9be821
6ff698d7fb706c70487d59be7f92e7375013c32e
51888 F20110217_AABORD leever_b_Page_50.pro
6b8028cfa26ffb48a8d920144a6e2e8a
95c156ee0efcef534c2cae11ff12f1c7b37e3650
F20110217_AABOMG leever_b_Page_34.tif
7e1b1fea3df887c7387b1cdac7640a22
6d0a713c97593f224154c19a908af7c00e82803e
2505 F20110217_AABOYZ leever_b_Page_03thm.jpg
724e8a7f10b89767ac43a11f3c68a5b3
082415200f7e2a63e5a72ca76ca9098f20194f88
7097 F20110217_AABOWB leever_b_Page_09thm.jpg
d7b52b10b9820f5b1969e735e0b7091d
5c1e33a775052416dbd46f81329300b7b12a61e1
50473 F20110217_AABORE leever_b_Page_51.pro
10dafa7aaf9171ed06b7cb07deae73ee
e82c742543707fbef08d7cfbedfbbe722a622ece
F20110217_AABOMH leever_b_Page_35.tif
820d6eadda6af1404e1b81d44b8168ec
b1a03b895a4503be48297372da2bf6b7b6322c13
23841 F20110217_AABOWC leever_b_Page_07.QC.jpg
6bae97dd4d3858fb7ae835ea90e94483
330c1facd7e8afcccd94afaabb09b60deeaa63bd
38175 F20110217_AABORF leever_b_Page_52.pro
fcb50c1964656af9748cb17affad2723
8cdb85a093501e140613236417316d6b4614ff46
F20110217_AABOMI leever_b_Page_36.tif
f09bce6b211c07f77ba4f018a0d22494
8b77905d1948ea74b0eecc89f1b2a69feac2ed9c
17799 F20110217_AABOWD leever_b_Page_15.QC.jpg
d1a9bcbed53d63f51f7161e9ab0b694a
967fe6a377f7562ba93c6c5b1caa7d298671162a
34698 F20110217_AABORG leever_b_Page_53.pro
06fa85e32a57c0342404de036a934be2
f3ac729bad510e6db3f74f111d776c1df354636f
F20110217_AABOMJ leever_b_Page_37.tif
3cb02e9551bdaad868570354a5ac3095
8c378bd000f2b03acfbee0d70c2c3b7437a05f91
34794 F20110217_AABOWE leever_b_Page_62.QC.jpg
eb1078c3a8934d3a1c319b111a507914
32e7d454b3ef20bc2124074f98eeb126dd83d9c7
12392 F20110217_AABORH leever_b_Page_54.pro
c9164f767e456fcbef12100ffe521473
f1443ea02b6beaf09deba0531d661fde662c2c70
F20110217_AABOMK leever_b_Page_38.tif
f1e8ae4046b424a0032dca80bef8b017
b122df7e460a2da82d2f125902eec02974f93e47



PAGE 1

FORGIVENESS IN CHILDREN: THE CHILD/ADOLESCENT DISPOSITIONAL FORGIVENESS INVENTORY By BROOKE A. LEEVER A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2006

PAGE 2

Copyright 2006 by Brooke A. Leever

PAGE 3

iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I first wish to thank my family and frie nds who continually offer me support and have never failed to believe in me. They mean more to me than they know. I am extremely grateful to my mother Brenda Leever, for her dedication and helpful coordination efforts with this project. I would also like to thank my advisor, Dr. Ken Rice, for all of his time and wealth of statistical knowledge without which this project could not have been accomplished.

PAGE 4

iv TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iii TABLE.......................................................................................................................... .....vi ABSTRACT......................................................................................................................v ii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 2 LITERATURE REVIEW.............................................................................................8 Forgiveness and Forgiveness Measures........................................................................8 Children and Adolescents...........................................................................................13 The Heartland Forgiveness Scale...............................................................................17 Research Questions and Hypotheses..........................................................................20 Social Desirability......................................................................................................22 3 METHODS.................................................................................................................24 Participants.................................................................................................................24 Procedure....................................................................................................................25 Measures.....................................................................................................................25 Child/Adolescent Dispositional Forgiveness Inventory (CADFI)......................26 Childrens Attributional Style Questionnaire-Revised (CASQ-R).....................26 Childrens Depression Invent ory-Short form (CDI-S)........................................28 Lie Scale from the Revised Childrens Manifest Anxiety Scale (RCMAS).......28 4 RESULTS...................................................................................................................30 Instrument...................................................................................................................30 Descriptive Statistics..................................................................................................30 Analyses......................................................................................................................3 0 Confirmatory Factor Analysis.............................................................................31 Exploratory Factor Analysis................................................................................32 Three Factor Model.............................................................................................32 Parallel Analysis..................................................................................................34

PAGE 5

v Two Factor Model......................................................................................................35 Internal Consistency...................................................................................................36 Convergent, Discriminant, and Construct Validity....................................................36 Qualitative Responses.................................................................................................38 5 DISCUSSION.............................................................................................................41 APPENDIX A CADFI ITEMS AND FACTOR LOADINGS...........................................................45 B QUALITATIVE QUESTIONS..................................................................................46 C QUALITATIVE RESPONSES..................................................................................47 REFERENCES..................................................................................................................51 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.............................................................................................57

PAGE 6

vi TABLE Table page 1 Correlations Between All S cale and Subscale Scores.........38

PAGE 7

vii Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science FORGIVENESS IN CHILDREN: THE CHILD/ADOLESCENT DISPOSITIONAL FORGIVENESS INVENTORY By Brooke A. Leever August, 2006 Chair: Kenneth G. Rice Major Department: Psychology The current study investigated dispositional forgiveness in the child and adolescent population. Specifically, the factor structure, intern al consistency reliability, and validity of a modified version of the Heartland Forgiveness Scale (HFS), entitled the Child/Adolescent Dispositional Forgiveness Inventory (CADFI), were examined in a sample of children and adoles cents. Reliability coefficients were found to be adequate with this sample, and relationships with cons tructs of validity were found to be solid as well. In particular, the relationship of fo rgiveness with depressive symptoms (as measured by the Child Depression Inventory-Sh ort Form; CSI-S), attributional style (as measured by the Childrens Attributional St yle Questionnaire Revised; CASQ-R), and social desirability (as measured using the Lie Scale of the Revised Childrens Manifest Anxiety Scale) was explored. Results support relationships in the expected directions between forgiveness and the chosen measures. Internal consistency reliabilities were

PAGE 8

viii reported for all scales and factor structure was also examined and a proposed two factor model provided. Directions fo r future research are included.

PAGE 9

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Though no clear-cut consensus exists among researchers as to the definition of forgiveness, most definitions include a key component of renouncing anger and resentment. Forgiveness of another does not necessarily involve reconciliation, though that may occur as part of the process (s ee Thompson & Snyder, 2003 for descriptions). McCullough et al. (1998) assert that forgiv eness must include pro-social changes in motivation, and they provide criteria for distinguishing when these changes have occurred. Thus, they consider the important aspect to be forgiveness as a process involving interpersonal relationships. Thom pson and Snyder (2003) and Thompson et al. (2005) emphasize that a forgiver relinquishes the negative attachment to a transgression, transgressor, or sequence of events involved in a tran sgression. Negative thoughts, feelings, or behaviors are all contained within the concept of negative attachment, with the eventual goal of forgiveness being a more positive or at least neutral reframing, which results in a weakening of th e attachment. Hargrave and Se lls (1997) conceptualization provides support within itself for the restorative, healthy co mponent of forgiveness; they describe it as an effort to restore love a nd trustworthiness for relationships in order for victims and victimizers to put an end the cy cle of destructive enti tlement. Finally, Hill (2001) offers what seems to be one of the most encompassing and noteworthy descriptions, effectively articulating the esse ntial depth of the forg iveness construct and the beneficial nature of forgiveness by descri bing it as being more of a discovery rather than an act of will.

PAGE 10

2 Within the realm of dispositional measures, only one covers what appears to encompass the three main aspects of the fo rgiveness construct: the Heartland Forgiveness Scale (HFS), measuring Forgiven ess of Self, Forgiveness of Others, and Forgiveness of Situations. These authors use a definition of forgiveness in which forgiveness occurs primarily through a weakeni ng of the negative attachme nt to a transgressor, transgression, or some compilation of the two (Thompson & Snyder, 2003; Thompson et al., 2005). The negative attachment may then tr ansform into positive or neutral, providing a mechanism for the forgiveness process to unfold. A review of current forgiveness literatu re reveals that most researchers view forgiveness as adaptive (e.g. Mauger et al., 1992; McCullough, 2000; Thompson & Snyder, 2003; Thompson et al., 2005). Forg iveness has been linked to psychological health and well-being in general (e.g. Mauger et al, 1992; Enright, 2000; Scobie & Scobie, 2000; Worthington, Sandage, & Berry, 2000; Ripley & Worthington, 2002; Thompson & Snyder, 2003), while unforgive ness has been correlated with higher psychopathology (e.g. Mauger et al., 1992; Maltby, Macaskill, & Day, 2001; Worthington, Mazzeo, & Klewer, 2002). At the theoretical and philosophical level, forgiveness has been seen as evidence of ones objectivity, a demonstration of acceptance of ones embeddedness in the world and of freedom, with it forgiveness and selfforgiveness come (Cavell, 2003). Unforgiv eness has not been clearly defined but typically has been thought of as a lack of fo rgiveness. Unforgiveness has been attributed to a lack of letting go of ne gative attachment to events, ex emplified by behaviors such as repeated ruminations, or a pervasive negative affect. Attempts to reduce unforgiveness, often due to repeated ruminations, can lead to the presence of addictive behaviors and

PAGE 11

3 psychological defense mechanisms. Unforgivene ss, as part of a persons internalized negative affect, may become detrimental both by causing addictive behaviors as well as by being a result of such addictive behavi ors (Worthington et al ., 2002). Contrarily, a handful of researchers believe forgiveness ma y not be beneficial because it may leave the forgiver open to further victimization or victim-blaming (e.g. Bass & Davis, 1994; Katz, Street, & Arias, 1997). However, the forgivi ng of others is not the only aspect of forgiveness argued to be beneficial. Witvliet, Ludwig, and Bauer (2002) demonstrated the powerfully beneficial aspects of being forg iven by a victim as well. After imagery conditions in which the subjects imagined be ing forgiven, significant improvements were reported by participants in basic emotions such as anger and sadness, moral emotions such as guilt, shame, gratitude and hope, as well as perceived interpersonal forgiveness (Witvliet et al., 2002). Discrepancies as to th e beneficial nature of forgiveness exist mainly due to differences in the conceptualiz ations and definitions of forgiveness chosen. Current research thoroughly conveys the multidimensionality of the construct of forgiveness. The typical notion that forgiven ess only occurs from one person to another (interpersonally) has lead to a predominance of research examining transgression specific forgiveness, or the extent of ones forgiv eness specifically toward another person (e.g. Hargrave & Sells, 1997; Enright, Freedm an, & Rique, 1998; Tangney et al., 1999; McCullough, 2000; McCullough et al., 2000; Witv liet et al., 2000; Wade & Worthington, 2003). Transgression specific forgiveness relates to a particular event, and therefore may not necessarily be predictive of a persons willingness to forgive across situations and contexts. On the other hand, dispositional forgiveness measures attempt to remedy this limitation by emphasizing that the devel opment of a forgiveness measure holding

PAGE 12

4 predictive qualities remains key. Knowledge as to a persons willingness to forgive across various circumstances and events reve als more about the pr esence of that trait within an overall person, viewing forgiveness more expansively. Assessing dispositional forgiveness across co ntexts (e.g., Berry et al., 2001) provides a beneficial alternative to transgression specific assessments. Scores on measures of dispositional forgiveness tend to be specifica lly related to mental health and well-being, whereas scores on transgression specific m easures do not tend to be (Thompson & Snyder, 2003). Furthermore, measures of forg iveness that are dispositional in nature, rather than event specific, provide a bette r basis for comparison with psychological correlates of the forgiveness construc t (Thompson & Snyder, 2003). Dispositional forgiveness, as opposed to transgression sp ecific forgiveness, offers a broader window into forgiveness as a whole, since it gives due credence to the multifaceted nature of the forgiveness. The dispositional forgiveness construct falls within differing domains, or subscales. Forgiveness may occur inter personally, as exemplified through the transgression specific model, as well as intra personally, as revealed through ones willingness to forgive oneself. More recently, interest has begun to aris e in a third area of forgiveness, that of forgiveness of situations. Forg iveness of situations has been introduced as specifically a dispositional aspect of the forgiveness cons truct and has been a ssessed along with the previously established interp ersonal and intrapersonal domai ns. Measures with reliable scores have been created to include forgiveness of oneself (Mauger et al., 1992; Worthington et al., 2002; Macaskill, Maltby, & Day, 2002) and forgiveness of others,

PAGE 13

5 along with forgiveness of situations beyond the control of either self or others (Thompson & Snyder, 2003). The distinction of a construct along interper sonal as well as intrapersonal lines leads to a better understanding of th e depth of this construct of interest and a more specific view into its dimensional nature. The c onstruct of forgiveness clearly contains interpersonal as well as intrapersonal co mponents, existing as distinct yet related concepts. As would naturally seem to follo w, the psychopathologies associated with forgiveness and unforgiveness appear along sim ilar interpersonal and intrapersonal lines. A distinction in related pathologies exists de pending on the type of forgiveness (or lack of) being assessed. Maugers Forgiveness of Se lf (FS) and Forgiveness of Others (FO) scales have been correlated with the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), revealing a significant association of failure to forg ive with negative emotional states, such as depression, anxiety, anger/distrust, and ne gative self-esteem. Lack of forgiveness has also been specifically linke d to eating disorders (Worthington et al., 2002). Personality factors have been found to highly correlate with dispositional forgiveness of both self and others in the e xpected directions, esp ecially for the category of neuroticism versus emotiona l stability, in which lower levels of forgiveness related to higher neuroticism (Walker & Gorsuch, 2000). Failure to forgive self has been connected to more intra-pun itive pathologies, such as anxiety and depression, while failure to forgive others has been associated with extra-punitive pathologies, such as social alienation, social in troversion, depression, and psyc hoticism (Maltby, Macaskill, & Day, 2001). Mauger and colleagues (1992) also f ound deficits in forgiveness of self and

PAGE 14

6 others to be related to higher amounts of overt psychopathologies, for example schizophrenia. As is apparent, depression has been prev iously found to be a significant related pathology of failure to forgive self and othe rs, and therefore depression may represent a manifestation of both intraand extra-punitive forgiveness failures. That is, depression appears to be a main component of the ways in which failure to forgive may manifest and influence a persons psychologica l well-being, and therefore de pression is important to consider, theoretically and practically, in forgiveness research. As will be discussed, researchers who developed the Heartland Fo rgiveness Scale (HFS) report a similar relationship regarding the a ssociation of depression with lack of dispositional forgiveness, manifest as a significant ne gative correlation. Following this premise, the current study plans to examine correlation of the Child/Adolescent Dispositional Forgiveness Inventory with related constructs of interest such as a child measure of depression. Developments in adult forgiveness resear ch include broadening the scope of the forgiveness construct to be inclusive of forg iveness of self, forgiveness of others, and forgiveness of situations domains (i.e. Thomps on et al., 2005). Evaluation of forgiveness, or lack thereof, has been increasing in em phasis on dispositional factors for measurement rather than specific event examples. The us e of a dispositional measure lessens the difficulties and ambiguities of the relationship of forgiveness to similar psychological constructs. Correlations and conclusions ma de under a transgression specific framework by nature impose stricter circ umstances under which forgiveness frequency and behavior may be predicted. Consistent with these tre nds, a main purpose of the current study was

PAGE 15

7 to create a measure to meet the needs of the younger age range while retaining the integrity of the dispositional forgiveness cons truct and keeping up with current trends in this area of research. The creation of a dis positional measure of forgiveness appropriate for the child/adolescent population follows in th e footsteps of previous adult dispositional measures, allowing for a dynamic insight into the nature of forgiveness across a broad age range. Such a measure is necessary to examine the psychological correlates of forgiveness across a broader age span, as we ll as to open examination of the possible developmental influences on this construct. The study of forgiveness development as a dispositional trait prov ides a means to possible illuminati on of implications this construct may have on later psychological functioning. Future research in this direction is predicated on having a useful dispositi onal measure of child/adolescent forgiveness available.

PAGE 16

8 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Forgiveness and Forgiveness Measures There has been much debate as to the concep tualization of forgiveness and its aspects. Most consider forgiveness of transgressions interpersonally to be the forgiveness representative. However, approaches to m easuring forgiveness range from presenting events of specific transgressions hypothetically committed towards a respondent and asking their propensity to forgive such an ev ent, to more broad statements intended to gauge ones disposition to forgiv e things beyond ones control. Mauger and colleagues (1992) created the Forg iveness of Self (FS) and Forgiveness of Others (FO) scales, two 15-item scales endorsed as true-false by respondents. These scales provide a solid basis for emphasis and distinction of two different subtypes, which fall under the greater umbrella of the construct of forgiveness. These scales tap the failure to forgive others and failure to forgive one self, which may more accurately characterize them as measures of unforgiveness than fo rgiveness. The Forgiveness of Others items revolve around taking revenge justifying retaliation and re venge, holding grudges, and seeing other people as apt to cause one hurt, while forgiven ess of self items involve feelings of guilt over past acts, seeing oneself as sinful, and having a variety of negative attitudes towards yourself (M auger et al., 1992). These m easures generally take the approach of measuring forgiveness from the nega tive standpoint, in that they appear to be tapping unforgiveness as indica tion of ones lack of forgiveness of self or others, implying unforgiveness and forgiveness would ex ist on a continuum in which one is said

PAGE 17

9 to have more or less forgiveness regardless of the negative or positive standpoint of the measure. In the transgression-specifi c vein, Enright and his colle agues developed the Enright Forgiveness Inventory (EFI; Subkoviak et al ., 1995) and the Willingness to Forgive scale (WTF; Hebl & Enright, 1993). Enright subscrib ed to the mindset that forgiveness is something that occurs between two people, excluding the idea of forgiveness of situations. Thus, their defin ition is a willingness to aba ndon ones right to resentment, negative judgment, and indifferent behavior toward one who unjustly hurt us, while fostering the undeserved qualities of compassi on, generosity, and even love toward him or her (Enright et al., 1998, pp. 46-47). This definition clearly exhibi ts the necessity for benevolence in order for forgiveness to occu r, and Enright and Ze ll (1989) also assert that, the fruition of forgiveness is enteri ng into loving community with others (p.99), suggesting that reconciliation may be a part of forgiveness as well. The focus of this scale is, again, one specific transgression. T hough respondents are asked to respond to hypothetical as well as one real situation, th e narrow focus of a transgression-specific scale makes the correlation of forgivene ss with related psychological constructs. The EFI consists of 60 items on a 6-point Likert scale assessing six forgiveness dimensions including positive affect, behavior, and cognitions, and the lack of negative affect, behavior and cognitions toward the o ffender. Respondents are supposed to think of the most recent transgressor or transgre ssion as such when responding to the specific transgressions. The summed total of scores on the items of the subsca les yields an overall forgiveness score. Relatedly, the WTF is a 16-item scale intended to measure the effectiveness of forgiveness as a therapeutic interpersonal intervention. The first 15 items

PAGE 18

10 include specific scenarios, while the la st item addresses the persons specific transgression of focu s. Respondents choose from ten re sponses to each scenario, one choice of which is forgiveness. The scale is scored based on how many times forgiveness is selected as a solution for when a person would respond with and pr efer to respond with forgiveness to a hypothetical scenario, as well as respond with and prefer to respond with forgiveness to the real scenario. Barry, Worthington, and colleagues also creat ed the Transgression Narrative Test of Forgiveness (2001), a five scenario scale purpo rted to measure the dispositional tendency to forgive interpersonal transgressions over ti me and across situations, which they term forgivingness. Participants re ad each scenario and respond using a 5-point Likert scale as to their likelihood of forg iving the transgression were they in that situation. The situations include two intentional transg ressions by acquainta nces, two negligent transgressions by friends, a nd one intentional transgressi on by a relative followed by an apology (Barry et al., 2001). Others have taken the approach of de veloping a scale to measure the precise components of their definitions of forgiveness. Similarly to Enright, McCullough (2000) and colleagues (McCullough et al., 1998) c onceptualize forgiveness as a construct emphasizing prosocial changes in motivations Under their definition one specifically experiences decreased motivation to avoid pe rsonal and psychologica l contact with the offender, to seek revenge or to see harm co me to the offender, and increased benevolence motivation toward the offender, implying th at forgiveness of others is the basic component. Under this framework, again, forgiv eness is emphasized as an interpersonal process rather than one that may occur intrapersonally.

