Next Article in Journal
Perceptions of Spirituality and of God: A Psychological Qualitative Study
Previous Article in Journal
The Christology of John Duns Scotus
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Religions
Volume 16
Issue 6
10.3390/rel16060720
religions-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Dispositional Forgiveness and Mental Health and Well-Being: Adaptation of the Toussaint Forgiveness Scale in Georgia and Cross-Cultural Comparison with Poland

by
Sebastian Binyamin Skalski-Bednarz
1,2,*,
Loren L. Toussaint
3,
Nino Makhashvili
4,
Mariam Razmadze
4,
Paweł Dębski
2 and
Janusz Surzykiewicz
1,5
1
Faculty of Philosophy and Education, Catholic University of Eichstätt-Ingolstadt, 85072 Eichstätt, Germany
2
Institute of Psychology, Humanitas University, 41200 Sosnowiec, Poland
3
Department of Psychology, Luther College, Decorah, IA 52101, USA
4
School of Arts and Sciences, Ilia State University, 0179 Tbilisi, Georgia
5
Faculty of Education, Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University in Warsaw, 00378 Warsaw, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Religions 2025, 16(6), 720; https://doi.org/10.3390/rel16060720
Submission received: 6 May 2025 / Revised: 29 May 2025 / Accepted: 1 June 2025 / Published: 3 June 2025
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Forgiveness is a multidimensional phenomenon that often functions as a disposition; it is closely linked to psychological well-being and religion/spirituality. However, no validated instruments have been available to assess forgiveness in the Georgian context. This study aimed to adapt the Toussaint Forgiveness Scale (TFS) for use in Georgia and to examine cross-cultural patterns of forgiveness and mental health among Georgian Orthodox Christians and Polish Roman Catholics. Methods: Study 1 (N = 321) validated the Georgian TFS using confirmatory factor analysis and assessed its convergent validity with perceived stress and religiosity. Study 2 applied structural equation modeling to analyze associations between forgiveness dimensions and mental health indicators in Georgian (n = 110) and Polish (n = 111) samples. Results: The Georgian TFS showed good psychometric properties. In both groups, self-forgiveness was associated with lower depressive symptoms; in Georgia, it also predicted higher quality of life. Forgiveness by God predicted reduced anxiety and depression in Georgia but not in Poland. Although path patterns varied, overlapping confidence intervals suggest no significant between-group differences. Conclusions: Forgiveness supports mental health across cultures, especially self-forgiveness. Its expression may show subtle, culturally nuanced patterns, though these require cautious interpretation.

