Measuring Intergroup Forgiveness: The Enright Group Forgiveness Inventory

Q4 Social Sciences Peace and Conflict Studies Pub Date : 2020-01-01 DOI:10.46743/1082-7307/2020.1614
R. Enright, J. Johnson, Fu Na, Tomaž Erzar, M. Hirshberg, Tina Huang, John S. Klatt, C. Lee, Benjamin Boateng, Preston Boggs, Tung-En Hsiao, Chelsea Olson, Mei Ling Shu, Jacqueline Y. Song, Peiying Wu, Baoyu Zhang
{"title":"Measuring Intergroup Forgiveness: The Enright Group Forgiveness Inventory","authors":"R. Enright, J. Johnson, Fu Na, Tomaž Erzar, M. Hirshberg, Tina Huang, John S. Klatt, C. Lee, Benjamin Boateng, Preston Boggs, Tung-En Hsiao, Chelsea Olson, Mei Ling Shu, Jacqueline Y. Song, Peiying Wu, Baoyu Zhang","doi":"10.46743/1082-7307/2020.1614","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Until recently, researchers operationalized and measured the psychological construct of forgiveness at the individual, rather than the group, level. Social psychologists started applying forgiveness to groups and examining the role intergroup forgiveness may have in conflict resolution and peace efforts. Initial attempts to define and measure forgiveness at the group level either assumed individual and group capacities were the same, or insufficiently described what intergroup forgiveness meant. We developed a new measure of intergroup forgiveness, and a novel group administration process, that operationalized the construct in a philosophically coherent way. Our conceptualization of intergroup forgiveness was rooted in what groups, as opposed to the individuals who compose them, have the capacity to do. We collected data on the psychometric properties of the measure with 595 participants in three different geographic and cultural settings. We assessed the factor structure, internal consistency, and validity of the measure. We also assessed a novel group-based method of administering the measure to better understand the relationship between group based reports and self-reports of intergroup forgiveness. The factor structure of the measure was supported, and the measure had strong internal consistency, as well as convergent and discriminant validity. The group administration process revealed important group dynamics and was not statistically different than a standard self-report administration; this finding has important implications for research and practice.","PeriodicalId":52516,"journal":{"name":"Peace and Conflict Studies","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Peace and Conflict Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.46743/1082-7307/2020.1614","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Until recently, researchers operationalized and measured the psychological construct of forgiveness at the individual, rather than the group, level. Social psychologists started applying forgiveness to groups and examining the role intergroup forgiveness may have in conflict resolution and peace efforts. Initial attempts to define and measure forgiveness at the group level either assumed individual and group capacities were the same, or insufficiently described what intergroup forgiveness meant. We developed a new measure of intergroup forgiveness, and a novel group administration process, that operationalized the construct in a philosophically coherent way. Our conceptualization of intergroup forgiveness was rooted in what groups, as opposed to the individuals who compose them, have the capacity to do. We collected data on the psychometric properties of the measure with 595 participants in three different geographic and cultural settings. We assessed the factor structure, internal consistency, and validity of the measure. We also assessed a novel group-based method of administering the measure to better understand the relationship between group based reports and self-reports of intergroup forgiveness. The factor structure of the measure was supported, and the measure had strong internal consistency, as well as convergent and discriminant validity. The group administration process revealed important group dynamics and was not statistically different than a standard self-report administration; this finding has important implications for research and practice.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
测量群体间宽恕:恩莱特群体宽恕量表
直到最近,研究人员还在个体而非群体层面上操作和测量宽恕的心理结构。社会心理学家开始将宽恕应用于群体,并研究群体间宽恕在解决冲突和和平努力中可能发挥的作用。最初试图在群体层面上定义和衡量宽恕,要么假设个人和群体的能力是相同的,要么没有充分描述群体间宽恕的含义。我们开发了一种新的群体间宽恕的衡量标准,以及一种新的群体管理过程,以一种哲学上连贯的方式将这种结构运作起来。我们对群体间宽恕的概念植根于群体,而不是组成群体的个人,有能力做什么。我们在三个不同的地理和文化环境中收集了595名参与者的心理测量属性数据。我们评估了因子结构、内部一致性和测量的有效性。我们还评估了一种新的基于群体的管理方法,以更好地理解基于群体的报告和群体间宽恕的自我报告之间的关系。量表的因子结构得到支持,具有较强的内部一致性,具有收敛效度和判别效度。小组管理过程显示了重要的群体动态,与标准的自我报告管理没有统计学差异;这一发现对研究和实践具有重要意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Peace and Conflict Studies
Peace and Conflict Studies Social Sciences-Safety Research
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
RMB Internationalization and Belt and Road Initiative with the Chinese approach to the RMB Inflow-Outflow Imbalance Refugees as Threats and Aid as Deterrence Tool: How Do Refugee Movements Affect Aid Allocation of European Donors? Internalization of Sustainable Development Goals by Local Governments: An Analysis on the Adoption and Diffusion of SDGs Policy Ethnic Inequality and Support for Democracy in Africa Postmodern War and the Politics of Speed
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1