PAGE 19

11 McCullough et al.s measure is the Transg ression-Related Interp ersonal Motivations Inventory (TRIM; 1998), consis ting of 12 items on a 5-point Likert scale, with two subscales measuring two components of their definition, motivations to avoid contact, and motivations to seek revenge or see ha rm come to the tran sgressor. It does not however measure motivation toward benevolence, and as such appears to indicate mostly the negative aspects, namely unforgiveness, as representative of ones lack of forgiveness, which is fairly similar to Maugers approach. Hargrave and Sells (1997) also follow the idea of creating a scale to measure aspects of their specific definition. They offer a definition of forgiveness that includes the component of love, effort in restoring love and trustworthiness to relationships so that victims and victimizers can put an end to dest ructive entitlement ( p.43). They assert two broader levels of forgiveness, exonera ting (involving insight and understanding) and forgiving (involving the overt act of forgiv ing as well as giving the opportunity for compensation, meaning the ability for intera ctions with the tr ansgressor in away perceived by that person as non-threaten ing and encouraging of emotional bonding). The Hargrave and Sells (1997) Interpers onal Relationship Resolution scale (IRRS) taps forgiveness of a specific person who has causes hurt to the respondent. It consists of two scales, forgiveness and pain, and has 22 total items and four subscales including insight, understanding, giving the opportunity for compensa tion, and the overt act of forgiving. Tangney and colleagues (1999) have develope d another measure of forgiveness that does not include the components of love or compassion as necessary for forgiveness. Specifically, their lengthy definition mainly emphasizes that giving up the negative

PAGE 20

12 emotions is what is sufficient to cons titute forgiveness. Their measure, the Multidimensional Forgiveness Inventory (MFI), is a scenario-based approach to measuring forgiveness of self and others, wh ich consists of 72 items on a 5-point Likert scale using 16 different transg ression scenarios. There ar e nine subscales, including propensity to forgive others, propensity to forg ive self, propensity to ask for forgiveness, time to forgive others, time to forgive self propensity to blame others, propensity to blame self, sensitivity to hurt feelings, and anger-proneness. This transgression-specific measure attempts to tap many facets of forgiv eness and includes both forgiveness of self and forgiveness of others components, cr eating a much wider scope under which to examine forgiveness through a transgression-spe cific lens. However, it is still that transgression specific. Examination of th e construct of forgiveness using specific descriptions of events still does not allow for a broader gene ralizability of forgiveness as attributed to the respondent as well as to be related to other ps ychological constructs. The current study argues that th e superior approach to meas urement of forgiveness is both through a non trangression -specific framework, and is incorporative of the self, others, and situational components of the forgiveness cons truct, in line with Snyder and Yamhure Thompsons definition of forgiveness: We define forgiveness as the frami ng of a perceived transgression such that ones attachment to the transg ressor, transgression, and sequelae of the transgression is transformed from negative to neutral or positive. The source of a transgression, and therefore the object of forgiveness, may be oneself, another person or persons, or a situation that one views as being beyond anyones control (e.g. an illness, fate, or a natural disaster). (Thompson & Snyder, 2003, p. 302) This definition appears as the broadest and most encompassing definition so far in that it includes the pos sibility of feeling tr ansgressed upon in an impersonal manner, and

PAGE 21

13 thus allows for the forgiveness of situations to exist as a distinct and important aspect of dispositional forgiveness. The authors mo st compelling argument for the understanding of forgiveness as dispositional rather than transgression-specific is the assertion that forgiveness itself occurs only intra personally. In other words, the target of forgiveness does not matter; it is the mo tivation and behavior of th e forgiver that exemplify forgiveness dispositionally. This measure created by Yamhure Thompson and colleagues, the Heartland Forgiveness scale (HFS; Thomps on et al., 2005) that measures forgiveness of self, others, and situations, is elaborat ed on in detail later in this section. Children and Adolescents The current breadth of literature in the area of dispositional forgiveness begs a more balanced examination of the forgiveness construct across a br oader age range. The overwhelming majority of research on the c onstruct of forgiveness focuses on adults. Identification of dispositional failures to forgive in adults inevitably points to the important question of developmental implicatio ns of forgiveness. In other words, the questions of whether a younger age range w ill exhibit similar forgiveness trends as adults, as well as how stable the constr uct may be with age are imperative to understanding how forgiveness develops. Future research in this direction requires a comprehensive scale of dispos itional forgiveness appropria te for a younger age range. As well, a focus on children and adolescents using a dispositional, rather than event-specific, lens will help shed light on the developmen tal nature of the forgiveness construct. Childrens understanding of the concept of forgiveness under different circumstances has been previously evaluated, and development of the concept of forgiveness is generally considered to occu r at a young age. Darby and Schlenker (1982) evaluated childrens understandin g of forgiveness and such adult social judgments by examining

PAGE 22

14 child judgments when observing an actor apologizing. Using childrens reactions to apologies, children as young as kindergarten age were shown to be able to comprehend the major factors of importanc e (e.g., intentions, motives, ap ologies) for adult-like social judgment involving forgiveness, and younger children were found to exhibit similar judgments to older children (Darby & Schle nker, 1982). These apologies varied with respect to complexity and circumstances (i.e ., intentional versus acc idental transgression, good or bad motives, and high or low responsibility and consequences). Though this study helps shed light on childre ns abilities to wrap their minds, and hearts, around the construct of forgiveness, the experimental a nd transgression-specific nature of the study precludes dispositional insights into the childrens constructs of forgiveness in a more predictive sense, a nd across various dimens ions. Forgiveness of others, though overwhelmingly th e most frequently studied aspect of forgiveness, does not represent the whole of the forgivene ss construct. Furthermore, transgression specificity limits the degree to which examination of the forgiveness construct as a whole can occur. Park and Enright (1997) proposed and suppor ted a developmental progression of the understanding of forgiveness w ith adolescents in Korea, us ing junior high students ages 13-14. Specifically, they outline the developmen t from the most basic level, that of revengeful forgiveness manifested as word s or gestures indicating forgiveness while internal hostility may still exist and be ope nly expressed, to external forgiveness in which external gestures indicate forgiveness but awareness exists of inner frustrations and continuing frustrations are suppressed, to the more advanced level, that of internal forgiveness where one genuinely seeks to understand the motives and perspective of

PAGE 23

15 the other person and reinterprets the event inco rporating both perspectiv es. This last level is again said by the authors to arise out of the principles of beneficence and love. Though beneficence and love are generally articulated in the views of forgiveness, this model also add credence to the argument of Yamhure Thompson and Snyde r, that forgiveness at the highest and most comprehensive level occur strictly intrapersonally, regardless of the target of forgiveness. This is to say that unforgiveness as a result of feeling transgressed upon is something that occurs within a person th ough may be a result of events from ones self, another person, or a situation. Thus, motivation for forgiveness can only occur from within a person in the same manner. This intrapersonal emphasis seems to be exactly what Park and Enright have suppor ted in their model, although their model focused upon forgiveness of others. They also report a significant positive correlation between an adolescents understanding of forgiveness and age, m eaning an adolescents understanding of forgiveness was significantly and positively associated with age; older adolescents were more forgiving than younger adolescents. Th is study also revealed that the higher the level of understanding of forgiveness, the more likely a person was to use a proactive restorative strategy in the act ual conflictual relationship in the real life situation. The degree to which the offering of social support was a factor followed a similar pattern, in that the early adolescents appeared to be in transition to this pattern while the later ones seemed either deeply rooted in or transiti oning out of social suppor t as a factor. Thus, significance of social support seems to be related to level of understanding attained. Though narrow in scope and sample, this study shows that developmental trends exist in the concept of forgiveness. Developmental knowledge as well as measurement

PAGE 24

16 understanding of forgiveness can in turn pr ovide an important background for working with forgiveness in the clinical settings with any age range. In the realm of clinical practice, models ha ve begun to be established for forgiveness. Worthington and Wade (1999) have set forth a model incorporating forgiveness and its related areas, in which the personal attributes of the participants and of the relationship at hand before a transgression fact or into the propensity and lik elihood of forgiveness. First the persons perception of the events take pl ace, and their initial emotional reaction to the events occurs. Then interpersonally active responses such as revenge/retaliation, prorelationship behavior, and percep tion of the offenders response would occur as well as the interpersonally passive re sponse of rumination. Within this model, an emotionally dissonant event may occur that changes ones initial reaction to the event, leading to emotional dissonance. The authors assert th at this aspect is crucial. Underlying forgiveness is an emotional dissonant event. Thus, a victims ability to forgive will be influenced partially by his or her abilit y to comprehend and successfully resolve incompatible emotions, which is the core of the hypothesized c onstruct of emotional intelligence (Worthington & Wade, 1999, p. 395). Other models of forgiveness have also b een proposed within the psychotherapeutic context. Rosenak and Harnden (1992) descri be a model in which, after an offensive event, victims experience hurt that leads to an ger. After the realizat ion and expression of hurt and anger comes an information gathering stage that occurs in therapy in which the client needs to glean more knowledge about th e transgressor. This in formation is thought to promote a better understanding from that pers ons perspective, leading to true empathy and in turn true forgiveness.

PAGE 25

17 The Heartland Forgiveness Scale In developing a dispositional forgiveness measure appropriate for children and adolescents, an existing well -rounded dispositional measure of forgiveness in the adult population was sought. Modeling after a reliable pre-existing adult measure of the same construct appears often as a useful ap proach to developing a complementary child/adolescent measure for a construct of interest, especially when there is a compelling reason to suspect construct e quivalence between children an d adults. For instance, in related areas of psychological constructs, the Child Adolescent Perfectionism Scale (CAPS; Flett et al., 2001) was modeled afte r the Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (MPS; Hewitt & Flett, 1991) that had been developed for adults, and the Childrens Depression Inventory (CDI; Kovacs, 1985) wa s patterned after the framework of the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI; Beck & Stee r, 1987). Similarly, the measure created in this study, the Child/Adolescent Dispositional Forgiveness Inventory (CADFI) was designed as an age-appropriate modificati on from the Heartland Forgiveness Scale (HFS), targeted for a younger age range. The Heartland Forgivene ss Scale (HFS; Thompson & Snyder, 2003) was chosen to serve as the model in this study mainly because of its encomp assing nature for the construct of forgiveness. Under this framewo rk, someone can be relieved of the negative attachment through transforming the negative cognitions, emotions, and/or behaviors to either neutral or positive, as well as through weakening th e attachment by releasing the perception of a strong connection between onese lf and the transgresso r or transgression (Thompson & Snyder, 2003). This does not ne cessitate a forgetting of the event, nor preclude the person from taking any actions, le gal or otherwise. The emphasis is on the valence of the attachment, and forgiveness is said to occur as long as the motivation does

PAGE 26

18 not involve negative attachment (e.g., vengefu lness). Instead, forgiveness is understood as a process through which peopl e synthesize their prior assu mptions and the reality of the transgression into a new understandi ng of the transgress ion, transgressor, transgression sequelae, and potentially, of themselves other people, or the world (Thompson et al., 2005, p. 318). The authors are ther efore unique in thei r perspective that only the shift from a negative to a neutral attachment is necessary and sufficient to constitute forgiveness, rather than needi ng empathy or compassion to be demonstrated. The HFS was developed with adults to asse ss the dispositional tendency to forgive. The HFS includes 18 items, endorsed on a 7point Likert Scale ranging from almost always false of me to almost always true of me. Subscales in cluded in the HFS are forgiveness of self, forgiveness of others, and forgiveness of situations. Thus, for the current purposes of developing a multi-dimensional forgiveness measure for children and adolescents, this measure was considered the most comprehensive representational instrument for the dispositional nature of forgiveness. This measure of forgiveness was chosen because of its ability to tap interpers onal as well as intrapersonal forgiveness on a dispositional level across diffe rent contexts; the HFS is the only existing forgiveness scale which taps forgiveness of situations, one of the three main aspects of forgiveness (self, other, and situ ational forgiveness). Adequate internal consistency reliability of HFS scores has been supported, with Cronbach coefficient alphas on the total scale ranging from .84 to .87, and alphas on the subscales ranging from .71 to .83. Test-retest re liability of the HFS, on the basis of a 3week follow-up period, was .83 for the total score and ranged from .72 to .77 (Thompson & Snyder, 2003) for the subscales. The psyc hometric properties of the HFS have been

PAGE 27

19 evaluated and adequately dem onstrated with student and nonstudent samples. The HFS has been found to correlate in the expected di rections with other dispositional measures of forgiveness as well as measures of rela ted psychological constr ucts. The HFS shows a large positive correlation with the FS and FO scales, a smaller positive correlation with the WTF scale, and a moderate/medium co rrelation with the MF I (Thompson & Snyder, 2003). The forgiveness of others subscale of the HFS is significantly negatively correlated with one measure of forgiveness of a specific transgre ssion, the TRIM, which measures forgiveness of a transgression done specifical ly by another person (higher scores mean higher levels of unforgivene ss). The HFS was also found to significantly positively correlate with the EFI transgression-specific measure. The HFS was not significantly correlated with the IRRS, a m easure of forgiveness towards a specific person. Overall, the HFS has demonstrated much higher correlation wi th the dispositional measures of forgiveness than the transg ression-specific measures, although positive correlation was found with all measures of forgiveness examined (Thompson, et al., 2005). The HFS was found to negatively correlate wi th scores on measures of some related constructs as well. Yamhure Thompson and colleagues (2005) also found moderately large negative correlations of the HFS with the Hostile Automatic Thoughts scale, the rumination subscale of the Response Style Questionnaire (Thompson et al., 2005), and the Beck Depression Inventory (Thompson & Snyder, 2003) as well as the Vengeance Scale (Stuckless & Goranson, 1992), and the nega tive affect of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (Watson, Clark, & Telle gen, 1988). Since forgiveness involves transforming mental energy away from negativ e behaviors and thoughts, it makes logical

PAGE 28

20 sense that such constructs as negative affect, vengeance, and rumination leading to feeling depressed would correlate negativ ely with the HFS forgiveness measure. The HFS was also evaluated to determine its predictive power of forgiveness in romantic relationships. Participants were give n the HFS as well as measures of hostility, trust, relationship satisfacti on, and relationship duration once a nd again nine months later. Forgiveness as evaluated by the HFS was reveal ed as a stronger pred ictor of relationship satisfaction than hostility, and satisfacti on was also significantly predicted by how trusting the person was of thei r partner and their perception of how trusting their partner was of them (Thompson & Snyder, 2003, Thom pson et al., 2005). All of these studies support the premise that the HFS is a reliable valid, and useful measure for evaluating the dispositional tendency to grant forgiven ess of self, others, and across situations. Basing a childrens measure of forgiveness on such a structurally and theoretically supported measure as the HFS, which is defi ning current forgiveness research trends, provides a sound foundation for examining forg iveness dispositionally with children. Introducing a dispositional measure of forgiv eness that is appropriate for children and adolescents, when supported by adequate ps ychometric characteristics, contributes significantly to the forgiveness literatu re by permitting future multidimensional, dispositional forgiveness research with partic ipants of a developmentally wider age range than has historically been studied. Research Questions and Hypotheses Many parallels between the HFS and CADF I were expected. Specifically, it was expected that the factor structure of the CADFI would reflect the HFS structure because the CADFI will retain item content integrity of the HFS that is simply adjusted to be at a lower, age-appropriate reading level. The underlying constructs of dispositional

PAGE 29

21 forgiveness as evaluated by assessing forgiv eness of self, forgiveness of others, and forgiveness of situations we re not expected to differ si gnificantly for younger people. It was expected that acceptable levels of internal consistency reliability and validity would be reached, similar to the range of such alpha coefficients reported for the HFS. The HFS has been positively correlated w ith scores from the Cognitive Flexibility Scale (Martin & Rubin, 1995), the Dyadic Trust Scale (L arzelere & Huston, 1980), and the distraction subscale of the Response Style Questionnaire (Nolen-Hoeksema & Morrow, 1991).These measures are appropriate for adults but would not be appropriate for children. Fortunately similar instrument s have been developed for the childhood age range and were targeted for validity purposes in the current study. Specifically, the Childrens Attributional St yle Questionnaire-Revised (CASQ-R; Kaslow & NolenHoeksema, 1991) was used to assess the rela tion of the CADFI to styles of cognitive attribution or explanation of positive and ne gative events, and the Childrens Depression Inventory (CDI; Kovacs, 1985) me asuring depressive symptoms was also administered as an expected negative correlate of CADFI scores. Though the dimensions of the CASQ-R (globalspecific, internal-external, and stableunstable) differ from the adult measure, hi gher levels of depressi on have been found for those whose scores reflect a hi gher depressive attributional style, which on the CASQ-R appears as more frequent endorsement of in ternal, stable, and gl obal items for negative events, and external, specific, and unstab le items for positive events (Gladstone & Kaslow, 1995; Thompson, Kaslow, Weiss, & Nolen-Hoeksema, 1998). In fact, Gladstone and Kaslow (1995) report a negative correlation between th e CASQ-R and the Vanderbilt Depression Inventory (VDI) in non-clinical samples, indicating that the higher the

PAGE 30

22 depressive symptoms reported the more depr essive the attributional style. It was therefore expected in the current study th at higher scores on the CDI would correlate similarly with depressive attri butional style, as well as lowe r levels of forgiveness (low scores on the CADFI). Sex differences were not e xpected to differ significantly with regard to CADFI scores. Social Desirability As was introduced by Crowne and Marl owe (1960; Marlowe & Crowne, 1961), a tendency exists for respondents to report more socially desirable res ponses as a result of being influenced by other factors besides the content of measures ad ministered. Initially, the bulk of the social desira bility research fell within the adult age range. Crandall, Crandall, and Katkovsky (1965) expanded social desirability research by developing the Childrens Social Desirability (CSD) questi onnaires for a younger age range, targeting children and adolescents. Social desirability has also been incorporated into measure of other psychological constructs as well. Spec ifically, the Childrens Manifest Anxiety Scale (CMAS; Castenada, McCandless, & Palermo, 1956) and the Revised Childrens Manifest Anxiety Scale (RCMAS; Reynolds & Richmond, 1978) exemplify self-report measures developed with the intent of meas uring characteristics and manifestations of anxiety in children, and include a Lie subscal e specifically intended to address social desirability. Social desirability measures were establishe d to evaluate increased predictability that a respondent would endorse a hi gher degree of socially desi rable responses on a measure. Younger children, girls, non-white children, and less intelligent children have previously been found to endorse socially desirable respon ses more frequently (C randall et al., 1965;

PAGE 31

23 Shriberg, 1974). These findings have been re plicated and validated by Klein, Gould, and Corey (1969), who found that younger chil dren of both sexes had higher social desirability scores than olde r children, and that this tendency was most marked when respondents were younger than 11 years old. Mo reover, they suggested this pattern reflects an emergence of adult approval motiv ations in children beginning as young as 11 years old (Klein, Gould, & Corey, 1969). Considering these variables, especially the finding that younger more than older children report socially desirable answers, the inclusion of a social de sirability measure in the current study was necessary in order to ascertain whether answers regarding dispositional forgiveness, as well as depressi on and attributional style, may be influenced by factors other than substantive content. Th e current study employed the Lie subscale of the RCMAS in order to address social desirabi lity, while also keeping the number of total items in the battery within reasonabl e length for efficient administration.

PAGE 32

24 CHAPTER 3 METHODS Participants The total sample (N = 96) of participants consisted of boys and girls ages 8-17, with the majority of the sample falling between th e ages of 9 and 11 years old (77% of the sample). The distribution of ages consisted of one 8-year old, twen ty-one 9-year olds, thirty 10-year olds, twenty-t hree 11-year olds, five 12-year olds, one 13-year old, two 14year olds, five 15-year olds, three 16-year olds, and one 17-year ol d (four participants failed to report age). Sixty-fi ve percent of the sample was female; ethnic background of the sample was approximately 49% White, 20% Hispanic, 16% Asian, and 11% African American. Consent forms were distributed to children attending public elementary schools in a southern Florida county (approx. 86% of the sample), as well as a private school within a central Florida County (appr ox. 14% of the sample). Response rate was approximately 48%. The majority of the sa mple was representative of the population sampled; the majority of the participants (73% ) came from the fourth and fifth grades of an elementary school with the following population demographics for those grades: 44% male, 65% White, 11% African Americ an, 10% Hispanic, and 2% Asian. Rationale for inclusion of children and adolescents was twofold. Focus on children/adolescents a) helps balance the level of attention given to forgiveness research between adults and children, considering the comparative dearth of child/adolescent research in the area, and b) provides context for future exploration of conception and dispositional expression of the fo rgiveness construct with age.

PAGE 33

25 Given that a predetermined theory existed, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was initially utilized and the sample size guide lines for such analysis were targeted. Thompson (2004), asserts that CFA necessita tes a participant pool of 10-20 people per measured variable, with no less than fi ve per variable (Gorsuch, 1983). Eighteen measured variables existed for the CADFI, therefore the necessary sample size needed to be at least 90 (Bentler, 1990; Thompson, 2004). Procedure Recruitment of participants occurred fr om public schools, as well as after school programs in two Florida communities. Testing occurred in small groups within the school settings. For the purposes of paralleling ad ministration method of the CADFI with the HFS, as well as for higher internal consis tency in the study, the items of the measure were not read aloud to the participants, but were distributed for self-evaluation. Every participant was given sufficient and similar amounts of time to complete the measures, and most finished within 20-30 minutes. In order to avoid sequencing effects, the measures included in the battery were count erbalanced, resulting in four different sequences of forms. Lastly, a small sub sample of participants was briefly interviewed for qualitative responses to questions indi cative of forgiveness (see Appendix B). Respondents were selected due to interview av ailability (i.e. were accessible in afterschool program or otherwise), were asked all questions and prompts, and their responses were recorded. Measures The CADFI consists of 18 items, the CDI-S consists of 10 items, and the CASQ-R includes 24 items. Therefore, there will be a total of 52 items administered for all three scales included in the study to assess the re liability and validity of the new measure. The

PAGE 34

26 Lie scale of the RCMAS (9 items) was include d in order to address social desirability concerns, bringing the total number of items in the battery to 61. Child/Adolescent Dispositional Forgiveness Inventory (CADFI) This measure was based upon the content of th e adult HFS items, tailored to meet the readability and developmental needs of the younger child/adolescent population. This inventory contained three (3) subscales: Forgiveness of Self Forgiveness of Others, and Forgiveness of Situations. Six (6) items comp rised each subscale, for a total of 18 items. The same number of negatively worded items remained as in the HFS (nine). The HFS has a general readability level of 6.3 (Flesch-Kincaid), me aning it is most appropriate for those with at least a sixth grade reading level, and a reading Ease rating of 73.0. The CADFI measure has a readability leve l of 4.8, with an ease rating of 81.9. Childrens Attributional Style Questionnaire-Revised (CASQ-R) The CASQ-R (Kaslow & Nolen-Hoeksema, 1991) evaluates a childs causal associations for positive and negative life events. Twenty -four forced choice response items consist of presentati on of a hypothetical situati on followed by two statements regarding why the event happened, and child ren are asked to choose which of the statements they feel represents how they would typically respond. An equal number of items address both positive and negative even ts. Three dimensions are reflected within the measure: internal-external, stable-unsta ble, and global-specific. Composite, negative, and positive scores are calculated, and a lower composite score reflects a more depressive attributional style. The CASQ-R taps attri butional style in children, a construct found to relate to forgiveness and negative affect as examined using the Response Styles Questionnaire (Nolen-Hoeksema & Morrow, 1991) for adults.