1. Introduction

In recent decades, forgiveness has emerged as a prominent psychological construct, evolving beyond its theological and philosophical origins to become a central theme in positive psychology, health psychology, and clinical research (Worthington 2020; Toussaint et al. 2023a). It is typically defined as an internal process involving the reduction of negative affect—such as resentment or the desire for revenge—and the cultivation of compassion, understanding, and emotional release toward an offender (Enright and Coyle 1998; Lundahl et al. 2008). Importantly, forgiveness does not necessarily imply reconciliation. While reconciliation involves the restoration of mutual trust and relationship, forgiveness can occur unilaterally and internally, without direct contact or agreement with the offender (Worthington 2013). Numerous studies have linked forgiveness to improved relational functioning, enhanced mental health, greater subjective well-being, and lower levels of depressive symptoms, anxiety, and substance craving (Skalski-Bednarz et al. 2024a; Webb and Toussaint 2020; Exline 2019). These associations are especially well-documented within frameworks that conceptualize forgiveness as a stress-regulation strategy (Worthington and Scherer 2004). For instance, stress-and-coping models of forgiveness (Strelan 2020; Toussaint et al. 2017) posit that forgiving responses mitigate the physiological and psychological impact of interpersonal offenses by reducing rumination, emotional reactivity, and perceived threat, thereby promoting adaptive emotional regulation and resilience. Furthermore, forgiveness is also deeply rooted in religious and spiritual traditions, and many individuals understand and practice forgiveness in explicitly faith-based or transcendent terms (Tsang et al. 2005; Worthington et al. 2001). Recent theological perspectives emphasize that forgiveness is not only a psychological coping mechanism but also a manifestation of the prevenient grace working within the human conscience (Morrison 2025). The conscience, understood as a spiritual faculty illuminated by divine love and mercy, enables individuals to discern healing pathways even amid emotional suffering and moral failure.
Empirical studies differentiate between episodic forgiveness, which refers to responses to specific interpersonal offenses, and dispositional forgiveness, understood as a general, enduring tendency to forgive across situations and relationships (Worthington et al. 2007; Skalski-Bednarz et al. 2024d; Stackhouse 2019; Macaskill 2012). While both dimensions offer valuable insights—capturing distinct yet complementary aspects of how individuals process transgressions—dispositional forgiveness has garnered growing interest among psychologists and therapists for its potential to illuminate stable emotional patterns across the lifespan. Rather than reflecting situational responses, it represents a consistent inclination that shapes emotional coping strategies and supports cumulative psychological resilience (Thompson et al. 2005; Stackhouse 2019).
Research by Mróz et al. (2021) further highlights the functional role of dispositional forgivingness, demonstrating that it mediates the relationship between spiritual intelligence and episodic forgiveness. Individuals with higher levels of dispositional forgiveness are less likely to seek revenge or avoid offenders and more likely to display benevolence and constructive emotional regulation. Supporting this perspective, a systematic review of forgiveness measures found that dispositional forgivingness is moderately to strongly associated with positive personality attributes such as agreeableness and empathy, and negatively linked with neuroticism, hostility, and rumination (Fernández-Capo et al. 2017). As such, dispositional forgiveness functions not only as a moral capacity but also as a robust predictor of flourishing, particularly under conditions of interpersonal and intrapersonal adversity (Skalski-Bednarz et al. 2024a; Toussaint 2022; Pandey et al. 2023).
Forgiveness is also commonly distinguished by the target of the forgiving response, typically expressed for self, for others, or as the perception of being forgiven by God. These three dimensions—forgiveness for self, forgiveness for others, and forgiveness by God—are frequently identified in empirical research, each reflecting distinct emotional and cognitive processes (Skalski-Bednarz et al. 2024c). Forgiveness for self involves releasing self-directed resentment and cultivating acceptance and self-compassion following one’s own moral failings (Webb et al. 2017). Forgiveness for others refers to overcoming negative feelings and thoughts toward someone who has caused harm (Rye et al. 2001). Forgiveness by God entails the belief or experience that one’s transgressions have been forgiven by a higher power, often grounding individuals in spiritual meaning and existential relief (Fincham 2022). The latter may be particularly relevant in highly religious cultures, such as Georgia, where spiritual beliefs are potentially closely tied to psychological processes. In addition to its direct associations with improved mental health, perceiving forgiveness by God has been shown to promote forgiveness for others (Fincham and May 2020) and to moderate the relationship between forgiveness for self and psychological well-being, particularly by reducing the harmful effects of guilt and self-criticism (Fincham and May 2019; Skalski-Bednarz 2024). Thus, divine forgiveness may serve as a vital spiritual resource that reinforces both interpersonal and intrapersonal healing.
Despite growing interest in forgiveness research, no psychometrically validated forgiveness measure has yet been adapted for the Georgian context. This represents a significant gap, particularly considering Georgia’s collectivist and deeply religious culture, where forgiveness holds profound moral weight (Grdzelidze 2010; Tsiklauri 2015; Popovaite 2014). The country is predominantly Orthodox Christian—a tradition that emphasizes humility, repentance, and divine grace—which may uniquely shape how forgiveness is understood and practiced, both psychologically and spiritually (Vassiliadis 2020; White et al. 2018; Popovaite 2014). The absence of culturally appropriate tools not only limits empirical study but also impedes the development of effective therapeutic interventions grounded in local values. To address this, this study focuses on adapting the Toussaint Forgiveness Scale (TFS; Toussaint et al. 2001), which measures dispositional forgiveness across four dimensions: forgiveness of others; forgiveness of self; forgiveness by God; and proactive forgiveness (i.e., the experience of seeking forgiveness after having committed wrongdoing). Unlike instruments such as the Trait Forgiveness Scale (Berry et al. 2005), which conceptualizes forgiveness as a single dispositional trait, or the Heartland Forgiveness Scale (Thompson et al. 2005), which includes forgiveness of self, others, and situations, the TFS uniquely captures the religious–spiritual dimension of forgiveness through its “forgiveness by God” subscale. The scale’s conceptual model has already demonstrated robust psychometric validity in cross-cultural adaptations, including Polish and French versions, where it showed high internal consistency and meaningful associations with personality and well-being (Charzyńska and Heszen 2013; Toussaint et al. 2023b).