PAGE 35

27 The CASQ-R is a condensed version of th e Child Attributiona l Style Questionnaire (CASQ; Seligman, Peterson, Kaslow, Ta nenbaum, Alloy & Abramson, 1984), which originally contained 48 items. Understanding that the CASQ wa s often being used as part of a larger battery of measures, the authors responded with the CASQ -R, a scale of more practical utility considering its general use with children, who often have shorter attention spans (Thompson, et al., 1998). The scale is ap propriate for an age range of 9-12 years. Through extensive psychometric analysis, Th ompson et al. (1998) revealed adequate internal consistency reliability ; being reliable for both boys (a lpha = .58) and girls (alpha = .63), as well as older (12-14 years old; al pha = .58) and younger children (9-11 years old; alpha = .64). No signif icant differences were found in criterion re lated validity among boys and girls or among younger and ol der children (Thompson et al., 1998). Previous research has revealed the relations hip of attributional and response styles with rumination and depressive symptoms. In terms of concurrent validity, comparisons between scores on the CASQ-R and measures of depression have i ndicated that children reporting greater numbers of depressive sympto ms tend to attribute events to internal causes, and consider them to be fairly stab le over time, as well as generalizable across situations (Gladstone & Kasl ow, 1995; Thompson, et al., 1998). On the CASQ-R this is reflected as higher scores on the internal ra ther than external (e.g. would respond to the statement You get a bad grade in school with I am not a good student, rather than Teachers give hard tests), stable rather than unstable (e.g. You do not get your chores done at home would elicit the response Many da ys I am lazy rather than I was lazy that day), and global rather than specif ic dimensions (e.g. You go to an amusement

PAGE 36

28 park and you have a good time, would elicit I usually enjoy myself in many activities instead of I usually enjoy myself at amusement parks), respectively. Childrens Depression Invent ory-Short form (CDI-S) The CDI-S (Kovacs, 1985, 1992) has 10 items, each consisting of three response choices. The child/adolescent will be instructed to select one of the three sentences for each item that best describes him or her over the past two weeks. Higher scores indicate higher levels of depressive symptoms. The CD I-S is a short form measure that includes 10 of the 27 items of the original CDI, in tended to assess depressive symptomatology under circumstances when the time with a child may be limited or a quick screening measure is desired. The CDI-S co rrelates at the .89 level with the long version of the CDI (Kovacs, 1992), which has demonstrated adequate internal consistency ( = .71 to .89), test-retest reliability ( r = .74 to .83), and convergent a nd divergent validity (Kovacs, 1992). The CDI is appropriate for children 7-17 years of age. The CDI was selected specifically because of its construct equivalence and item similarity with the Beck Depression Invent ory (BDI) for adults. The BDI was found to negatively correlate with the HFS, a dispositional measure of willingness to forgive. Thus, the CDI-S was expected to yield sim ilar negative correlations with the CADFI. Lie Scale from the Revised Children s Manifest Anxiet y Scale (RCMAS) The 9 items from the Lie subscale of the RCMAS (Reynol ds & Richmond, 1978, 1985) were used to measure social desirabilit y. The Lie subscale was developed from the original CMAS subscale called the What I Th ink and Feel (WITF) subscale (Castaneda, McCandless, & Palermo, 1956). These items are self-report format in which children are asked to respond to a series of statements re garding themselves (e.g., I am always kind, or I never get angry) with either Yes or No. High scores on th e Lie scale indicate

PAGE 37

29 higher social desirability (7 or above is cons idered high), or a highe r tendency to present oneself in a favorable light. As was asse rted by Reynolds and Richmond (1985), and has been confirmed using extensive factor analysis, the Lie scale constitutes its own factor (or two related factors distinct from the anxi ety factors according to Reynolds & Paget, 1981), apart from the anxiety factors onto whic h the rest of the items load (Stark & Laurent, 2001). The concurrent validity of the RCMAS lie scale has also been examined and supported by relationship with the Marl owe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (Hagborg, 1991a) and has been subsequently used as a measure upon itself of social desirability (Hagborg, 1991b). The RCMAS ha s impressive test-r etest reliability estimates as well, as confirme d by Pela and Reynolds (1982) ( r = .94 for the Lie scale). The current study included only the items from the Lie scale for use in assessing socially desirable response tendencies. Li ke most other social desirab ility measures, Lie scores of the RCMAS have been found to be higher for younger rather than ol der children (Pina, Silverman, Saavedra, & Weems, 2001). No si gnificant sex differences were generally found for the Lie scale (Dadds, Perrin, & Yule, 1998; Pina, et al., 2001).

PAGE 38

30 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Instrument The Child/Adolescent Dispositional Forg iveness Inventory (CADFI) was modeled after the HFS. The items of the CADFI consis ted of modified wording of the HFS items in order to reach appropriate reading level for children as young as fourth grade, thus the same number of total items as well as items within each subscale was retained. The same numbers of positively and negatively worded items were represented in the CADFI as are within the HFS; nine of each valence Descriptive Statistics In the current sample, scores on the CDI-S ranged from 0 to 15, M = 3.5, SD = 3.49. Scores on the CASQ-R positive composite ranged from 0 to 24, M = 15.86, SD = 4.00, from 0 to 16 for the negative composite, M = 7.6, SD = 3.57, and -8 to 24 on the overall composite, M = 8.22, SD = 7.06. Scores on the CADFI ranged from 30 to 68, M = 47.2, SD = 8.2 for the total score, 8 to 30, M = 21.4, SD = 4.4 for the positively worded CADFI scale, and 8 to 38, M = 22.1, SD = 6.37 for the negatively worded CADFI scale. Lie scale scores ranged from 0 to 9, M = 3.09, SD = 2.55. Eleven participants scored 7 or greater on the Lie scale, considered high scores by the scales authors (Reynolds & Richmond, 1985). Analyses Factor analysis was used to examine th e proposed model. Cronbachs coefficient alphas were determined and reported for all scales and subscales of the measures. To

PAGE 39

31 examine discriminant validity, correlation analys es were used to assess the relationship of the CADFI scores to other measures known to relate to forgiveness: namely, the CDI-S, the CASQ-R, and the Lie scale of the RCMAS. Confirmatory Factor Analysis Confirmatory factor analys is (CFA) was proposed with this study for three main purposes: to test the overall ad equacy of the specified meas urement model; to determine the adequacy with which items indicate intende d factors, and to empirically inform any decisions regarding scale revisions or furt her analyses. According to Thompson (2004), CFA proves more useful when there is a pr esupposed theory and a model exists because (a) the theory is directly tested in CFA anal ysis, and (b) the degree of the model fit can be quantified in a variety of us eful ways. The set of factor scores generated through CFA remains useful in subsequent analyses of data and constructs regardless of the outcome of the analyses. Although confirmatory factor anal ysis requires having a theoretical model at hand, in this case a proposed thre e factor structure, it is genera lly asserted that the testing of rival models in CFA remains a necessary st ep, as the possibility exists that several models could fit a given data set (Thompson, 2004). The proposed model in which three factor s were specified (self, others, and situations) using the corresponding items fo r each subscale proved to be less than adequate. Confirmatory factor analyses re vealed poor fit indices (e.g. Comparative Fit Index = .51), and did not meaningfully converg e on an interpretable model. Given that significant problems were encountered in attemp ting to fit the initia l solution and no clear indication of the best direction for item or factor revision was av ailable, exploratory factor analysis was selected as most appropriate for these data.

PAGE 40

32 Exploratory Factor Analysis In order to examine the suitability of th e sample data for factor analysis, the correlation matrix was scanned for the pres ence of correla tions at .30 or greater, and Bartletts test of sphericity was determined (which should be signi ficant at p <.05), and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) value found (s hould be .6 or above if suitable). In the current sample, correlations of .30 or higher we re found, Bartletts test of sphericity was significant ( p = .000), and the KMO value equaled .627, therefore the suitability of the data for factor analyses was supported. In each analysis, principal axis factoring was performed and oblique rotations using the Promax procedure were conducted. Promax factoring allows for the model factors to be correlated, and was chosen because it was ex pected that each of the underlying factors would be related to the overall factor of forgiveness and so would be correlated. Eigenvalues and pattern coefficients were examined to determine factor and item retention, looking for simple structure in wh ich each of the variables loads strongly on only one factor and each fact or is represented by a number of strongly loading variables (Thurstone, 1947). Items were reta ined if pattern coefficients were .30 or greater for no more than one factor, and item-total correla tions were positive. Subsequent factor analyses were conducted after it em deletions until the criteria for retention was upheld for all factors and the eigenvalues of retained factors were at leas t 1.0 as recommended by Kaiser (1960). Subscales were identified using all items remaining for each factor. Three Factor Model In the first analysis of the complete 18 item CADFI, seven factors meeting Kaisers criterion of eigenvalues great er than one emerged, and combined to account for 69% of the variance. These eigenvalues ranged from 3.41 to 1.04. Cate lls scree test (Catell,

PAGE 41

33 1966) was also used, which recommends looki ng for a point at which the shape of the curve changes to become more horizontal, then retaining only factors before that change (or elbow) as they are consider ed to contribute most to th e explanation of variance. The elbow in the current plot appeared to occur at the three factor mark, and this three factor model accounted for 41.8% of the variance. Th e results of an obli que rotation yield both a Factor Structure matrix, indicating the corr elation between each of the measures and the factors extracted, and a Factor Pattern matrix, indicating the independent relationship between each measure and the factors, simila r to typical regression coefficients where factors are used as predictors of each measure (Russell, 2 002). The pattern coefficients were used in making item retention decisions, given that they are the most useful in interpreting the meaning of factors (Russell, 2002). In examining the pattern coefficients, item retention criteria consisted of loading .30 or greater onto one factor and a positive item-total correlation. In the fi rst run, for example, item 11 did not load more than .30 on any of the three factors, so was selected fo r deletion and item 12 load ed more than .30 on factor one and two, and so was selected fo r deletion as it was c onsidered nondistinct. Several factor analyses were conducted using the criteria for item retention, resulting in items 1, 8, 11, and 12 being selected for de letion. Three factors were indicated in this model, having eigenvalues of 1.38, 2.32, and 3.09, accounting for 48.4% of the variance. However, the items within these three factor s were not clearly delineated along lines of self, others, and situations. Factor one consisted of items 2, 4, 6, 15, and 17, which reflected forgiveness of self with three of the items but also included two situation items. The second factor contained the most items (3, 5, 10, 14, 16, and 18), and included items initially considered to be situations items as well as two forgiveness of self items. The

PAGE 42

34 third factor consisted of three items total, items 7, 9, and 13. Two of these items reflected forgiveness of others, but the other reflected forgiveness of situations. Given that this three factor model was inexplicable along th eoretical lines, para llel analysis was conducted to explore the mean ingful factors to support. Parallel Analysis Many have called into question the traditi onal Kaisers eigenvalue-greater-than-one criterion for factor retenti on, asserting that it often retains too many factors (i.e. Lautenschlager, 1989; Russell, 2002). Monte Carl o parallel analysis, initially put forth by Horn (1965) as an adaptation to Kaisers crit erion has as its rationa le that meaningful components from actual sample data should have eigenvalues great er than those of random data generated to be similar to the sa mple data in size and number of variables (Lautenschlager, 1989). Due to the importa nce of examining disconfirmability in confirmatory factor analysis, parallel analys is was utilized in the current sample as a comparison for suggested factor retention. Using the Monte Carlo parallel analysis program, simulated eigenvalues were generated for random data with similar sa mple size and number of variables as the current sample data set. Simulated eigenvalues generated by parallel analysis ranged from 1.83 to 0.39, while actual sample eigenvalues ra nged from 3.41 to 0.25. Parallel analysis suggests factor retention when actual eigenvalues of factors are larger than the simulated eigenvalues, essentially indicati ng the meaningful factors to re tain. In the current sample, parallel analysis suggested retention of tw o significant factors (sim ulated values were 1.83 and 1.66, while actual eigenvalues we re 3.41 and 2.70). Following the parallel analysis a two factor model was then examined with the current data set using the same criteria as before indicated.

PAGE 43

35 Two Factor Model The first factor analysis us ing the two-factor model resu lted in eigenvalues of 3.41 and 2.69 for the two factors, and accounted fo r 33.9% of the variance. Item 1 again was selected for deletion due to a negative corr elation, and item 11 was not found to load significantly onto any of the factors so was also selected. When items 1 and 11 were deleted, the eigenvalues of the two factors were 3.25 and 2.44, accounting for 35.6% of the variance. Item 12 did not have a value of .3 or higher for either factor, so was not retained. Next factor analysis included all items except items 1, 11, and 12 and accounted for 36.7% of the variance. Item 8 then did not load significantly onto ei ther factor and so was not retained. The final f actor analysis included all items except 1, 8, 11, and 12, and accounted for 38.6% of the variance (see A ppendix A for pattern coefficients). Upon examination of retained items and fact ors, it became appare nt that the factors were clearly representing the underlying item valence for positively and negatively worded items. Items 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 13, 15, and 17 represented the factor of negatively worded items in this model, or items that have been suggested to tap unforgiveness aspects (Thompson et al., 2005), while items 3, 5, 10, 14, 16, and 18 represented a factor of positively worded items, tapping forgiveness itself. The simple structure of this twofactor model, the clarity provided by the underlying factor distinction based on the valence of the item wording, and the strong pa rallel analysis support of two factors all contributed to the strength and acceptability of this model. Both the two and three factor models suggested the same problematic ite ms, lending further support for item deletions. The two-factor model was more clearly re ported and explaine d due to the clear delineation of factors along the lines of item wording valence and was retained as the strongest model of the current data.

PAGE 44

36 Pilot label descriptors for the factors a nd corresponding scales found above in the two-factor model suggested qua litative differences as well. The factor comprised of negatively worded items suggested labels of unforgiveness, harsh e xpectations/standards, high expectations for perfection, and unrealisti c expectations for environment, whereas the factor comprised of positively worded item s suggested a label of forgiveness, life lessons, and acceptance of lack of control over events. Label suggestions for the concept that embodies the negatively worded items a ppears not to simply be the lack of the embodiment of the positively worded factor it ems, as would be anticipated if the items reflected merely opposing points on the same continuum. Internal Consistency Cronbachs coefficient alpha was calculated to measure the intern al consistency of the final CADFI scale score (see Appendix A) and each of the subscale scores. Alpha levels for the HFS were .84-.87 for the total scale and .71-.83 for the subscales (Yamhure Thompson & Snyder, 2003). Coefficient alphas for the current sample were .71 for the total CADFI, .74 for the unforgiveness (nega tively-worded items) subscale, and .67 for the forgiveness (positively-worded items) subscale. Alphas for all other scales fell within acceptable range; = .82 for the CDI-S, = .80 for the Lie scale, and K-R 20s for the CASQ-R positive and negative composite scores were .72 and .65, respectively. Convergent, Discriminant and Construct Validity Convergent and divergent validity of CADFI scores were examined using correlation analyses. Correlation with child measures pr eviously found to have a relationship with the HFS offered the best opti ons for validity examination with the CADFI. Previous research has found the HFS to be significan tly negatively correlated with the Hostile Automatic Thoughts scale (Snyder, Crowson, Houston, Kurylo, & Poirier, 1997), the

PAGE 45

37 rumination subscale of the Response Style Questionnaire (Nolen-Hoeksema & Morrow, 1991), and the Beck Depression In ventory (Beck & Steer, 1987). The current study examined the relationship of forgiveness, as represented by CADFI scores, with depressive sympto ms using the CDI-S, negative (or depressive) attributional response style using the CASQ-R, and social desirability using the Lie scale of the RCMAS. It was expected that the CADFI woul d negatively correlate with the CDI-S, as well as the negative composite score of the CASQ-R, measuring depr essive attributional style. Both were found to significantly and negatively correlate with CADFI scores, r = .58 and r = -.52, p < .001, respectively. It was also expected that the CADFI would positively correlate with the positive composite of the CASQ-R, as well as the total CASQ-R, which reflects healthy (rather than de pressive) attributional style. Scores on the CADFI were indeed found to be significantly positively related to the positive composite of the CASQ-R, r = .41, as well as the total CASQ-R, r = .50, with p <.001 for both (see Table 1 for all correlations). Interest ingly, the correlation of CADFI scores for the forgiveness (positively-worded items) and unforgiveness (negatively-worded items) subscales did not reach significance, r = .11, p < .30, indicating the subscales appear as distinct constructs rather than as significantly related to each other. No significant effects emerged for m easurement sequence or sex differences. However, a moderately si gnificant negative correlation, r = -.26, p <.05, was found for CADFI scores with age, in that younger par ticipants reported hi gher total forgiveness levels. It was expected that findings would hold wh en controlling for social desirability, indicated by scores on the Li e scale of the RCMAS. Lie scal e scores were found to be

PAGE 46

38 significantly positively correlated with scores on the CADFI, indicating higher social desirability was related to higher forgiveness scores, r = .31, p <.001. Correlations remained significant at the p <.001 level in the expected di rections when controlling for social desirability, r = -.54 for CDI-S, r = -.46 for negative CASQ-R, r = .34 for positive CASQ-R, and r = .43 for overall CASQ-R scores, demonstrating moderate to medium effect sizes (Cohen, 1988) for all relationships examined. Table 1 Correlations Between All S cale and Subscale Scores CDI-S CASQ-R Negative CASQ-R subscale Positive CASQ-R subscale CADFI Total CADFI Negatively -worded items CADFI Positivelyworded items Lie Scale CDI-S 1.00 CASQ-R -.59** 1.00 Negative CASQ-R subscale .60** -.93** 1.00 Positive CASQ-R subscale -.51** .94** -.74** 1.00 CADFI Total -.58** .50** -.52** .41** 1.00 CADFI Negativelyworded items .53** -.46** .45** -. 41** -.84** 1.00 CADFI Positivelyworded items -.32** .26* -.31** 19 .63** .11 1.00 Lie Scale -.29** .43** -.42** .38** .31** -.27** .20 1.00 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). Qualitative Responses Nine children selected at random provi ded qualitative answers to questions on forgiveness (see Appendix C for responses) of self, of others, and of situations. Of these

PAGE 47

39 nine respondents, three of them scored 7 or higher on the Lie scale (top 11% of sample), indicating social desirability may significan tly influence their responses. Two of the respondents scored a 10 or highe r on the CDI-S (top 6% of th e sample), and those same two participants scored 6 or below on the CASQ-R (lower 42% of sample). Of the nine respondents first asked, Is it hard for you to accept yourself when you mess up? three said no, four stated that some times it was, and one definitely said yes. When next asked Do you stay upset with ot hers who have hurt you? four indicated No outright, one said Not Really, two sa id Sometimes and one said Yes. Finally, when asked Is it hard for you to accept nega tive things that are not anyones fault? four stated unequivocally no, one indicated a qua lified yes by saying Its kinda hard, and three said yes outright-that it was hard to accept. Interestingly, though the words forgive or forgiveness were intentionally not used in the qualitative questions and prompts, two of the respondents used such words in their responses, both when asked what they do when hurt by others. One respondent who answered Forgive them correspondingly scor ed in the top 8% on the CADFI scale, zero on the CDI-S (lower 20%), and only one on the Lie scale (lower 35%). The other respondent clearly stating I forgave them scored in the upper 36% on the CADFI, the top 20% on the CASQ-R, and the lower 48% on the CDI-S, but scored in the top 2% on the Lie scale, indicating fairly significant social desirability influence. Respondents typically could a nd would provide an example for forgiveness of self, others, and situations when asked, however one participant exhibited high reluctance to give examples, instead offering Yes or N o as sufficient responses. This respondent was one of the two who also scored esp ecially high on the CDI-S scale (and low on

PAGE 48

40 CASQ-R) and also scored in the lower 13% for the CADFI. This respondent scored a zero on the Lie scale. This respondent is al so the only one to answer yes to all questions asking whether it was ha rd to forgive, be it self, ot hers, or situations, pointing to the speculation that the hesitation in sh aring may be due more to the difficulty experienced in such situati ons involving forgiveness.

PAGE 49

41 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION Given the various approaches to defi ning forgiveness and differing aspects emphasized among previous researchers, an efficient and compositional definition of forgiveness was sought for developing a child /adolescent forgiveness measure to fill a current gap in the literature. The current study investigated the relationship of dispositional forgiveness with depressive symp toms, and depressive attributional style, in children. Also, the utility and factor structure of the C ADFI, a version of the HFS modified for use with a younger age range, was examined. Though the initial three factor structure of self, others, and situations was not confirmed, exploratory factor an alyses revealed a clear and highly explainable two factor structure within the current sample, along th e lines of valence of item wording. Parallel analyses also suggested a str ong two factor structure. Given that these two factors were revealed to be highly uncorrelated, indicating th ey may in fact be two distinct entities, this study introduces the idea of unforgiveness as dis tinct from forgiveness itself. In other words, in children it may be more useful to think about the disposition for forgiveness as a general propensity for forgi veness (as revealed through positively worded items) and unforgiveness (negatively worded items). The measurement of forgiveness, as a construct, by emphasizing forgiveness as well as unforgiveness aspects is of course not unprecedented. For example, Maugers (1992) Fo rgiveness of Others and Forgiveness of Self scales, as well as McCulloughs TRIM s cale (1998), actually ta p unforgiveness as a means of looking at forgiveness with a dults. The current study provides emerging

PAGE 50

42 evidence that such scales measuring unforgive ness may not merely be measuring the lack of forgiveness, but a qualitatively dis tinct construct of unforgiveness. Though theoretically related, empirically these two c onstructs in children and adolescents do not appear to be signifi cantly correlated. When considered in the context of child rens psychological understanding of persons (Flavell, 2004), it is possible that younger children may not clearly understand or be capable of precise differentiation among perspect ives of forgiving self, forgiving others, and forgiving situations. The ability to clea rly understand ones rela tionship to self, to others, and to situations beyond anyones c ontrol could be a pre requisite to clear distinctions (and decisions) of forgiveness along the same dimensions, which may not be as highly attuned among children and young adolescents. Indeed, through the brief qualitative interviews, evidence of a lack of concrete understanding between what is considered a situation beyond anyones control a nd what might be considered an accident (i.e. participant 305s response). Given that measures us ed with children often employ a format of forced-choice among two generally opposing options, the positive or negative valence (reinforcing either/or ways of thinking) may pr ove more salient with younger children because of its structural simplicity. Further research able to replicate these results with children of vari ous populations would lend more strength to the two-factor item valence model, as well as provide impor tant insight into the relationship between forgiveness and unforgiveness as possibl y separate and distinct constructs. Despite the difference in fact or structure found in the curr ent sample, the relationship of forgiveness with construc ts of well-being was found to hold strong. Forgiveness levels significantly related to lower levels of depre ssive symptoms as well as lower depressive

PAGE 51

43 attributional styles. Those children who typica lly attributed positive events to internal, stable, and global aspects, and attributed negative events to external, unstable, and specific dimensions correspondingl y had higher levels of overall forgiveness. Those with higher depressive symptoms and the oppos ite attributional style showed lower forgiveness levels, indicating a highly positive relationship between healthy attributional styles and forgiveness. Future research might consider the implications of this relationship for counseling interventions, in that ways of increasing forgiveness could lead to lower levels of depres sive symptoms and depressive at tributional style, or that a reduction in depressive attri butions and symptoms may lead to increased levels of forgiveness. Given that social desirability is more pr evalent in younger age ra nges, the possibility of a significant correlation with this sample certainly existed and in fact was found. However, it has been asserted that correlations between a social desirability measure and a self-report measure do not necessarily je opardize construct validity (Diener, Sandvik, Pavot, & Gallagher, 1991; McCrae & Co sta, 1983; Thompson et al., 2005). Though the reliability and validity wi th this sample was supported, the generalizability of the findings in the current study is of course limited by the sample size and demographics. With a larger and more di verse sample, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses may provide a replicable and more solid structural two factor model. A sample from a range of settings, as well as ages, would provide a deeper basis for understanding forgiveness in the child and adolescent population. For example, a crosssectional study examining forgiveness w ith different age groups would provide interesting developmental information regardi ng the progression of the factor structure of

PAGE 52

44 forgiveness and unforgiveness with age. If th e factor structure does change from a two factor model in children to a three factor model in adults, such a study could reveal the point at which this may occur. Examination of this measure in a more clinically depressed population may be bene ficial as well, considering th e majority of this sample did not report depressive symptoms in the clinical range. This study serves as an insightful beginni ng for further exploration of dispositional forgiveness in younger ages, both as it relate s to other constructs of well-being, and particularly the importance of understanding the factors that may make up forgiveness (or unforgiveness) with such a population. Future studies may wish to use the current scale with a larger sample for comparison, both to better understand the factor structure of forgiveness as it presents in children/adolescents, as well as the relationship of forgiveness to other constructs of wellbeing and positive psychology (i.e. altruism, cognitive flexibility, openness to experiences, et c) and more pathologi cal constructs such as neuroticism, perfectionism or negative affect. Furthermore, the brief qualitative responses obtained in this study encourage mo re extensive, qualitative interviews with younger populations in order to better inform future quantitative an alyses and provide a solid and sound basis for appropriate developm ent of tools for measuring forgiveness.

PAGE 53

45 APPENDIX A CADFI ITEMS AND FACTOR LOADINGS CADFI item Factor 1 Factor 2 2. I dislike myself for negative things I have done. .703 3. Learning from bad things that I have done helps me get over them. .516 4. It is really hard for me to accep t myself when Ive messed up. .546 5. With time I am understanding of myself for mistakes I have made. .486 6. I get upset with myself for negative things I have felt, thought, said, or done. .629 7. I keep punishing a person who has done something that I think is wrong. .368 9. I stay upset with others who have hurt me. .370 10. Even though others have hurt me in the past, with time I have been able to see them as good people. .582 13. When things go wrong for reasons that cant be controlled, I keep having negative thoughts about it. .396 14. With time I can be understanding of bad things in my life. .627 15. I keep thinking negatively about things in my life that I cannot control. .581 16. With time I make peace with bad things in my life. .409 17. It is hard for me to accept negative th ings that are not anyones fault. .554 18. With time I let go of negative thoughts about bad things that are beyond anyones control. .412

PAGE 54

46 APPENDIX B QUALITATIVE QUESTIONS Is it hard for you to accept yourself when you mess up? What is it like for you when you mess up? Can you think of a time when you did? Do you stay upset with others who have hurt you? What do you do? Can you think of an example? Is it hard for you to accept negative th ings that are not anyones fault? What is it like for you when something ba d happens and its not anyones fault? Can you think of a situation? What happened?

PAGE 55

47 APPENDIX C QUALITATIVE RESPONSES Participant 300 : Is it hard for you to accept yourself when you mess up? No. What is it like for you when you mess up? I get annoyed with myself. Can you think of a time when you did? When I dropped my baton twice. Do you stay upset with others who have hurt you? No. What do you do? Play with other friends. Can you think of an example? A day my friends said mean things. We are still friends I still forgave them. Is it hard for you to accept negative things that are not anyones fault? Ah man! What is it like for you when something ba d happens and its not anyones fault? I do something else. Can you think of a situation? What happened? When it rains when I want to go in the pool. Participant 12: Is it hard for you to accept yourself when you mess up? Sometimes. What is it like for you when you mess up? Can you think of a time when you did? Like when remembering my words (for school). Do you stay upset with others who have hurt you? No. What do you do? Like, I just try to ignore them until we both have forgotten about it. Can you think of an example? At computers, someone was annoying me and I ignore it. Today, we were getting our backpacks, he let the lid down and it hi t me on the cheek. You need to watch what youre doing. Is it hard for you to accept negative things that are not anyones fault? No. What is it like for you when something bad happens and its not anyones fault? Like, I keep going on with my life. Can you think of a situation? What happened? Like a car accident, he wrecked the van, it wasnt anybodys fault. Participant 11: Is it hard for you to accept yourself when you mess up? No. What is it like for you when you mess up? Can you think of a time when you did? Do you stay upset with others who have hurt you? What do you do? No. When someone hurt me physically? Can you think of a situation? When someone pushed me off my bike and almost sprained my ankle. That was 2 years ago. I forgave them.

PAGE 56

48 Is it hard for you to accept negative things that are not anyones fault? No. What is it like for you when something bad happens and its not anyones fault? Can you think of an example? What happened? Participant 306: Is it hard for you to accept yourself when you mess up? No. What is it like for you when you mess up? It doesnt bother me. Can you think of a time when you did? Saturday, I missed my baton. Do you stay upset with others who have hurt you? No. What do you do? I get upset, and I let it go. Can you think of an example? My friends, when they didnt w ant to hear about my trip I was so excited to go on. Is it hard for you to accept negative things that are not anyones fault? No. What is it like for you when something bad happens and its not anyones fault? I get upset. Can you think of a situation? Maggie moved away to Oklahoma. What happened? I got sad and dealt with it. Participant 305: Is it hard for you to accept yourself when you mess up? Sometimes. What is it like for you when you mess up? It is hard. Can you think of a time when you did? One time I messed up in horseback riding lessons. Do you stay upset with others who have hurt you? Not really. What do you do? I walk away and try to be calm. Can you think of an example? One time a person called me a name and I didnt like it. Is it hard for you to accept negative things that are not anyones fault? Its kinda hard. What is it like for you when something bad happens and its not anyones fault? I feel funny. Can you think of a situation? One time a glass bowl fell off the table. What happened? I was doing a dance and everyone was clapping and one moment the bowl was there and one moment it fell. Participant 304: Is it hard for you to accept yourself when you mess up? Sometimes. What is it like for you when you mess up? Hard. Can you think of a time when you did? At school.

PAGE 57

49 Do you stay upset with others who have hurt you? No. What do you do? I go tell the teacher. Can you think of an example? When another kid hurt my feel ings in music class. She yelled at me. Is it hard for you to accept negative things that are not anyones fault? Yes. What is it like for you when something bad happens and its not anyones fault? Sometimes I feel scared. Can you think of a situation? When my dog Belle got sick. What happened? Sometimes I get really scared feel ing is scary because you dont know whats happening. Participant 303: Is it hard for you to accept yourself when you mess up? Yes. What is it like for you when you mess up? I feel upset. Can you think of a time when you did? Yes, I told a lie. Do you stay upset with others who have hurt you? Sometimes. What do you do? Tell or keep it to myself. Can you think of an example? Today someone accused me for something. Is it hard for you to accept negative things that are not anyones fault? Yes. What is it like for you when something bad happens and its not anyones fault? Very sad. Can you think of a situation? What happened? My grandma got very sick. Participant 302: Is it hard for you to accept yourself when you mess up? Sometimes. What is it like for you when you mess up? I feel ashamed. Can you think of a time when you did? Yes. Do you stay upset with others who have hurt you? Sometimes. What do you do? Forgive them. Can you think of an example? When my friend and I fought at school. Is it hard for you to accept negative things that are not anyones fault? No, its sad. What is it like for you when something bad happens and its not anyones fault? Sad. Can you think of a situation? When my friend moved. What happened? She moved far away. Participant 301: Is it hard for you to accept yourself when you mess up? Yes. What is it like for you when you mess up? Bad.

PAGE 58

50 Can you think of a time when you did? No. Do you stay upset with others who have hurt you? Yes. What do you do? Can you think of an example? No. Is it hard for you to accept negative things that are not anyones fault? Yes. What is it like for you when something bad happens and its not anyones fault? Bad. Can you think of a situation? What happened? No.

PAGE 59

51 REFERENCES Bass, E., & Davis, L. (1994). The courage to heal. New York: Harper Perennial. Berry, J. W., Worthington, E. J., Parrott, L., OConnor, L. E., & Wade, N. G. (2001). Dispositional forgivingness: Develo pment and construct validity of the Transgression Narrative Test of Forgivingness (TNTF). Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27 (10), 1277-1290. Beck, A. T., & Steer, R. A. (1987). The Beck Depression Inventory. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative Fit indices in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-246. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. (2nd ed.) Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Carpendale, J. I. M., & Lewis, C. (2004). Constructing an understanding of mind: The development of childrens social inte raction within social interaction. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27, 79-151. Castenada, A., McCandless, B. R., & Palerm o, D. S. (1956). The childrens form of the manifest anxiety scale. Child Development, 27 (3), 317-326. Catell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1, 245-276. Cavell, M. (2003). Freedom and forgiveness. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 84 (3), 515-531. Crandall, V. C., Crandall, V. J., & Katkovsky, W. (1965). A childrens social desirability questionnaire. Journal of Consulti ng Psychology, 29 (1), 27-36. Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new s cale of social desirabi lity independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 10, 3-31. Dadds, M. R., Perrin, S., & Yule, W. (1998). Soci al desirability and self-reported anxiety in children: An analysis of the RCMAS Lie scale. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 26 (4), 311-317.

PAGE 60

52 Darby, B. W., & Schlenker, B.R. (1982) Childrens reactions to apologies. Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, 43(4), 742-753. Diener, E., Sandvik, E., Pavot, W., & Gallagh er, D. (1991). Response artifacts in the measurement of subjective well-being. Social Indicators Research, 24, 36-56. Enright, R. D., & Zell, R. L. (1989). Problem s encountered when we forgive another. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 8, 52-60. Enright, R. D. (2000). Helping clients forgive: An em pirical guide for resolving anger and restoring hope. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Enright, R. D., Freedman, S., & Rique, J. (1998). The psychology of interpersonal forgiveness. In R. D. Enright & J. North (Eds.), Exploring forgiveness (pp.46-62). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Flavell, J. H. (2000). Development of ch ildrens knowledge about the mental world. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 24, 15-23. Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., Davidson, L., & Munro, Y. (2001). The Child-Adolescent Perfectionism Scale: Development, valid ation, and association with adjustment (submitted for publication). Gladstone, T. R.G., & Kaslow, N. J. (1995). De pression and attributions in children and adolescents: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 23 (5), 597-606. Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Hagborg, W. J. (1991a). The Revised Childre ns Manifest Anxiet y Scale and social desirability. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51 (2), 423-427. Hagborg, W. J. (1991b). Adolescen t clients and perceived coun selor characteristics: A study of background characteristics, therap eutic progress, psychological distress, and social desirability. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 47 (1), 107-113. Hargrave,T. D., & Sells, J. N. (1997). Th e development of a forgiveness scale. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 23, 41-63. Hebl, J. H., & Enright, R. D. (1993). Forg iveness as a psychotherapeutic goal with elderly females. Psychotherapy, 30, 658-667. Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1991). Perfec tionism in the self and social contexts: Conceptualization, assessment, a nd association with psychopathology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 456-470.

PAGE 61

53 Hill, E.W. (2001). Understanding forgiveness as discovery: Implications for marital and family therapy. Contemporary Family Therapy, 23(4), 369-384. Kaslow, N. J., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (1991). Childrens Attributional Style QuestionnaireRevised. Unpublished manus cript, Emory University, Atlanta, GA. Katz, J., Street, A., & Arias, I. (1997). I ndividual differences in self-appraisals and responses to dating violence scenarios. Violence and Victims, 12 (3), 265-276. Klein, E. B., Gould, L. J., & Corey, M. (1969) Social desirability in children: An extension and replication. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33 (1), 128. Kovacs, M. (1985). The Children s Depression Inventory (CDI). Psychopharmacology Bulletin, 21, 995-998. Kovacs, M. (1992). The Childrens Depression Inventory. Manual. Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems, Inc. Larzelere, R. E., & Huston, T. L. (1980). Th e dyadic trust scale: Toward understanding interpersonal trust in close relationships. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 42, 595-604. Lautenschlager, G. J. (1989). A comparison of alternatives to conducting monte carlo analyses for determining parallel analysis criteria. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 24(3), 365-395. Lopez, S. J., & Snyder, C. R. (2003). Positive psychological assessment: A handbook of models and measures. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Macaskill, A., Maltby, J., & Day, L. (2002). Forg iveness of self and others and emotional empathy. The Journal of Social Psychology, 142(5), 663-665. Maltby, J., Macaskill, A., & Day, L. (2001). Failure to forgive self and others: A replication and extension of the relationship between forgiveness, personality, social desirability and general health. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 881-885. Marlowe, D., & Crowne, D. P. (1961). Social desirability and response to perceived situational demands. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 25, 109-115. Martin, M. M., & Rubin, R. B. (1995). A new measure of cognitive flexibility. Psychological Reports, 76, 623-626.

PAGE 62

54 Mauger, P. A., Perry, J. E., Freeman, T., Grove D. C., McBride, A. G., McKinney, K. E. (1992). The measurement of forgiv eness: Preliminary research. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 11, 170-180. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr., (1983). Soci al desirability scales: More substance than style. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 882-888. McCullough, M. E. (2000). Forgiveness as hum an strength: Theory, measurement, and links to well-being. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 19, 43-55. McCullough, M. E., Pargament, K. I., & Thor esen, C. E. (Eds). (2000). The psychology of forgiveness: History, conceptual i ssues, and overview. In M.E. McCullough, K.I. Pargament, & C.E. Thoresen (Eds.), Forgiveness: Theory, research, and practice (pp.1-14). New York: Guilford Press. McCullough, M. E., Rachal, K. C., Sandage, S. J., Worthington, E. L., Jr., Brown, S. W., & Hight, T. L. (1998). Interpersonal fo rgiveness in close relationships II: Theoretical elaboration and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1586-1603. Nolen-Hoeksema, S. & Morrow, J. (1991). A pr ospective study of depression and distress following a natural disaster: Th e 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 105-121. Park, Y. O., & Enright, R. D. (1997). The de velopment of forgivene ss in the context of adolescent friendship conflict in Korea. Journal of Adolescence, 20 (4), 393-402. Pela, O. A., & Reynolds, C. R. (1982). Converg ent and divergent validity of the Revised Childrens Manifest Anxiety Scale: Normative and reliability data for Nigerian primary school children. Psychological Reports, 51, 1135-1138. Pina, A., Silverman, W. K., Saavedra, L. M., & Weems, C. F. (2001). An analysis of the RCMAS lie scale in a clinical sample of anxious children. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 15 (5), 443-457. Reynolds, C. R., & Paget, K. D. (1981). Fact or analysis of the revised Childrens Manifest Anxiety Scale for blacks, white s, males and females with a national normative sample. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49 (3), 352359. Reynolds, C. R., & Richmond, B. O. (1978). What I think and feel: A revised measure of childrens manifest anxiety. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 6, 271-280. Reynolds, C. R., & Richmond, B. O. (1985). Revised Childrens Manifest Anxiety Scale (RCMAS) manual. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.

PAGE 63

55 Ripley, J. S., & Worthington, E. L. (2002) Hope-focused and forgiveness-based group interventions to promot e marital enrichment. Journal of Counseling & Development, 80, 452-463. Rosenak, C. M., & Harnden, G. M. (1992). Forg iveness in the Psychot herapeutic process: Clinical applications. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 11 (2), 188-197. Russell, D. W. (2002). In search of underlying dimensions: The use (and abuse) of factor analysis in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(12), 1629-1646. Scobie, G. E. W., & Scobie, E. D. (2000). A comparison of forgiveness and pro-social development. Early Child Development and Care, 160, 33-45. Seligman, M. E. P., Peterson, C., Kaslow, N. J., Tanenbaum, R. L., Alloy, L. B., & Abramson, L. Y. (1984). Explanatory st yle and depressive symptoms among school children. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 93, 235-238. Shriberg, L.D. (1974). Descriptive statistics fo r two childrens social desirability scales, general and test anxiety, and locus of control in elementary school children. Psychological Reports, 34, 863-870. Snyder, C. R., Crowson, J. J., Jr., Houst on, B. K., Kurylo, M., & Poirier, J. (1997). Assessing hostile automatic thoughts: De velopment and validation of the HAT Scale. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 21, 477-492. Stark, K. D., & Laurent, J. (2001). Joint f actor analysis of th e Childrens Depression Inventory and the Revised childre ns Manifest Anxiety Scale. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 30 (4), 552-567. Stuckless, N., & Goranson, R. (1992). The Vengeance Scale: Development of a measure of attitudes towards revenge. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 7 (1), 2542. Subkoviak, M. J., Enright, R. D., Wu, C. R ., Gassin, E. A., Freedman, S., & Olson, L. M., et al. (1995). Measuring inte rpersonal forgiveness in late adolescence and middle adulthood. Journal of Adolescence, 18, 641-655. Tabachnik, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics (3rd ed.) New York: Harper Collins Publishers. Tangney, J., Fee, R., Reinsmith, C., Boone, A. L., & Lee, N. (1999, August). Assessing individual differences in the propensity to forgive. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychol ogical Association, Boston, MA.

PAGE 64

56 Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts and applications. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Thompson, M., Kaslow, N. J., Weiss, B., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (1998). Childrens Attributional Style Ques tionnaire-Revised: Psyc hometric examination. Psychological Assessment, 10(2), 166-170. Thompson, L. Y., & Snyder, C. R. (2003). Measur ing forgiveness. In S. J. Lopez and C. R. Snyder (Eds.), Positive psychological assessment: A handbook of models and measure s (pp. 301-312) Washington DC: American Psychological Association. Thompson, L. Y., Snyder, C. R., Hoffman, L., Michael, S. T., Rasmussen, H. N., & Billings, L., et al. (2005). Dispositional forg iveness of self, others, and situations. Journal of Personality, 73 (2), 313-360. Wade, N. G., & Worthington, E. L. (2003). Overcoming interpersonal offenses: Is forgiveness the only way to deal with unforgiveness? Journal of Counseling & Development, 81, 343-353. Walker, D. F., & Gorsuch, R. L. (2000). Forg iveness within the Big Five personality model. Personality and Individua l Differences, 32, 1127-1137. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. ( 1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063-1070. Witvliet, C., Ludwig, T. E., & Bauer, D. J. (2002). Please Forgive Me: Transgressors Emotions and Physiology During Imager y of Seeking Forgiveness and Victim Responses. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 21(3), 219-233. Worthington, E. L., Jr., & Wade, N. G. (1999). The psychology of unforgiveness and forgiveness and implications for clinical practice. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 18 (4), 385-418. Worthington, E. L., Jr., Sandage, S. J., & Berry, J. W. (2000). Group interventions to promote forgiveness. In M.E. McCullough, K.I. Pargament, & C.E. Thoresen (Eds.), Forgiveness: Theory, research, and practice (pp.228-253). New York: Guilford Press. Worthington, E. L., Jr., Mazzeo, S. E., & Kl ewer, W. L. (2002). Addictive and eating disorders, unforgiveness, and forgiveness. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 21(3) 257-261.

PAGE 65

57 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH I was born in Tampa, Florida on July 5th, 1980, and grew up in Temple Terrace and South Tampa until eighteen years of age, when I graduated from King High Schools International Baccalaureate Program. I attended the University of Florida as an undergraduate, majoring in psychology and supplementing my psychology major with concentrations in dance and biological sciences. I completed my undergraduate senior honors thesis in an area of developmental psychology, and graduate d summa cum laude in 2003 with my Bachelor of Science degree with a major in psychology. I then joined the Department of Psychol ogy at the University of Florida as a graduate student in the Counseling Psyc hology Program. I completed my Master of Science degree in the summer of 2006.


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0014962/00001

Material Information

Title: Forgiveness in Children: The Child/Adolescent Dispositional Forgiveness Inventory
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0014962:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0014962/00001

Material Information

Title: Forgiveness in Children: The Child/Adolescent Dispositional Forgiveness Inventory
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0014962:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text












FORGIVENESS IN CHILDREN: THE CHILD/ADOLESCENT DISPOSITIONAL
FORGIVENESS INVENTORY















By

BROOKE A. LEEVER


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2006









































Copyright 2006

by

Brooke A. Leever















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I first wish to thank my family and friends who continually offer me support and

have never failed to believe in me. They mean more to me than they know.

I am extremely grateful to my mother, Brenda Leever, for her dedication and

helpful coordination efforts with this project. I would also like to thank my advisor, Dr.

Ken Rice, for all of his time and wealth of statistical knowledge without which this

project could not have been accomplished.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS



ACKNOWLEDGMENT S .......... .... ............. iii
A BLE..........CK N OW LED GM EN TS ....................................... ............................................. vi


ABSTRACT ............... ............................................ vii

CHAPTER


1 IN TRODU CTION ................................................. ...... .................

2 LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................8

Forgiveness and Forgiveness M easures.................................... ........................ 8
C children and A adolescents ................................................... ................... ............... 13
The H eartland Forgiveness Scale ........................................ .......... ............... 17
Research Questions and Hypotheses ........................................ ....... ............... 20
S social D esirab ility ...............................................................22

3 M E T H O D S ........................................................................................................... 2 4

P a rtic ip a n ts ........................................................................................................... 2 4
P ro c e d u re ..................................................................2 5
M e a su re s ............... ...... ............. .... ................ ... ... ... ........... ............... 2 5
Child/Adolescent Dispositional Forgiveness Inventory (CADFI) ...................26
Children's Attributional Style Questionnaire-Revised (CASQ-R) ...................26
Children's Depression Inventory-Short form (CDI-S) .......................................28
Lie Scale from the Revised Children's Manifest Anxiety Scale (RCMAS) .......28

4 R E S U L T S ............................................................................. 3 0

In stru m e n t ...................................................................................................... 3 0
D descriptive Statistics .............................................................30
A n a ly se s .................... ... ......................................... .................... ............. 3 0
Confirm atory Factor A analysis ................................................................... 31
E xploratory F actor A analysis .......................................................................... 32
T h ree F actor M o d el ....................................................................................... 32
Parallel A nalysis................................................... 34










Tw o Factor M odel .......................................... ............. .... ....... 35
Internal C consistency ................................................ .......... ..... .. .......... 36
Convergent, Discriminant, and Construct Validity .......................................... 36
Q ualitative R esponses............ ... ...................................................... ...... .... .....38

5 D ISC U S SIO N ............................................................................... 4 1

APPENDIX

A CADFI ITEMS AND FACTOR LOADINGS ................................. ...............45

B QUALITATIVE QUESTIONS ............................................................................46

C QUALITATIVE RESPONSES ............................................................................47

R E F E R E N C E S ................................................................ 5 1

B IO G R A PH IC A L SK E TCH ..................................................................... ..................57





































v
















TABLE

Table page

1 Correlations Between All Scale and Subscale Scores............ .............38















Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science

FORGIVENESS IN CHILDREN: THE CHILD/ADOLESCENT DISPOSITIONAL
FORGIVENESS INVENTORY

By

Brooke A. Leever

August, 2006

Chair: Kenneth G. Rice
Major Department: Psychology

The current study investigated dispositional forgiveness in the child and adolescent

population. Specifically, the factor structure, internal consistency reliability, and validity

of a modified version of the Heartland Forgiveness Scale (HFS), entitled the

Child/Adolescent Dispositional Forgiveness Inventory (CADFI), were examined in a

sample of children and adolescents. Reliability coefficients were found to be adequate

with this sample, and relationships with constructs of validity were found to be solid as

well. In particular, the relationship of forgiveness with depressive symptoms (as

measured by the Child Depression Inventory-Short Form; CSI-S), attributional style (as

measured by the Children's Attributional Style Questionnaire Revised; CASQ-R), and

social desirability (as measured using the Lie Scale of the Revised Children's Manifest

Anxiety Scale) was explored. Results support relationships in the expected directions

between forgiveness and the chosen measures. Internal consistency reliabilities were









reported for all scales and factor structure was also examined and a proposed two

factor model provided. Directions for future research are included.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Though no clear-cut consensus exists among researchers as to the definition of

forgiveness, most definitions include a key component of renouncing anger and

resentment. Forgiveness of another does not necessarily involve reconciliation, though

that may occur as part of the process (see Thompson & Snyder, 2003 for descriptions).

McCullough et al. (1998) assert that forgiveness must include pro-social changes in

motivation, and they provide criteria for distinguishing when these changes have

occurred. Thus, they consider the important aspect to be forgiveness as a process

involving interpersonal relationships. Thompson and Snyder (2003) and Thompson et al.

(2005) emphasize that a forgiver relinquishes the negative attachment to a transgression,

transgressor, or sequence of events involved in a transgression. Negative thoughts,

feelings, or behaviors are all contained within the concept of negative attachment, with

the eventual goal of forgiveness being a more positive or at least neutral reframing, which

results in a weakening of the attachment. Hargrave and Sells' (1997) conceptualization

provides support within itself for the restorative, healthy component of forgiveness; they

describe it as an effort to restore love and trustworthiness for relationships in order for

victims and victimizers to put an end the cycle of destructive entitlement. Finally, Hill

(2001) offers what seems to be one of the most encompassing and noteworthy

descriptions, effectively articulating the essential depth of the forgiveness construct and

the beneficial nature of forgiveness by describing it as being more of a discovery rather

than an act of will.









Within the realm of dispositional measures, only one covers what appears to

encompass the three main aspects of the forgiveness construct: the Heartland Forgiveness

Scale (HFS), measuring Forgiveness of Self, Forgiveness of Others, and Forgiveness of

Situations. These authors use a definition of forgiveness in which forgiveness occurs

primarily through a weakening of the negative attachment to a transgressor,

transgression, or some compilation of the two (Thompson & Snyder, 2003; Thompson et

al., 2005). The negative attachment may then transform into positive or neutral, providing

a mechanism for the forgiveness process to unfold.

A review of current forgiveness literature reveals that most researchers view

forgiveness as adaptive (e.g. Mauger et al., 1992; McCullough, 2000; Thompson &

Snyder, 2003; Thompson et al., 2005). Forgiveness has been linked to psychological

health and well-being in general (e.g. Mauger et al, 1992; Enright, 2000; Scobie &

Scobie, 2000; Worthington, Sandage, & Berry, 2000; Ripley & Worthington, 2002;

Thompson & Snyder, 2003), while unforgiveness has been correlated with higher

psychopathology (e.g. Mauger et al., 1992; Maltby, Macaskill, & Day, 2001;

Worthington, Mazzeo, & Klewer, 2002). At the theoretical and philosophical level,

forgiveness has been seen as evidence of one's objectivity, a demonstration of acceptance

of one's embeddedness in the world and of freedom, with it forgiveness and self-

forgiveness come (Cavell, 2003). Unforgiveness has not been clearly defined but

typically has been thought of as a lack of forgiveness. Unforgiveness has been attributed

to a lack of letting go of negative attachment to events, exemplified by behaviors such as

repeated ruminations, or a pervasive negative affect. Attempts to reduce unforgiveness,

often due to repeated ruminations, can lead to the presence of addictive behaviors and









psychological defense mechanisms. Unforgiveness, as part of a person's internalized

negative affect, may become detrimental both by causing addictive behaviors as well as

by being a result of such addictive behaviors (Worthington et al., 2002). Contrarily, a

handful of researchers believe forgiveness may not be beneficial because it may leave the

forgiver open to further victimization or victim-blaming (e.g. Bass & Davis, 1994; Katz,

Street, & Arias, 1997). However, the forgiving of others is not the only aspect of

forgiveness argued to be beneficial. Witvliet, Ludwig, and Bauer (2002) demonstrated the

powerfully beneficial aspects of being forgiven by a victim as well. After imagery

conditions in which the subjects imagined being forgiven, significant improvements were

reported by participants in basic emotions such as anger and sadness, moral emotions

such as guilt, shame, gratitude and hope, as well as perceived interpersonal forgiveness

(Witvliet et al., 2002). Discrepancies as to the beneficial nature of forgiveness exist

mainly due to differences in the conceptualizations and definitions of forgiveness chosen.

Current research thoroughly conveys the multidimensionality of the construct of

forgiveness. The typical notion that forgiveness only occurs from one person to another

interpersonallyy) has lead to a predominance of research examining transgression specific

forgiveness, or the extent of one's forgiveness specifically toward another person (e.g.

Hargrave & Sells, 1997; Enright, Freedman, & Rique, 1998; Tangney et al., 1999;

McCullough, 2000; McCullough et al., 2000; Witvliet et al., 2000; Wade & Worthington,

2003). Transgression specific forgiveness relates to a particular event, and therefore may

not necessarily be predictive of a person's willingness to forgive across situations and

contexts. On the other hand, dispositional forgiveness measures attempt to remedy this

limitation by emphasizing that the development of a forgiveness measure holding









predictive qualities remains key. Knowledge as to a person's willingness to forgive

across various circumstances and events reveals more about the presence of that trait

within an overall person, viewing forgiveness more expansively.

Assessing dispositional forgiveness across contexts (e.g., Berry et al., 2001) provides

a beneficial alternative to transgression specific assessments. Scores on measures of

dispositional forgiveness tend to be specifically related to mental health and well-being,

whereas scores on transgression specific measures do not tend to be (Thompson &

Snyder, 2003). Furthermore, measures of forgiveness that are dispositional in nature,

rather than event specific, provide a better basis for comparison with psychological

correlates of the forgiveness construct (Thompson & Snyder, 2003). Dispositional

forgiveness, as opposed to transgression specific forgiveness, offers a broader window

into forgiveness as a whole, since it gives due credence to the multifaceted nature of the

forgiveness.

The dispositional forgiveness construct falls within differing domains, or subscales.

Forgiveness may occur interpersonally, as exemplified through the transgression specific

model, as well as intrapersonally, as revealed through one's willingness to forgive

oneself. More recently, interest has begun to arise in a third area of forgiveness, that of

forgiveness of situations. Forgiveness of situations has been introduced as specifically a

dispositional aspect of the forgiveness construct and has been assessed along with the

previously established interpersonal and intrapersonal domains. Measures with reliable

scores have been created to include forgiveness of oneself (Mauger et al., 1992;

Worthington et al., 2002; Macaskill, Maltby, & Day, 2002) and forgiveness of others,









along with forgiveness of situations beyond the control of either self or others (Thompson

& Snyder, 2003).

The distinction of a construct along interpersonal as well as intrapersonal lines leads

to a better understanding of the depth of this construct of interest and a more specific

view into its dimensional nature. The construct of forgiveness clearly contains

interpersonal as well as intrapersonal components, existing as distinct yet related

concepts. As would naturally seem to follow, the psychopathologies associated with

forgiveness and unforgiveness appear along similar interpersonal and intrapersonal lines.

A distinction in related pathologies exists depending on the type of forgiveness (or lack

of) being assessed. Mauger's Forgiveness of Self (FS) and Forgiveness of Others (FO)

scales have been correlated with the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory

(MMPI), revealing a significant association of failure to forgive with negative emotional

states, such as depression, anxiety, anger/distrust, and negative self-esteem. Lack of

forgiveness has also been specifically linked to eating disorders (Worthington et al.,

2002). Personality factors have been found to highly correlate with dispositional

forgiveness of both self and others in the expected directions, especially for the category

of neuroticism versus emotional stability, in which lower levels of forgiveness related to

higher neuroticism (Walker & Gorsuch, 2000). Failure to forgive self has been

connected to more intra-punitive pathologies, such as anxiety and depression, while

failure to forgive others has been associated with extra-punitive pathologies, such as

social alienation, social introversion, depression, and psychoticism (Maltby, Macaskill, &

Day, 2001). Mauger and colleagues (1992) also found deficits in forgiveness of self and









others to be related to higher amounts of overt psychopathologies, for example

schizophrenia.

As is apparent, depression has been previously found to be a significant related

pathology of failure to forgive self and others, and therefore depression may represent a

manifestation of both intra- and extra-punitive forgiveness failures. That is, depression

appears to be a main component of the ways in which failure to forgive may manifest and

influence a person's psychological well-being, and therefore depression is important to

consider, theoretically and practically, in forgiveness research. As will be discussed,

researchers who developed the Heartland Forgiveness Scale (HFS) report a similar

relationship regarding the association of depression with lack of dispositional

forgiveness, manifest as a significant negative correlation. Following this premise, the

current study plans to examine correlation of the Child/Adolescent Dispositional

Forgiveness Inventory with related constructs of interest such as a child measure of

depression.

Developments in adult forgiveness research include broadening the scope of the

forgiveness construct to be inclusive of forgiveness of self, forgiveness of others, and

forgiveness of situations domains (i.e. Thompson et al., 2005). Evaluation of forgiveness,

or lack thereof, has been increasing in emphasis on dispositional factors for measurement

rather than specific event examples. The use of a dispositional measure lessens the

difficulties and ambiguities of the relationship of forgiveness to similar psychological

constructs. Correlations and conclusions made under a transgression specific framework

by nature impose stricter circumstances under which forgiveness frequency and behavior

may be predicted. Consistent with these trends, a main purpose of the current study was









to create a measure to meet the needs of the younger age range while retaining the

integrity of the dispositional forgiveness construct and keeping up with current trends in

this area of research. The creation of a dispositional measure of forgiveness appropriate

for the child/adolescent population follows in the footsteps of previous adult dispositional

measures, allowing for a dynamic insight into the nature of forgiveness across a broad

age range. Such a measure is necessary to examine the psychological correlates of

forgiveness across a broader age span, as well as to open examination of the possible

developmental influences on this construct. The study of forgiveness development as a

dispositional trait provides a means to possible illumination of implications this construct

may have on later psychological functioning. Future research in this direction is

predicated on having a useful dispositional measure of child/adolescent forgiveness

available.














CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

Forgiveness and Forgiveness Measures

There has been much debate as to the conceptualization of forgiveness and its aspects.

Most consider forgiveness of transgressions interpersonally to be the forgiveness

representative. However, approaches to measuring forgiveness range from presenting

events of specific transgressions hypothetically committed towards a respondent and

asking their propensity to forgive such an event, to more broad statements intended to

gauge one's disposition to forgive things beyond one's control.

Mauger and colleagues (1992) created the Forgiveness of Self (FS) and Forgiveness

of Others (FO) scales, two 15-item scales endorsed as true-false by respondents. These

scales provide a solid basis for emphasis and distinction of two different subtypes, which

fall under the greater umbrella of the construct of forgiveness. These scales tap the failure

to forgive others and failure to forgive oneself, which may more accurately characterize

them as measures of unforgiveness than forgiveness. The Forgiveness of Others items

revolve around "taking revenge, justifying retaliation and revenge, holding grudges, and

seeing other people as apt to cause one hurt," while forgiveness of self items involve

"feelings of guilt over past acts, seeing oneself as sinful, and having a variety of negative

attitudes towards yourself' (Mauger et al., 1992). These measures generally take the

approach of measuring forgiveness from the negative standpoint, in that they appear to be

tapping unforgiveness as indication of one's lack of forgiveness of self or others,

implying unforgiveness and forgiveness would exist on a continuum in which one is said









to have more or less forgiveness regardless of the negative or positive standpoint of the

measure.

In the transgression-specific vein, Enright and his colleagues developed the Enright

Forgiveness Inventory (EFI; Subkoviak et al., 1995) and the Willingness to Forgive scale

(WTF; Hebl & Enright, 1993). Enright subscribed to the mindset that forgiveness is

something that occurs between two people, excluding the idea of forgiveness of

situations. Thus, their definition is "a willingness to abandon one's right to resentment,

negative judgment, and indifferent behavior toward one who unjustly hurt us, while

fostering the undeserved qualities of compassion, generosity, and even love toward him

or her" (Enright et al., 1998, pp. 46-47). This definition clearly exhibits the necessity for

benevolence in order for forgiveness to occur, and Enright and Zell (1989) also assert

that, "the fruition of forgiveness is entering into loving community with others" (p.99),

suggesting that reconciliation may be a part of forgiveness as well. The focus of this scale

is, again, one specific transgression. Though respondents are asked to respond to

hypothetical as well as one real situation, the narrow focus of a transgression-specific

scale makes the correlation of forgiveness with related psychological constructs.

The EFI consists of 60 items on a 6-point Likert scale assessing six forgiveness

dimensions including positive affect, behavior, and cognitions, and the lack of negative

affect, behavior and cognitions toward the offender. Respondents are supposed to think of

the most recent transgressor or transgression as such when responding to the specific

transgressions. The summed total of scores on the items of the subscales yields an overall

forgiveness score. Relatedly, the WTF is a 16-item scale intended to measure the

effectiveness of forgiveness as a therapeutic interpersonal intervention. The first 15 items









include specific scenarios, while the last item addresses the person's specific

transgression of focus. Respondents choose from ten responses to each scenario, one

choice of which is forgiveness. The scale is scored based on how many times forgiveness

is selected as a solution for when a person would respond with and prefer to respond with

forgiveness to a hypothetical scenario, as well as respond with and prefer to respond with

forgiveness to the real scenario.

Barry, Worthington, and colleagues also created the Transgression Narrative Test of

Forgiveness (2001), a five scenario scale purported to measure the dispositional tendency

to forgive interpersonal transgressions over time and across situations, which they term

forgivingnesss". Participants read each scenario and respond using a 5-point Likert scale

as to their likelihood of forgiving the transgression were they in that situation. The

situations include two intentional transgressions by acquaintances, two negligent

transgressions by friends, and one intentional transgression by a relative followed by an

apology (Barry et al., 2001).

Others have taken the approach of developing a scale to measure the precise

components of their definitions of forgiveness. Similarly to Enright, McCullough (2000)

and colleagues (McCullough et al., 1998) conceptualize forgiveness as a construct

emphasizing prosocial changes in motivations. Under their definition one specifically

experiences decreased motivation to avoid personal and psychological contact with the

offender, to seek revenge or to see harm come to the offender, and increased benevolence

motivation toward the offender, implying that forgiveness of others is the basic

component. Under this framework, again, forgiveness is emphasized as an interpersonal

process rather than one that may occur intrapersonally.









McCullough et al.'s measure is the Transgression-Related Interpersonal Motivations

Inventory (TRIM; 1998), consisting of 12 items on a 5-point Likert scale, with two

subscales measuring two components of their definition, motivations to avoid contact,

and motivations to seek revenge or see harm come to the transgressor. It does not

however measure motivation toward benevolence, and as such appears to indicate mostly

the negative aspects, namely unforgiveness, as representative of one's lack of

forgiveness, which is fairly similar to Mauger's approach.

Hargrave and Sells (1997) also follow the idea of creating a scale to measure aspects

of their specific definition. They offer a definition of forgiveness that includes the

component of love, "effort in restoring love and trustworthiness to relationships so that

victims and victimizers can put an end to destructive entitlement" (p.43). They assert two

broader levels of forgiveness, exonerating (involving insight and understanding) and

forgiving (involving the overt act of forgiving as well as giving the opportunity for

compensation, meaning the ability for interactions with the transgressor in away

perceived by that person as non-threatening and encouraging of emotional bonding).

The Hargrave and Sells (1997) Interpersonal Relationship Resolution scale (IRRS)

taps forgiveness of a specific person who has causes hurt to the respondent. It consists of

two scales, forgiveness and pain, and has 22 total items and four subscales including

insight, understanding, giving the opportunity for compensation, and the overt act of

forgiving.

Tangney and colleagues (1999) have developed another measure of forgiveness that

does not include the components of love or compassion as necessary for forgiveness.

Specifically, their lengthy definition mainly emphasizes that giving up the negative









emotions is what is sufficient to constitute forgiveness. Their measure, the

Multidimensional Forgiveness Inventory (MFI), is a scenario-based approach to

measuring forgiveness of self and others, which consists of 72 items on a 5-point Likert

scale using 16 different transgression scenarios. There are nine subscales, including

propensity to forgive others, propensity to forgive self, propensity to ask for forgiveness,

time to forgive others, time to forgive self, propensity to blame others, propensity to

blame self, sensitivity to hurt feelings, and anger-proneness. This transgression-specific

measure attempts to tap many facets of forgiveness and includes both forgiveness of self

and forgiveness of others components, creating a much wider scope under which to

examine forgiveness through a transgression-specific lens. However, it is still that -

transgression specific. Examination of the construct of forgiveness using specific

descriptions of events still does not allow for a broader generalizability of forgiveness as

attributed to the respondent as well as to be related to other psychological constructs.

The current study argues that the superior approach to measurement of forgiveness is

both through a non trangression-specific framework, and is incorporative of the self,

others, and situational components of the forgiveness construct, in line with Snyder and

Yamhure Thompson's definition of forgiveness:

We define forgiveness as the framing of a perceived transgression such
that one's attachment to the transgressor, transgression, and sequelae of
the transgression is transformed from negative to neutral or positive. The
source of a transgression, and therefore the object of forgiveness, may be
oneself, another person or persons, or a situation that one views as being
beyond anyone's control (e.g. an illness, "fate", or a natural disaster).
(Thompson & Snyder, 2003, p. 302)

This definition appears as the broadest and most encompassing definition so far in

that it includes the possibility of feeling transgressed upon in an impersonal manner, and









thus allows for the forgiveness of situations to exist as a distinct and important aspect of

dispositional forgiveness. The authors' most compelling argument for the understanding

of forgiveness as dispositional rather than transgression-specific is the assertion that

forgiveness itself occurs only intrapersonally. In other words, the target of forgiveness

does not matter; it is the motivation and behavior of the forgiver that exemplify

forgiveness dispositionally. This measure created by Yamhure Thompson and colleagues,

the Heartland Forgiveness scale (HFS; Thompson et al., 2005) that measures forgiveness

of self, others, and situations, is elaborated on in detail later in this section.

Children and Adolescents

The current breadth of literature in the area of dispositional forgiveness begs a more

balanced examination of the forgiveness construct across a broader age range. The

overwhelming majority of research on the construct of forgiveness focuses on adults.

Identification of dispositional failures to forgive in adults inevitably points to the

important question of developmental implications of forgiveness. In other words, the

questions of whether a younger age range will exhibit similar forgiveness trends as

adults, as well as how stable the construct may be with age are imperative to

understanding how forgiveness develops. Future research in this direction requires a

comprehensive scale of dispositional forgiveness appropriate for a younger age range. As

well, a focus on children and adolescents using a dispositional, rather than event-specific,

lens will help shed light on the developmental nature of the forgiveness construct.

Children's understanding of the concept of forgiveness under different circumstances

has been previously evaluated, and development of the concept of forgiveness is

generally considered to occur at a young age. Darby and Schlenker (1982) evaluated

children's understanding of forgiveness and such adult social judgments by examining









child judgments when observing an actor apologizing. Using children's reactions to

apologies, children as young as kindergarten age were shown to be able to comprehend

the major factors of importance (e.g., intentions, motives, apologies) for adult-like social

judgment involving forgiveness, and younger children were found to exhibit similar

judgments to older children (Darby & Schlenker, 1982). These apologies varied with

respect to complexity and circumstances (i.e., intentional versus accidental transgression,

good or bad motives, and high or low responsibility and consequences).

Though this study helps shed light on children's abilities to wrap their minds, and

hearts, around the construct of forgiveness, the experimental and transgression-specific

nature of the study precludes dispositional insights into the children's constructs of

forgiveness in a more predictive sense, and across various dimensions. Forgiveness of

others, though overwhelmingly the most frequently studied aspect of forgiveness, does

not represent the whole of the forgiveness construct. Furthermore, transgression

specificity limits the degree to which examination of the forgiveness construct as a whole

can occur.

Park and Enright (1997) proposed and supported a developmental progression of the

understanding of forgiveness with adolescents in Korea, using junior high students ages

13-14. Specifically, they outline the development from the most basic level, that of

revengeful forgiveness manifested as words or gestures indicating forgiveness while

internal hostility may still exist and be openly expressed, to external forgiveness in

which external gestures indicate forgiveness but awareness exists of inner frustrations

and continuing frustrations are suppressed, to the more advanced level, that of internal

forgiveness where one genuinely seeks to understand the motives and perspective of









the other person and reinterprets the event incorporating both perspectives. This last level

is again said by the authors to arise out of the principles of beneficence and love. Though

beneficence and love are generally articulated in the views of forgiveness, this model also

add credence to the argument of Yamhure Thompson and Snyder, that forgiveness at the

highest and most comprehensive level occur strictly intrapersonally, regardless of the

target of forgiveness. This is to say that unforgiveness as a result of feeling transgressed

upon is something that occurs within a person though may be a result of events from

one's self, another person, or a situation. Thus, motivation for forgiveness can only occur

from within a person in the same manner. This intrapersonal emphasis seems to be

exactly what Park and Enright have supported in their model, although their model

focused upon forgiveness of others.

They also report a significant positive correlation between an adolescent's

understanding of forgiveness and age, meaning an adolescents' understanding of

forgiveness was significantly and positively associated with age; older adolescents were

more forgiving than younger adolescents. This study also revealed that the higher the

level of understanding of forgiveness, the more likely a person was to use a proactive

restorative strategy in the actual conflictual relationship in the real life situation. The

degree to which the offering of social support was a factor followed a similar pattern, in

that the early adolescents appeared to be in transition to this pattern while the later ones

seemed either deeply rooted in or transitioning out of social support as a factor. Thus,

significance of social support seems to be related to level of understanding attained.

Though narrow in scope and sample, this study shows that developmental trends exist in

the concept of forgiveness. Developmental knowledge as well as measurement









understanding of forgiveness can in turn provide an important background for working

with forgiveness in the clinical settings with any age range.

In the realm of clinical practice, models have begun to be established for forgiveness.

Worthington and Wade (1999) have set forth a model incorporating forgiveness and its

related areas, in which the personal attributes of the participants and of the relationship at

hand before a transgression factor into the propensity and likelihood of forgiveness. First

the person's perception of the events take place, and their initial emotional reaction to the

events occurs. Then interpersonally active responses such as revenge/retaliation, pro-

relationship behavior, and perception of the offender's response would occur as well as

the interpersonally passive response of rumination. Within this model, an emotionally

dissonant event may occur that changes one's initial reaction to the event, leading to

emotional dissonance. The authors assert that this aspect is crucial. "Underlying

forgiveness is an emotional dissonant event. Thus, a victim's ability to forgive will be

influenced partially by his or her ability to comprehend and successfully resolve

incompatible emotions, which is the core of the hypothesized construct of emotional

intelligence" (Worthington & Wade, 1999, p. 395).

Other models of forgiveness have also been proposed within the psychotherapeutic

context. Rosenak and Harnden (1992) describe a model in which, after an offensive

event, victims experience hurt that leads to anger. After the realization and expression of

hurt and anger comes an information gathering stage that occurs in therapy in which the

client needs to glean more knowledge about the transgressor. This information is thought

to promote a better understanding from that person's perspective, leading to true empathy

and in turn true forgiveness.









The Heartland Forgiveness Scale

In developing a dispositional forgiveness measure appropriate for children and

adolescents, an existing well-rounded dispositional measure of forgiveness in the adult

population was sought. Modeling after a reliable pre-existing adult measure of the same

construct appears often as a useful approach to developing a complementary

child/adolescent measure for a construct of interest, especially when there is a compelling

reason to suspect construct equivalence between children and adults. For instance, in

related areas of psychological constructs, the Child Adolescent Perfectionism Scale

(CAPS; Flett et al., 2001) was modeled after the Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale

(MPS; Hewitt & Flett, 1991) that had been developed for adults, and the Children's

Depression Inventory (CDI; Kovacs, 1985) was patterned after the framework of the

Beck Depression Inventory (BDI; Beck & Steer, 1987). Similarly, the measure created in

this study, the Child/Adolescent Dispositional Forgiveness Inventory (CADFI) was

designed as an age-appropriate modification from the Heartland Forgiveness Scale

(HFS), targeted for a younger age range.

The Heartland Forgiveness Scale (HFS; Thompson & Snyder, 2003) was chosen

to serve as the model in this study mainly because of its encompassing nature for the

construct of forgiveness. Under this framework, someone can be relieved of the negative

attachment through transforming the negative cognitions, emotions, and/or behaviors to

either neutral or positive, as well as through weakening the attachment by releasing the

perception of a strong connection between oneself and the transgressor or transgression

(Thompson & Snyder, 2003). This does not necessitate a forgetting of the event, nor

preclude the person from taking any actions, legal or otherwise. The emphasis is on the

valence of the attachment, and forgiveness is said to occur as long as the motivation does









not involve negative attachment (e.g., vengefulness). Instead, forgiveness is understood

as a process "through which people synthesize their prior assumptions and the reality of

the transgression into a new understanding of the transgression, transgressor,

transgression sequelae, and potentially, of themselves, other people, or the world"

(Thompson et al., 2005, p. 318). The authors are therefore unique in their perspective that

only the shift from a negative to a neutral attachment is necessary and sufficient to

constitute forgiveness, rather than needing empathy or compassion to be demonstrated.

The HFS was developed with adults to assess the dispositional tendency to forgive.

The HFS includes 18 items, endorsed on a 7-point Likert Scale ranging from almost

always false of me to almost always true of me. Subscales included in the HFS are

forgiveness of self, forgiveness of others, and forgiveness of situations. Thus, for the

current purposes of developing a multi-dimensional forgiveness measure for children and

adolescents, this measure was considered the most comprehensive representational

instrument for the dispositional nature of forgiveness. This measure of forgiveness was

chosen because of its ability to tap interpersonal as well as intrapersonal forgiveness on a

dispositional level across different contexts; the HFS is the only existing forgiveness

scale which taps forgiveness of situations, one of the three main aspects of forgiveness

(self, other, and situational forgiveness).

Adequate internal consistency reliability of HFS scores has been supported, with

Cronbach coefficient alphas on the total scale ranging from .84 to .87, and alphas on the

subscales ranging from .71 to .83. Test-retest reliability of the HFS, on the basis of a 3-

week follow-up period, was .83 for the total score and ranged from .72 to .77 (Thompson

& Snyder, 2003) for the subscales. The psychometric properties of the HFS have been









evaluated and adequately demonstrated with student and nonstudent samples. The HFS

has been found to correlate in the expected directions with other dispositional measures

of forgiveness as well as measures of related psychological constructs. The HFS shows a

large positive correlation with the FS and FO scales, a smaller positive correlation with

the WTF scale, and a moderate/medium correlation with the MFI (Thompson & Snyder,

2003). The forgiveness of others subscale of the HFS is significantly negatively

correlated with one measure of forgiveness of a specific transgression, the TRIM, which

measures forgiveness of a transgression done specifically by another person (higher

scores mean higher levels of unforgiveness). The HFS was also found to significantly

positively correlate with the EFI transgression-specific measure. The HFS was not

significantly correlated with the IRRS, a measure of forgiveness towards a specific

person. Overall, the HFS has demonstrated much higher correlation with the dispositional

measures of forgiveness than the transgression-specific measures, although positive

correlation was found with all measures of forgiveness examined (Thompson, et al.,

2005).

The HFS was found to negatively correlate with scores on measures of some related

constructs as well. Yamhure Thompson and colleagues (2005) also found moderately

large negative correlations of the HFS with the Hostile Automatic Thoughts scale, the

rumination subscale of the Response Style Questionnaire (Thompson et al., 2005), and

the Beck Depression Inventory (Thompson & Snyder, 2003) as well as the Vengeance

Scale (Stuckless & Goranson, 1992), and the negative affect of the Positive and Negative

Affect Schedule (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). Since forgiveness involves

transforming mental energy away from negative behaviors and thoughts, it makes logical









sense that such constructs as negative affect, vengeance, and rumination leading to

feeling depressed would correlate negatively with the HFS forgiveness measure.

The HFS was also evaluated to determine its predictive power of forgiveness in

romantic relationships. Participants were given the HFS as well as measures of hostility,

trust, relationship satisfaction, and relationship duration once and again nine months later.

Forgiveness as evaluated by the HFS was revealed as a stronger predictor of relationship

satisfaction than hostility, and satisfaction was also significantly predicted by how

trusting the person was of their partner and their perception of how trusting their partner

was of them (Thompson & Snyder, 2003, Thompson et al., 2005). All of these studies

support the premise that the HFS is a reliable, valid, and useful measure for evaluating

the dispositional tendency to grant forgiveness of self, others, and across situations.

Basing a children's measure of forgiveness on such a structurally and theoretically

supported measure as the HFS, which is defining current forgiveness research trends,

provides a sound foundation for examining forgiveness dispositionally with children.

Introducing a dispositional measure of forgiveness that is appropriate for children and

adolescents, when supported by adequate psychometric characteristics, contributes

significantly to the forgiveness literature by permitting future multidimensional,

dispositional forgiveness research with participants of a developmentally wider age range

than has historically been studied.

Research Questions and Hypotheses

Many parallels between the HFS and CADFI were expected. Specifically, it was

expected that the factor structure of the CADFI would reflect the HFS structure because

the CADFI will retain item content integrity of the HFS that is simply adjusted to be at a

lower, age-appropriate reading level. The underlying constructs of dispositional









forgiveness as evaluated by assessing forgiveness of self, forgiveness of others, and

forgiveness of situations were not expected to differ significantly for younger people.

It was expected that acceptable levels of internal consistency reliability and validity

would be reached, similar to the range of such alpha coefficients reported for the HFS.

The HFS has been positively correlated with scores from the Cognitive Flexibility

Scale (Martin & Rubin, 1995), the Dyadic Trust Scale (Larzelere & Huston, 1980), and

the distraction subscale of the Response Style Questionnaire (Nolen-Hoeksema &

Morrow, 1991).These measures are appropriate for adults but would not be appropriate

for children. Fortunately similar instruments have been developed for the childhood age

range and were targeted for validity purposes in the current study. Specifically, the

Children's Attributional Style Questionnaire-Revised (CASQ-R; Kaslow & Nolen-

Hoeksema, 1991) was used to assess the relation of the CADFI to styles of cognitive

attribution or explanation of positive and negative events, and the Children's Depression

Inventory (CDI; Kovacs, 1985) measuring depressive symptoms was also administered as

an expected negative correlate of CADFI scores.

Though the dimensions of the CASQ-R (global-specific, internal-external, and stable-

unstable) differ from the adult measure, higher levels of depression have been found for

those whose scores reflect a higher depressive attributional style, which on the CASQ-R

appears as more frequent endorsement of internal, stable, and global items for negative

events, and external, specific, and unstable items for positive events (Gladstone &

Kaslow, 1995; Thompson, Kaslow, Weiss, & Nolen-Hoeksema, 1998). In fact, Gladstone

and Kaslow (1995) report a negative correlation between the CASQ-R and the Vanderbilt

Depression Inventory (VDI) in non-clinical samples, indicating that the higher the









depressive symptoms reported the more depressive the attributional style. It was

therefore expected in the current study that higher scores on the CDI would correlate

similarly with depressive attributional style, as well as lower levels of forgiveness (low

scores on the CADFI).

Sex differences were not expected to differ significantly with regard to CADFI

scores.

Social Desirability

As was introduced by Crowne and Marlowe (1960; Marlowe & Crowne, 1961), a

tendency exists for respondents to report more socially desirable responses as a result of

being influenced by other factors besides the content of measures administered. Initially,

the bulk of the social desirability research fell within the adult age range. Crandall,

Crandall, and Katkovsky (1965) expanded social desirability research by developing the

Children's Social Desirability (CSD) questionnaires for a younger age range, targeting

children and adolescents. Social desirability has also been incorporated into measure of

other psychological constructs as well. Specifically, the Children's Manifest Anxiety

Scale (CMAS; Castenada, McCandless, & Palermo, 1956) and the Revised Children's

Manifest Anxiety Scale (RCMAS; Reynolds & Richmond, 1978) exemplify self-report

measures developed with the intent of measuring characteristics and manifestations of

anxiety in children, and include a Lie subscale specifically intended to address social

desirability.

Social desirability measures were established to evaluate increased predictability that

a respondent would endorse a higher degree of socially desirable responses on a measure.

Younger children, girls, non-white children, and less intelligent children have previously

been found to endorse socially desirable responses more frequently (Crandall et al., 1965;









Shriberg, 1974). These findings have been replicated and validated by Klein, Gould, and

Corey (1969), who found that younger children of both sexes had higher social

desirability scores than older children, and that this tendency was most marked when

respondents were younger than 11 years old. Moreover, they suggested this pattern

reflects an emergence of adult approval motivations in children beginning as young as 11

years old (Klein, Gould, & Corey, 1969).

Considering these variables, especially the finding that younger more than older

children report socially desirable answers, the inclusion of a social desirability measure in

the current study was necessary in order to ascertain whether answers regarding

dispositional forgiveness, as well as depression and attributional style, may be influenced

by factors other than substantive content. The current study employed the Lie subscale of

the RCMAS in order to address social desirability, while also keeping the number of total

items in the battery within reasonable length for efficient administration.














CHAPTER 3
METHODS

Participants

The total sample (N = 96) of participants consisted of boys and girls ages 8-17, with

the majority of the sample falling between the ages of 9 and 11 years old (77% of the

sample). The distribution of ages consisted of one 8-year old, twenty-one 9-year olds,

thirty 10-year olds, twenty-three 11-year olds, five 12-year olds, one 13-year old, two 14-

year olds, five 15-year olds, three 16-year olds, and one 17-year old (four participants

failed to report age). Sixty-five percent of the sample was female; ethnic background of

the sample was approximately 49% White, 20% Hispanic, 16% Asian, and 11% African

American. Consent forms were distributed to children attending public elementary

schools in a southern Florida county (approx. 86% of the sample), as well as a private

school within a central Florida County (approx. 14% of the sample). Response rate was

approximately 48%. The majority of the sample was representative of the population

sampled; the majority of the participants (73%) came from the fourth and fifth grades of

an elementary school with the following population demographics for those grades: 44%

male, 65% White, 11% African American, 10% Hispanic, and 2% Asian.

Rationale for inclusion of children and adolescents was twofold. Focus on

children/adolescents a) helps balance the level of attention given to forgiveness research

between adults and children, considering the comparative dearth of child/adolescent

research in the area, and b) provides context for future exploration of conception and

dispositional expression of the forgiveness construct with age.









Given that a predetermined theory existed, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was

initially utilized and the sample size guidelines for such analysis were targeted.

Thompson (2004), asserts that CFA necessitates a participant pool of 10-20 people per

measured variable, with no less than five per variable (Gorsuch, 1983). Eighteen

measured variables existed for the CADFI, therefore the necessary sample size needed to

be at least 90 (Bentler, 1990; Thompson, 2004).

Procedure

Recruitment of participants occurred from public schools, as well as after school

programs in two Florida communities. Testing occurred in small groups within the school

settings. For the purposes of paralleling administration method of the CADFI with the

HFS, as well as for higher internal consistency in the study, the items of the measure

were not read aloud to the participants, but were distributed for self-evaluation. Every

participant was given sufficient and similar amounts of time to complete the measures,

and most finished within 20-30 minutes. In order to avoid sequencing effects, the

measures included in the battery were counterbalanced, resulting in four different

sequences of forms. Lastly, a small sub sample of participants was briefly interviewed for

qualitative responses to questions indicative of forgiveness (see Appendix B).

Respondents were selected due to interview availability (i.e. were accessible in after-

school program or otherwise), were asked all questions and prompts, and their responses

were recorded.

Measures

The CADFI consists of 18 items, the CDI-S consists of 10 items, and the CASQ-R

includes 24 items. Therefore, there will be a total of 52 items administered for all three

scales included in the study to assess the reliability and validity of the new measure. The









Lie scale of the RCMAS (9 items) was included in order to address social desirability

concerns, bringing the total number of items in the battery to 61.

Child/Adolescent Dispositional Forgiveness Inventory (CADFI)

This measure was based upon the content of the adult HFS items, tailored to meet the

readability and developmental needs of the younger child/adolescent population. This

inventory contained three (3) subscales: Forgiveness of Self, Forgiveness of Others, and

Forgiveness of Situations. Six (6) items comprised each subscale, for a total of 18 items.

The same number of negatively worded items remained as in the HFS (nine). The HFS

has a general readability level of 6.3 (Flesch-Kincaid), meaning it is most appropriate for

those with at least a sixth grade reading level, and a reading Ease rating of 73.0. The

CADFI measure has a readability level of 4.8, with an ease rating of 81.9.

Children's Attributional Style Questionnaire-Revised (CASO-R)

The CASQ-R (Kaslow & Nolen-Hoeksema, 1991) evaluates a child's causal

associations for positive and negative life events. Twenty-four forced choice response

items consist of presentation of a hypothetical situation followed by two statements

regarding why the event happened, and children are asked to choose which of the

statements they feel represents how they would typically respond. An equal number of

items address both positive and negative events. Three dimensions are reflected within

the measure: internal-external, stable-unstable, and global-specific. Composite, negative,

and positive scores are calculated, and a lower composite score reflects a more depressive

attributional style. The CASQ-R taps attributional style in children, a construct found to

relate to forgiveness and negative affect as examined using the Response Styles

Questionnaire (Nolen-Hoeksema & Morrow, 1991) for adults.









The CASQ-R is a condensed version of the Child Attributional Style Questionnaire

(CASQ; Seligman, Peterson, Kaslow, Tanenbaum, Alloy & Abramson, 1984), which

originally contained 48 items. Understanding that the CASQ was often being used as part

of a larger battery of measures, the authors responded with the CASQ-R, a scale of more

practical utility considering its general use with children, who often have shorter attention

spans (Thompson, et al., 1998). The scale is appropriate for an age range of 9-12 years.

Through extensive psychometric analysis, Thompson et al. (1998) revealed adequate

internal consistency reliability; being reliable for both boys (alpha = .58) and girls (alpha

= .63), as well as older (12-14 years old; alpha = .58) and younger children (9-11 years

old; alpha = .64). No significant differences were found in criterion related validity

among boys and girls or among younger and older children (Thompson et al., 1998).

Previous research has revealed the relationship of attributional and response styles

with rumination and depressive symptoms. In terms of concurrent validity, comparisons

between scores on the CASQ-R and measures of depression have indicated that children

reporting greater numbers of depressive symptoms tend to attribute events to internal

causes, and consider them to be fairly stable over time, as well as generalizable across

situations (Gladstone & Kaslow, 1995; Thompson, et al., 1998). On the CASQ-R this is

reflected as higher scores on the internal rather than external (e.g. would respond to the

statement "You get a bad grade in school" with "I am not a good student", rather than

"Teachers give hard tests"), stable rather than unstable (e.g. "You do not get your chores

done at home" would elicit the response "Many days I am lazy" rather than "I was lazy

that day"), and global rather than specific dimensions (e.g. "You go to an amusement









park and you have a good time", would elicit "I usually enjoy myself in many activities"

instead of "I usually enjoy myself at amusement parks"), respectively.

Children's Depression Inventory-Short form (CDI-S)

The CDI-S (Kovacs, 1985, 1992) has 10 items, each consisting of three response

choices. The child/adolescent will be instructed to select one of the three sentences for

each item that best describes him or her over the past two weeks. Higher scores indicate

higher levels of depressive symptoms. The CDI-S is a short form measure that includes

10 of the 27 items of the original CDI, intended to assess depressive symptomatology

under circumstances when the time with a child may be limited or a quick screening

measure is desired. The CDI-S correlates at the .89 level with the long version of the CDI

(Kovacs, 1992), which has demonstrated adequate internal consistency (a = .71 to .89),

test-retest reliability (r = .74 to .83), and convergent and divergent validity (Kovacs,

1992). The CDI is appropriate for children 7-17 years of age.

The CDI was selected specifically because of its construct equivalence and item

similarity with the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) for adults. The BDI was found to

negatively correlate with the HFS, a dispositional measure of willingness to forgive.

Thus, the CDI-S was expected to yield similar negative correlations with the CADFI.

Lie Scale from the Revised Children's Manifest Anxiety Scale (RCMAS)

The 9 items from the Lie subscale of the RCMAS (Reynolds & Richmond, 1978,

1985) were used to measure social desirability. The Lie subscale was developed from the

original CMAS subscale called the What I Think and Feel (WITF) subscale (Castaneda,

McCandless, & Palermo, 1956). These items are self-report format in which children are

asked to respond to a series of statements regarding themselves (e.g., "I am always kind",

or "I never get angry") with either "Yes" or "No". High scores on the Lie scale indicate









higher social desirability (7 or above is considered high), or a higher tendency to present

oneself in a favorable light. As was asserted by Reynolds and Richmond (1985), and has

been confirmed using extensive factor analysis, the Lie scale constitutes its own factor (or

two related factors distinct from the anxiety factors according to Reynolds & Paget,

1981), apart from the anxiety factors onto which the rest of the items load (Stark &

Laurent, 2001). The concurrent validity of the RCMAS lie scale has also been examined

and supported by relationship with the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale

(Hagborg, 1991a) and has been subsequently used as a measure upon itself of social

desirability (Hagborg, 1991b). The RCMAS has impressive test-retest reliability

estimates as well, as confirmed by Pela and Reynolds (1982) (r = .94 for the Lie scale).

The current study included only the items from the Lie scale for use in assessing socially

desirable response tendencies. Like most other social desirability measures, Lie scores of

the RCMAS have been found to be higher for younger rather than older children (Pina,

Silverman, Saavedra, & Weems, 2001). No significant sex differences were generally

found for the Lie scale (Dadds, Perrin, & Yule, 1998; Pina, et al., 2001).














CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

Instrument

The Child/Adolescent Dispositional Forgiveness Inventory (CADFI) was modeled

after the HFS. The items of the CADFI consisted of modified wording of the HFS items

in order to reach appropriate reading level for children as young as fourth grade, thus the

same number of total items as well as items within each subscale was retained. The same

numbers of positively and negatively worded items were represented in the CADFI as are

within the HFS; nine of each valence

Descriptive Statistics

In the current sample, scores on the CDI-S ranged from 0 to 15, M= 3.5, SD = 3.49.

Scores on the CASQ-R positive composite ranged from 0 to 24, M= 15.86, SD = 4.00,

from 0 to 16 for the negative composite, M= 7.6, SD = 3.57, and -8 to 24 on the overall

composite, M= 8.22, SD = 7.06. Scores on the CADFI ranged from 30 to 68, M= 47.2,

SD = 8.2 for the total score, 8 to 30, M = 21.4, SD = 4.4 for the positively worded CADFI

scale, and 8 to 38, M= 22.1, SD = 6.37 for the negatively worded CADFI scale. Lie scale

scores ranged from 0 to 9, M= 3.09, SD = 2.55. Eleven participants scored 7 or greater

on the Lie scale, considered high scores by the scale's authors (Reynolds & Richmond,

1985).

Analyses

Factor analysis was used to examine the proposed model. Cronbach's coefficient

alphas were determined and reported for all scales and subscales of the measures. To









examine discriminant validity, correlation analyses were used to assess the relationship of

the CADFI scores to other measures known to relate to forgiveness: namely, the CDI-S,

the CASQ-R, and the Lie scale of the RCMAS.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was proposed with this study for three main

purposes: to test the overall adequacy of the specified measurement model; to determine

the adequacy with which items indicate intended factors, and to empirically inform any

decisions regarding scale revisions or further analyses. According to Thompson (2004),

CFA proves more useful when there is a presupposed theory and a model exists because

(a) the theory is directly tested in CFA analysis, and (b) the degree of the model fit can be

quantified in a variety of useful ways. The set of factor scores generated through CFA

remains useful in subsequent analyses of data and constructs regardless of the outcome of

the analyses. Although confirmatory factor analysis requires having a theoretical model at

hand, in this case a proposed three factor structure, it is generally asserted that the testing

of rival models in CFA remains a necessary step, as the possibility exists that several

models could fit a given data set (Thompson, 2004).

The proposed model in which three factors were specified (self, others, and

situations) using the corresponding items for each subscale proved to be less than

adequate. Confirmatory factor analyses revealed poor fit indices (e.g. Comparative Fit

Index = .51), and did not meaningfully converge on an interpretable model. Given that

significant problems were encountered in attempting to fit the initial solution and no clear

indication of the best direction for item or factor revision was available, exploratory

factor analysis was selected as most appropriate for these data.









Exploratory Factor Analysis

In order to examine the suitability of the sample data for factor analysis, the

correlation matrix was scanned for the presence of correlations at .30 or greater, and

Bartlett's test of sphericity was determined (which should be significant at p <.05), and

the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) value found (should be .6 or above if suitable). In the

current sample, correlations of .30 or higher were found, Bartlett's test of sphericity was

significant (p = .000), and the KMO value equaled .627, therefore the suitability of the

data for factor analyses was supported.

In each analysis, principal axis factoring was performed and oblique rotations using

the Promax procedure were conducted. Promax factoring allows for the model factors to

be correlated, and was chosen because it was expected that each of the underlying factors

would be related to the overall factor of forgiveness and so would be correlated.

Eigenvalues and pattern coefficients were examined to determine factor and item

retention, looking for 'simple structure' in which each of the variables loads strongly on

only one factor and each factor is represented by a number of strongly loading variables

(Thurstone, 1947). Items were retained if pattern coefficients were .30 or greater for no

more than one factor, and item-total correlations were positive. Subsequent factor

analyses were conducted after item deletions until the criteria for retention was upheld for

all factors and the eigenvalues of retained factors were at least 1.0 as recommended by

Kaiser (1960). Subscales were identified using all items remaining for each factor.

Three Factor Model

In the first analysis of the complete 18 item CADFI, seven factors meeting Kaiser's

criterion of eigenvalues greater than one emerged, and combined to account for 69% of

the variance. These eigenvalues ranged from 3.41 to 1.04. Catell's scree test (Catell,









1966) was also used, which recommends looking for a point at which the shape of the

curve changes to become more horizontal, then retaining only factors before that change

(or elbow) as they are considered to contribute most to the explanation of variance. The

elbow in the current plot appeared to occur at the three factor mark, and this three factor

model accounted for 41.8% of the variance. The results of an oblique rotation yield both

a Factor Structure matrix, indicating the correlation between each of the measures and the

factors extracted, and a Factor Pattern matrix, indicating the independent relationship

between each measure and the factors, similar to typical regression coefficients where

factors are used as predictors of each measure (Russell, 2002). The pattern coefficients

were used in making item retention decisions, given that they are the most useful in

interpreting the meaning of factors (Russell, 2002). In examining the pattern coefficients,

item retention criteria consisted of loading .30 or greater onto one factor and a positive

item-total correlation. In the first run, for example, item 11 did not load more than .30 on

any of the three factors, so was selected for deletion and item 12 loaded more than .30 on

factor one and two, and so was selected for deletion as it was considered nondistinct.

Several factor analyses were conducted using the criteria for item retention, resulting

in items 1, 8, 11, and 12 being selected for deletion. Three factors were indicated in this

model, having eigenvalues of 1.38, 2.32, and 3.09, accounting for 48.4% of the variance.

However, the items within these three factors were not clearly delineated along lines of

self, others, and situations. Factor one consisted of items 2, 4, 6, 15, and 17, which

reflected forgiveness of self with three of the items but also included two situation items.

The second factor contained the most items (3, 5, 10, 14, 16, and 18), and included items

initially considered to be situations items as well as two forgiveness of self items. The









third factor consisted of three items total, items 7, 9, and 13. Two of these items reflected

forgiveness of others, but the other reflected forgiveness of situations. Given that this

three factor model was inexplicable along theoretical lines, parallel analysis was

conducted to explore the meaningful factors to support.

Parallel Analysis

Many have called into question the traditional Kaiser's eigenvalue-greater-than-one

criterion for factor retention, asserting that it often retains too many factors (i.e.

Lautenschlager, 1989; Russell, 2002). Monte Carlo parallel analysis, initially put forth by

Horn (1965) as an adaptation to Kaiser's criterion has as its rationale that "meaningful"

components from actual sample data should have eigenvalues greater than those of

random data generated to be similar to the sample data in size and number of variables

(Lautenschlager, 1989). Due to the importance of examining disconfirmability in

confirmatory factor analysis, parallel analysis was utilized in the current sample as a

comparison for suggested factor retention.

Using the Monte Carlo parallel analysis program, simulated eigenvalues were

generated for random data with similar sample size and number of variables as the

current sample data set. Simulated eigenvalues generated by parallel analysis ranged from

1.83 to 0.39, while actual sample eigenvalues ranged from 3.41 to 0.25. Parallel analysis

suggests factor retention when actual eigenvalues of factors are larger than the simulated

eigenvalues, essentially indicating the meaningful factors to retain. In the current sample,

parallel analysis suggested retention of two significant factors (simulated values were

1.83 and 1.66, while actual eigenvalues were 3.41 and 2.70). Following the parallel

analysis a two factor model was then examined with the current data set using the same

criteria as before indicated.









Two Factor Model

The first factor analysis using the two-factor model resulted in eigenvalues of 3.41

and 2.69 for the two factors, and accounted for 33.9% of the variance. Item 1 again was

selected for deletion due to a negative correlation, and item 11 was not found to load

significantly onto any of the factors so was also selected. When items 1 and 11 were

deleted, the eigenvalues of the two factors were 3.25 and 2.44, accounting for 35.6% of

the variance. Item 12 did not have a value of .3 or higher for either factor, so was not

retained. Next factor analysis included all items except items 1, 11, and 12 and accounted

for 36.7% of the variance. Item 8 then did not load significantly onto either factor and so

was not retained. The final factor analysis included all items except 1, 8, 11, and 12, and

accounted for 38.6% of the variance (see Appendix A for pattern coefficients).

Upon examination of retained items and factors, it became apparent that the factors

were clearly representing the underlying item valence for positively and negatively

worded items. Items 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 13, 15, and 17 represented the factor of negatively

worded items in this model, or items that have been suggested to tap unforgiveness

aspects (Thompson et al., 2005), while items 3, 5, 10, 14, 16, and 18 represented a factor

of positively worded items, tapping forgiveness itself. The simple structure of this two-

factor model, the clarity provided by the underlying factor distinction based on the

valence of the item wording, and the strong parallel analysis support of two factors all

contributed to the strength and acceptability of this model. Both the two and three factor

models suggested the same problematic items, lending further support for item deletions.

The two-factor model was more clearly reported and explained due to the clear

delineation of factors along the lines of item wording valence and was retained as the

strongest model of the current data.









Pilot label descriptors for the factors and corresponding scales found above in the

two-factor model suggested qualitative differences as well. The factor comprised of

negatively worded items suggested labels of unforgiveness, harsh expectations/standards,

high expectations for perfection, and unrealistic expectations for environment, whereas

the factor comprised of positively worded items suggested a label of forgiveness, life

lessons, and acceptance of lack of control over events. Label suggestions for the concept

that embodies the negatively worded items appears not to simply be the lack of the

embodiment of the positively worded factor items, as would be anticipated if the items

reflected merely opposing points on the same continuum.

Internal Consistency

Cronbach's coefficient alpha was calculated to measure the internal consistency of

the final CADFI scale score (see Appendix A) and each of the subscale scores. Alpha

levels for the HFS were .84-.87 for the total scale and .71-.83 for the subscales (Yamhure

Thompson & Snyder, 2003). Coefficient alphas for the current sample were .71 for the

total CADFI, .74 for the unforgiveness (negatively-worded items) subscale, and .67 for

the forgiveness (positively-worded items) subscale. Alphas for all other scales fell within

acceptable range; a = .82 for the CDI-S, a = .80 for the Lie scale, and K-R 20s for the

CASQ-R positive and negative composite scores were .72 and .65, respectively.

Convergent, Discriminant, and Construct Validity

Convergent and divergent validity of CADFI scores were examined using correlation

analyses. Correlation with child measures previously found to have a relationship with

the HFS offered the best options for validity examination with the CADFI. Previous

research has found the HFS to be significantly negatively correlated with the Hostile

Automatic Thoughts scale (Snyder, Crowson, Houston, Kurylo, & Poirier, 1997), the









rumination subscale of the Response Style Questionnaire (Nolen-Hoeksema & Morrow,

1991), and the Beck Depression Inventory (Beck & Steer, 1987).

The current study examined the relationship of forgiveness, as represented by CADFI

scores, with depressive symptoms using the CDI-S, negative (or depressive) attributional

response style using the CASQ-R, and social desirability using the Lie scale of the

RCMAS. It was expected that the CADFI would negatively correlate with the CDI-S, as

well as the negative composite score of the CASQ-R, measuring depressive attributional

style. Both were found to significantly and negatively correlate with CADFI scores, r = -

.58 and r = -.52, p < .001, respectively. It was also expected that the CADFI would

positively correlate with the positive composite of the CASQ-R, as well as the total

CASQ-R, which reflects healthy (rather than depressive) attributional style. Scores on

the CADFI were indeed found to be significantly positively related to the positive

composite of the CASQ-R, r = .41, as well as the total CASQ-R, r = .50, with <.001 for

both (see Table 1 for all correlations). Interestingly, the correlation of CADFI scores for

the forgiveness (positively-worded items) and unforgiveness (negatively-worded items)

subscales did not reach significance, r = .11, p < .30, indicating the subscales appear as

distinct constructs rather than as significantly related to each other.

No significant effects emerged for measurement sequence or sex differences.

However, a moderately significant negative correlation, r = -.26, p <.05, was found for

CADFI scores with age, in that younger participants reported higher total forgiveness

levels.

It was expected that findings would hold when controlling for social desirability,

indicated by scores on the Lie scale of the RCMAS. Lie scale scores were found to be











significantly positively correlated with scores on the CADFI, indicating higher social


desirability was related to higher forgiveness scores, r = .31, p <.001. Correlations


remained significant at thep <.001 level in the expected directions when controlling for


social desirability, r = -.54 for CDI-S, r = -.46 for negative CASQ-R, r = .34 for positive


CASQ-R, and r = .43 for overall CASQ-R scores, demonstrating moderate to medium


effect sizes (Cohen, 1988) for all relationships examined.


Table 1


Correlations Between All Scale and Subscale Scores

CDI-S CASQ-R Negative Positive CADFI CADFI CADFI Lie
CASQ-R CASQ-R Total Negatively Positively- Scale
subscale subscale -worded worded
items items


CDI-S

CASQ-R

Negative
CASQ-R
subscale
Positive
CASQ-R
subscale
CADFI
Total
CADFI
Negatively-
worded
items
CADFI
Positively-
worded
items
Lie Scale


1.00

-.59**

.60**


1.00

-.93**


-.74**


-.52**

.45**


.41**

-.41**


1.00

-.84**


-.42**


-.51** .94**


-.58**

.53**


.50**

-.46**


-.32** .26*



-.29** .43**


** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Qualitative Responses

Nine children selected at random provided qualitative answers to questions on


forgiveness (see Appendix C for responses) of self, of others, and of situations. Of these









nine respondents, three of them scored 7 or higher on the Lie scale (top 11% of sample),

indicating social desirability may significantly influence their responses. Two of the

respondents scored a 10 or higher on the CDI-S (top 6% of the sample), and those same

two participants scored 6 or below on the CASQ-R (lower 42% of sample).

Of the nine respondents first asked, "Is it hard for you to accept yourself when you

mess up?" three said no, four stated that sometimes it was, and one definitely said yes.

When next asked "Do you stay upset with others who have hurt you?" four indicated

"No" outright, one said "Not Really," two said "Sometimes" and one said "Yes." Finally,

when asked "Is it hard for you to accept negative things that are not anyone's fault?" four

stated unequivocally no, one indicated a qualified yes by saying "It's kinda hard," and

three said yes outright-that it was hard to accept.

Interestingly, though the words "forgive" or "forgiveness" were intentionally not used

in the qualitative questions and prompts, two of the respondents used such words in their

responses, both when asked what they do when hurt by others. One respondent who

answered "Forgive them" correspondingly scored in the top 8% on the CADFI scale, zero

on the CDI-S (lower 20%), and only one on the Lie scale (lower 35%). The other

respondent clearly stating "I forgave them" scored in the upper 36% on the CADFI, the

top 20% on the CASQ-R, and the lower 48% on the CDI-S, but scored in the top 2% on

the Lie scale, indicating fairly significant social desirability influence.

Respondents typically could and would provide an example for forgiveness of self,

others, and situations when asked, however one participant exhibited high reluctance to

give examples, instead offering "Yes" or "No" as sufficient responses. This respondent

was one of the two who also scored especially high on the CDI-S scale (and low on






40


CASQ-R) and also scored in the lower 13% for the CADFI. This respondent scored a

zero on the Lie scale. This respondent is also the only one to answer "yes" to all

questions asking whether it was hard to forgive, be it self, others, or situations, pointing

to the speculation that the hesitation in sharing may be due more to the difficulty

experienced in such situations involving forgiveness.














CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION

Given the various approaches to defining forgiveness and differing aspects

emphasized among previous researchers, an efficient and compositional definition of

forgiveness was sought for developing a child/adolescent forgiveness measure to fill a

current gap in the literature. The current study investigated the relationship of

dispositional forgiveness with depressive symptoms, and depressive attributional style, in

children. Also, the utility and factor structure of the CADFI, a version of the HFS

modified for use with a younger age range, was examined.

Though the initial three factor structure of self, others, and situations was not

confirmed, exploratory factor analyses revealed a clear and highly explainable two factor

structure within the current sample, along the lines of valence of item wording. Parallel

analyses also suggested a strong two factor structure. Given that these two factors were

revealed to be highly uncorrelated, indicating they may in fact be two distinct entities,

this study introduces the idea of unforgiveness as distinct from forgiveness itself. In other

words, in children it may be more useful to think about the disposition for forgiveness as

a general propensity for 'forgiveness' (as revealed through positively worded items) and

unforgivenesss' (negatively worded items). The measurement of forgiveness, as a

construct, by emphasizing forgiveness as well as unforgiveness aspects is of course not

unprecedented. For example, Mauger's (1992) Forgiveness of Others and Forgiveness of

Self scales, as well as McCullough's TRIM scale (1998), actually tap unforgiveness as a

means of looking at forgiveness with adults. The current study provides emerging









evidence that such scales measuring unforgiveness may not merely be measuring the lack

of forgiveness, but a qualitatively distinct construct of unforgiveness. Though

theoretically related, empirically these two constructs in children and adolescents do not

appear to be significantly correlated.

When considered in the context of children's psychological understanding of persons

(Flavell, 2004), it is possible that younger children may not clearly understand or be

capable of precise differentiation among perspectives of forgiving self, forgiving others,

and forgiving situations. The ability to clearly understand one's relationship to self, to

others, and to situations beyond anyone's control could be a pre requisite to clear

distinctions (and decisions) of forgiveness along the same dimensions, which may not be

as highly attuned among children and young adolescents. Indeed, through the brief

qualitative interviews, evidence of a lack of concrete understanding between what is

considered a situation beyond anyone's control and what might be considered an accident

(i.e. participant 305's response). Given that measures used with children often employ a

format of forced-choice among two generally opposing options, the positive or negative

valence (reinforcing 'either/or' ways of thinking) may prove more salient with younger

children because of its structural simplicity. Further research able to replicate these

results with children of various populations would lend more strength to the two-factor

item valence model, as well as provide important insight into the relationship between

forgiveness and unforgiveness as possibly separate and distinct constructs.

Despite the difference in factor structure found in the current sample, the relationship

of forgiveness with constructs of well-being was found to hold strong. Forgiveness levels

significantly related to lower levels of depressive symptoms as well as lower depressive









attributional styles. Those children who typically attributed positive events to internal,

stable, and global aspects, and attributed negative events to external, unstable, and

specific dimensions correspondingly had higher levels of overall forgiveness. Those with

higher depressive symptoms and the opposite attributional style showed lower

forgiveness levels, indicating a highly positive relationship between healthy attributional

styles and forgiveness. Future research might consider the implications of this

relationship for counseling interventions, in that ways of increasing forgiveness could

lead to lower levels of depressive symptoms and depressive attributional style, or that a

reduction in depressive attributions and symptoms may lead to increased levels of

forgiveness.

Given that social desirability is more prevalent in younger age ranges, the possibility

of a significant correlation with this sample certainly existed and in fact was found.

However, it has been asserted that correlations between a social desirability measure and

a self-report measure do not necessarily jeopardize construct validity (Diener, Sandvik,

Pavot, & Gallagher, 1991; McCrae & Costa, 1983; Thompson et al., 2005).

Though the reliability and validity with this sample was supported, the

generalizability of the findings in the current study is of course limited by the sample size

and demographics. With a larger and more diverse sample, exploratory and confirmatory

factor analyses may provide a replicable and more solid structural two factor model. A

sample from a range of settings, as well as ages, would provide a deeper basis for

understanding forgiveness in the child and adolescent population. For example, a cross-

sectional study examining forgiveness with different age groups would provide

interesting developmental information regarding the progression of the factor structure of









forgiveness and unforgiveness with age. If the factor structure does change from a two

factor model in children to a three factor model in adults, such a study could reveal the

point at which this may occur. Examination of this measure in a more clinically

depressed population may be beneficial as well, considering the majority of this sample

did not report depressive symptoms in the clinical range.

This study serves as an insightful beginning for further exploration of dispositional

forgiveness in younger ages, both as it relates to other constructs of well-being, and

particularly the importance of understanding the factors that may make up forgiveness (or

unforgiveness) with such a population. Future studies may wish to use the current scale

with a larger sample for comparison, both to better understand the factor structure of

forgiveness as it presents in children/adolescents, as well as the relationship of

forgiveness to other constructs of well-being and positive psychology (i.e. altruism,

cognitive flexibility, openness to experiences, etc) and more pathological constructs such

as neuroticism, perfectionism, or negative affect. Furthermore, the brief qualitative

responses obtained in this study encourage more extensive, qualitative interviews with

younger populations in order to better inform future quantitative analyses and provide a

solid and sound basis for appropriate development of tools for measuring forgiveness.
















APPENDIX A
CADFI ITEMS AND FACTOR LOADINGS

CADFI item Factor 1 Factor 2

2. I dislike myself for negative things I have done. .703

3. Learning from bad things that I have done helps me get over them. .516

4. It is really hard for me to accept myself when I've messed up. .546

5. With time I am understanding of myself for mistakes I have made. .486

6. I get upset with myself for negative things I have felt, thought, said, or done. .629

7. I keep punishing a person who has done something that I think is wrong. .368

9. I stay upset with others who have hurt me. .370

10. Even though others have hurt me in the past,

with time I have been able to see them as good people. .582

13. When things go wrong for reasons that can't be controlled,

I keep having negative thoughts about it. .396

14. With time I can be understanding of bad things in my life. .627

15. I keep thinking negatively about things in my life that I cannot control. .581

16. With time I make peace with bad things in my life. .409

17. It is hard for me to accept negative things that are not anyone's fault. .554

18. With time I let go of negative thoughts about bad things

that are beyond anyone's control. .412














APPENDIX B
QUALITATIVE QUESTIONS

Is it hard for you to accept yourself when you mess up?
What is it like for you when you mess up? Can you think of a time when you did?

Do you stay upset with others who have hurt you?
What do you do? Can you think of an example?

Is it hard for you to accept negative things that are not anyone's fault?
What is it like for you when something bad happens and it's not anyone's fault?
Can you think of a situation? What happened?









APPENDIX C
QUALITATIVE RESPONSES

Participant 300:

Is it hard for you to accept yourself when you mess up? No.
What is it like for you when you mess up? Iget annoyed i iih myself.
Can you think of a time when you did? When I dropped my baton twice.

Do you stay upset with others who have hurt you? No.
What do you do? Play in i/h other friends.
Can you think of an example? A day my friends said mean iting\ We are still friends I
still forgave them.

Is it hard for you to accept negative things that are not anyone's fault? Ah man!
What is it like for you when something bad happens and it's not anyone's fault? I do
m uieltling else.
Can you think of a situation? What happened? When it rains when I want to go in the
pool.

Participant 12:

Is it hard for you to accept yourself when you mess up? Sometimes.
What is it like for you when you mess up? Can you think of a time when you did? Like
when remembering my words (for school).

Do you stay upset with others who have hurt you? No.
What do you do? Like, I just try to ignore them until we both have forgotten about it.
Can you think of an example? At computers, someone was annoying me and I ignore it.
Today, we were getting our backpacks, he let the lid down and it hit me on the cheek.
"You need to watch what you 're doing".

Is it hard for you to accept negative things that are not anyone's fault? No.
What is it like for you when something bad happens and it's not anyone's fault? Like, I
keep going on u/ i/h my life.
Can you think of a situation? What happened? Like a car accident, he wrecked the van, it
wasn 't anybody's fault.

Participant 11:

Is it hard for you to accept yourself when you mess up? No.
What is it like for you when you mess up? Can you think of a time when you did?

Do you stay upset with others who have hurt you? What do you do? No. When someone
hurt me physically?
Can you think of a situation? When someone pushed me off my bike and almost sprained
my ankle. That was 2 years ago. I forgave them.










Is it hard for you to accept negative things that are not anyone's fault? No.
What is it like for you when something bad happens and it's not anyone's fault? Can you
think of an example? What happened?

Participant 306:

Is it hard for you to accept yourself when you mess up? No.
What is it like for you when you mess up? It doesn 't bother me.
Can you think of a time when you did? Saturday, I missed my baton.

Do you stay upset with others who have hurt you? No.
What do you do? Iget upset, andl let it go.
Can you think of an example? My friends, when they didn't want to hear about my trip I
was so excited to go on.

Is it hard for you to accept negative things that are not anyone's fault? No.
What is it like for you when something bad happens and it's not anyone's fault? Iget
upset.
Can you think of a situation? Maggie moved away to Oklahoma.
What happened? I got sad and dealt i/h it.

Participant 305:

Is it hard for you to accept yourself when you mess up? Sometimes.
What is it like for you when you mess up? It is hard
Can you think of a time when you did? One time I messed up in horseback riding
lessons.

Do you stay upset with others who have hurt you? Not really.
What do you do? I walk away and try to be calm.
Can you think of an example? One time a person called me a name and I didn't like it.

Is it hard for you to accept negative things that are not anyone's fault? It's kinda hard.
What is it like for you when something bad happens and it's not anyone's fault? Ifeel
funny.
Can you think of a situation? One time a glass bowlfell off the table.
What happened? I was doing a dance and everyone was clapping and one moment the
bowl was there and one moment it fell.

Participant 304:

Is it hard for you to accept yourself when you mess up? Sometimes.
What is it like for you when you mess up? Hard.
Can you think of a time when you did? At school.









Do you stay upset with others who have hurt you? No.
What do you do? Igo tell the teacher.
Can you think of an example? When another kid hurt my feelings in music class. She
yelled at me.

Is it hard for you to accept negative things that are not anyone's fault? Yes.
What is it like for you when something bad happens and it's not anyone's fault?
Sometimes I feel scared.
Can you think of a situation? When my dog Belle got sick.
What happened? Sometimes I get really scared feeling is scary because you don't know
what's happening.

Participant 303:

Is it hard for you to accept yourself when you mess up? Yes.
What is it like for you when you mess up? I feel upset.
Can you think of a time when you did? Yes, I told a lie.

Do you stay upset with others who have hurt you? Sometimes.
What do you do? Tell or keep it to myself.
Can you think of an example? Today someone accused me for v,,ihilig

Is it hard for you to accept negative things that are not anyone's fault? Yes.
What is it like for you when something bad happens and it's not anyone's fault? Very
sad.
Can you think of a situation? What happened? My grandma got very sick.

Participant 302:

Is it hard for you to accept yourself when you mess up? Sometimes.
What is it like for you when you mess up? Ifeel ashamed.
Can you think of a time when you did? Yes.

Do you stay upset with others who have hurt you? Sometimes.
What do you do? Forgive them.
Can you think of an example? When my friend and I fought at school.

Is it hard for you to accept negative things that are not anyone's fault? No, it's sad
What is it like for you when something bad happens and it's not anyone's fault? Sad
Can you think of a situation? When my friend moved.
What happened? She movedfar away.

Participant 301:

Is it hard for you to accept yourself when you mess up? Yes.
What is it like for you when you mess up? Bad.






50


Can you think of a time when you did? No.

Do you stay upset with others who have hurt you? Yes.
What do you do? Can you think of an example? No.

Is it hard for you to accept negative things that are not anyone's fault? Yes.
What is it like for you when something bad happens and it's not anyone's fault? Bad.
Can you think of a situation? What happened? No.















REFERENCES


Bass, E., & Davis, L. (1994). The courage to heal. New York: Harper Perennial.

Berry, J. W., Worthington, E. J., Parrott, L., O'Connor, L. E., & Wade, N. G. (2001).
Dispositional forgivingness: Development and construct validity of the
Transgression Narrative Test of Forgivingness (TNTF). Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 27 (10), 1277-1290.

Beck, A. T., & Steer, R. A. (1987). The BeckDepression Inventory. San Antonio, TX:
Psychological Corporation.

Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative Fit indices in structural models. Psychological
Bulletin, 107, 238-246.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. (2nd ed.)
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Carpendale, J. I. M., & Lewis, C. (2004). Constructing an understanding of mind: The
development of children's social interaction within social interaction. Behavioral
and Brain Sciences, 27, 79-151.

Castenada, A., McCandless, B. R., & Palermo, D. S. (1956). The children's form of the
manifest anxiety scale. ChildDevelopment, 27(3), 317-326.

Catell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 1, 245-276.

Cavell, M. (2003). Freedom and forgiveness. International Journal ofPsychoanalysis,
84(3), 515-531.

Crandall, V. C., Crandall, V. J., & Katkovsky, W. (1965). A children's social desirability
questionnaire. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 29 (1), 27-36.

Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of
psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 10, 3-31.

Dadds, M. R., Perrin, S., & Yule, W. (1998). Social desirability and self-reported anxiety
in children: An analysis of the RCMAS Lie scale. Journal ofAbnormal Child
Psychology, 26(4), 311-317.









Darby, B. W., & Schlenker, B.R. (1982). Children's reactions to apologies. Journal of
Social andPersonality Psychology, 43(4), 742-753.

Diener, E., Sandvik, E., Pavot, W., & Gallagher, D. (1991). Response artifacts in the
measurement of subjective well-being. Social Indicators Research, 24, 36-56.

Enright, R. D., & Zell, R. L. (1989). Problems encountered when we forgive another.
Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 8, 52-60.

Enright, R. D. (2000). Helping clients forgive: An empirical guide for resolving anger
and restoring hope. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Enright, R. D., Freedman, S., & Rique, J. (1998). The psychology of interpersonal
forgiveness. In R. D. Enright & J. North (Eds.), Exploring forgiveness (pp.46-62).
Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Flavell, J. H. (2000). Development of children's knowledge about the mental world.
International Journal ofBehavioral Development, 24, 15-23.

Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., Davidson, L., & Munro, Y. (2001). The Child-Adolescent
Perfectionism Scale: Development, validation, and association with adjustment
(submitted for publication).

Gladstone, T. R.G., & Kaslow, N. J. (1995). Depression and attributions in children and
adolescents: A meta-analytic review. Journal ofAbnormal Child Psychology,
23(5), 597-606.

Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hagborg, W. J. (1991a). The Revised Children's Manifest Anxiety Scale and social
desirability. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51(2), 423-427.

Hagborg, W. J. (1991b). Adolescent clients and perceived counselor characteristics: A
study of background characteristics, therapeutic progress, psychological distress,
and social desirability. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 47(1), 107-113.

Hargrave,T. D., & Sells, J. N. (1997). The development of a forgiveness scale. Journal of
Marital and Family Therapy, 23, 41-63.

Hebl, J. H., & Enright, R. D. (1993). Forgiveness as a psychotherapeutic goal with
elderly females. Py htheit,/t/1), 30, 658-667.

Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1991). Perfectionism in the self and social contexts:
Conceptualization, assessment, and association with psychopathology. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 456-470.









Hill, E.W. (2001). Understanding forgiveness as discovery: Implications for marital and
family therapy. Contemporary Family Therapy, 23(4), 369-384.

Kaslow, N. J., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (1991). Children's Attributional Style
Questionnaire- Revised. Unpublished manuscript, Emory University, Atlanta,
GA.

Katz, J., Street, A., & Arias, I. (1997). Individual differences in self-appraisals and
responses to dating violence scenarios. Violence and Victims, 12(3), 265-276.

Klein, E. B., Gould, L. J., & Corey, M. (1969). Social desirability in children: An
extension and replication. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33(1),
128.

Kovacs, M. (1985). The Children's Depression Inventory (CDI). Psychopharmacology
Bulletin, 21, 995-998.

Kovacs, M. (1992). The Children's Depression Inventory. Manual. Toronto, Canada:
Multi-Health Systems, Inc.

Larzelere, R. E., & Huston, T. L. (1980). The dyadic trust scale: Toward understanding
interpersonal trust in close relationships. Journal ofMarriage and the Family, 42,
595-604.

Lautenschlager, G. J. (1989). A comparison of alternatives to conducting monte carlo
analyses for determining parallel analysis criteria. Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 24(3), 365-395.

Lopez, S. J., & Snyder, C. R. (2003). Positive psychological assessment: A handbook of
models and measures. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Macaskill, A., Maltby, J., & Day, L. (2002). Forgiveness of self and others and emotional
empathy. The Journal of Social Psychology, 142(5), 663-665.

Maltby, J., Macaskill, A., & Day, L. (2001). Failure to forgive self and others: A
replication and extension of the relationship between forgiveness, personality,
social desirability and general health. Personality and individual Differences, 30,
881-885.

Marlowe, D., & Crowne, D. P. (1961). Social desirability and response to perceived
situational demands. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 25, 109-115.
Martin, M. M., & Rubin, R. B. (1995). A new measure of cognitive flexibility.
Psychological Reports, 76, 623-626.









Mauger, P. A., Perry, J. E., Freeman, T., Grove, D. C., McBride, A. G., McKinney, K. E.
(1992). The measurement of forgiveness: Preliminary research. Journal of
Psychology and Christianity, 11, 170-180.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr., (1983). Social desirability scales: More substance than
style. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 882-888.

McCullough, M. E. (2000). Forgiveness as human strength: Theory, measurement, and
links to well-being. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 19, 43-55.

McCullough, M. E., Pargament, K. I., & Thoresen, C. E. (Eds). (2000). The psychology
of forgiveness: History, conceptual issues, and overview. In M.E. McCullough,
K.I. Pargament, & C.E. Thoresen (Eds.), Forgiveness: Theory, research, and
practice (pp.1-14). New York: Guilford Press.

McCullough, M. E., Rachal, K. C., Sandage, S. J., Worthington, E. L., Jr., Brown, S. W.,
& Hight, T. L. (1998). Interpersonal forgiveness in close relationships II:
Theoretical elaboration and measurement. Journal ofPersonality and Social
Psychology, 75, 1586-1603.

Nolen-Hoeksema, S. & Morrow, J. (1991). A prospective study of depression and distress
following a natural disaster: The 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 105-121.

Park, Y. O., & Enright, R. D. (1997). The development of forgiveness in the context of
adolescent friendship conflict in Korea. Journal ofAdolescence, 20(4), 393-402.

Pela, O. A., & Reynolds, C. R. (1982). Convergent and divergent validity of the Revised
Children's Manifest Anxiety Scale: Normative and reliability data for Nigerian
primary school children. Psychological Reports, 51, 1135-1138.

Pina, A., Silverman, W. K., Saavedra, L. M., & Weems, C. F. (2001). An analysis of the
RCMAS lie scale in a clinical sample of anxious children. Journal ofAnxiety
Disorders, 15(5), 443-457.

Reynolds, C. R., & Paget, K. D. (1981). Factor analysis of the revised Children's
Manifest Anxiety Scale for blacks, whites, males and females with a national
normative sample. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49(3), 352-
359.

Reynolds, C. R., & Richmond, B. 0. (1978). What I think and feel: A revised measure of
children's manifest anxiety. Journal ofAbnormal Child Psychology, 6, 271-280.

Reynolds, C. R., & Richmond, B. 0. (1985). Revised Children's Manifest Anxiety Scale
(RCMAS) manual. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.









Ripley, J. S., & Worthington, E. L. (2002). Hope-focused and forgiveness-based group
interventions to promote marital enrichment. Journal of Counseling &
Development, 80, 452-463.

Rosenak, C. M., & Harnden, G. M. (1992). Forgiveness in the Psychotherapeutic process:
Clinical applications. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 11(2), 188-197.

Russell, D. W. (2002). In search of underlying dimensions: The use (and abuse) of factor
analysis in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 28(12), 1629-1646.

Scobie, G. E. W., & Scobie, E. D. (2000). A comparison of forgiveness and pro-social
development. Early Child Development and Care, 160, 33-45.

Seligman, M. E. P., Peterson, C., Kaslow, N. J., Tanenbaum, R. L., Alloy, L. B., &
Abramson, L. Y. (1984). Explanatory style and depressive symptoms among
school children. Journal ofAbnormal Psychology, 93, 235-238.

Shriberg, L.D. (1974). Descriptive statistics for two children's social desirability scales,
general and test anxiety, and locus of control in elementary school children.
Psychological Reports, 34, 863-870.

Snyder, C. R., Crowson, J. J., Jr., Houston, B. K., Kurylo, M., & Poirier, J. (1997).
Assessing hostile automatic thoughts: Development and validation of the HAT
Scale. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 21, 477-492.

Stark, K. D., & Laurent, J. (2001). Joint factor analysis of the Children's Depression
Inventory and the Revised children's Manifest Anxiety Scale. Journal of Clinical
Child Psychology, 30(4), 552-567.

Stuckless, N., & Goranson, R. (1992). The Vengeance Scale: Development of a measure
of attitudes towards revenge. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 7(1), 25-
42.

Subkoviak, M. J., Enright, R. D., Wu, C. R., Gassin, E. A., Freedman, S., & Olson, L. M.,
et al. (1995). Measuring interpersonal forgiveness in late adolescence and middle
adulthood. Journal ofAdolescence, 18, 641-655.

Tabachnik, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics (3rd ed.) New
York: Harper Collins Publishers.

Tangney, J., Fee, R., Reinsmith, C., Boone, A. L., & Lee, N. (1999, August). Assessing
individual differences in the propensity to forgive. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Psychological Association, Boston, MA.









Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding
concepts and applications. Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.

Thompson, M., Kaslow, N. J., Weiss, B., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (1998). Children's
Attributional Style Questionnaire-Revised: Psychometric examination.
Psychological Assessment, 10(2), 166-170.

Thompson, L. Y., & Snyder, C. R. (2003). Measuring forgiveness. In S. J. Lopez and C.
R. Snyder (Eds.), Positive psychological assessment: A handbook of models and
measures (pp. 301-312). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.

Thompson, L. Y., Snyder, C. R., Hoffman, L., Michael, S. T., Rasmussen, H. N., &
Billings, L., et al. (2005). Dispositional forgiveness of self, others, and situations.
Journal ofPersonality, 73(2), 313-360.

Wade, N. G., & Worthington, E. L. (2003). Overcoming interpersonal offenses: Is
forgiveness the only way to deal with unforgiveness? Journal of Counseling &
Development, 81, 343-353.

Walker, D. F., & Gorsuch, R. L. (2000). Forgiveness within the Big Five personality
model. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 1127-1137.

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief
measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063-1070.

Witvliet, C., Ludwig, T. E., & Bauer, D. J. (2002). Please Forgive Me: Transgressors'
Emotions and Physiology During Imagery of Seeking Forgiveness and Victim
Responses. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 21(3), 219-233.

Worthington, E. L., Jr., & Wade, N. G. (1999). The psychology of unforgiveness and
forgiveness and implications for clinical practice. Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology, 18(4), 385-418.

Worthington, E. L., Jr., Sandage, S. J., & Berry, J. W. (2000). Group interventions to
promote forgiveness. In M.E. McCullough, K.I. Pargament, & C.E. Thoresen
(Eds.), Forgiveness: Theory, research, andpractice (pp.228-253). New York:
Guilford Press.

Worthington, E. L., Jr., Mazzeo, S. E., & Klewer, W. L. (2002). Addictive and eating
disorders, unforgiveness, and forgiveness. Journal of Psychology and
Christianity, 21(3), 257-261.















BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

I was born in Tampa, Florida on July 5th, 1980, and grew up in Temple Terrace

and South Tampa until eighteen years of age, when I graduated from King High

School's International Baccalaureate Program.

I attended the University of Florida as an undergraduate, majoring in psychology

and supplementing my psychology major with concentrations in dance and biological

sciences. I completed my undergraduate senior honors thesis in an area of

developmental psychology, and graduated summa cum laude in 2003 with my

Bachelor of Science degree with a major in psychology.

I then joined the Department of Psychology at the University of Florida as a

graduate student in the Counseling Psychology Program. I completed my Master of

Science degree in the summer of 2006.