1.1. Between Universality and Cultural Specificity

Although forgiveness has been conceptualized as a universal moral construct with shared emotional and behavioral patterns across cultures (Ho and Worthington 2020), the specific values and meanings attached to it are often shaped by cultural and religious traditions. Both Poland and Georgia are predominantly Christian societies, where forgiveness is deeply rooted in theological teachings and holds significant moral and social importance. They also share a post-socialist legacy marked by historical transition, strong religious identity, and in-group collectivism—factors known to shape moral reasoning and relational values (Bakacsi et al. 2002; Jarjabka 2009; Cipriani 2009).
Despite these commonalities, important cultural and religious differences remain. Poland is largely Roman Catholic and blends collectivist traditions with growing individualistic tendencies, while Georgia, shaped by Orthodox Christianity, remains more deeply embedded in communal and spiritual frameworks (Ely 2004; Hofstede 2011; Cipriani 2009). These nuances may influence not only how forgiveness is understood and enacted, but also which of its dimensions are most psychologically salient—i.e., most strongly associated with mental health outcomes. For example, while forgiveness for others and for self may be emphasized in both cultures, the experience of being forgiven by God may hold greater emotional and existential significance in Georgia, where Orthodox theology underscores divine grace, humility, and relational faithfulness (Horowski 2024; Vassiliadis 2020; Merakou et al. 2016; Grdzelidze 2010). In contrast, within Catholic traditions—such as in Poland—divine forgiveness is often mediated through the sacrament of confession, emphasizing personal accountability, contrition, and the active seeking of reconciliation with God through ritual and individual responsibility (Carey 2018; Jastrzębski 2023).
Moreover, cross-cultural research shows that in collectivist societies like Georgia, forgiveness is often approached as a relational and virtue-based act—serving to restore social harmony and fulfill communal morality. Conversely, in more individualistic cultures, forgiveness tends to be viewed as an internal emotional process tied to personal healing and self-regulation (Ho and Worthington 2020; Skalski-Bednarz et al. 2025). These cultural and religious nuances provide a compelling basis for comparing the psychological roles of forgiveness across Polish and Georgian contexts.

1.2. This Study

This study had two main objectives. First, we aimed to develop and validate a Georgian adaptation of the TFS, which measures dispositional forgiveness across four dimensions: forgiveness of self; forgiveness of others; forgiveness by God; and proactive forgiveness. To establish convergent validity, we hypothesized—based on stress-and-coping models of forgiveness (Toussaint et al. 2017; Strelan 2020)—that all three forgiveness dimensions would be negatively associated with perceived stress. Furthermore, drawing on theoretical and empirical work linking forgiveness with religion and spirituality (Worthington et al. 2001), we expected that all forgiveness dimensions would be positively associated with the centrality of religiosity.
Second, we sought to examine the associations between dispositional forgiveness and mental health indicators—specifically, anxiety, depressive symptoms, and health-related quality of life—across two cultural contexts: Poland and Georgia. In particular, we hypothesized that forgiveness by God would serve as a stronger protective factor for mental health in the Georgian sample, given the centrality of Orthodox Christian beliefs and the culturally embedded role of divine grace and spiritual reconciliation in Georgian religious life.

2. Results

2.1. Georgian Adaptation of the Toussaint Forgiveness Scale

To assess the factorial structure of the Georgian version of the TFS, we conducted a structural equation model (CFA) using maximum likelihood (ML) estimation. The initial model (Model 1), which included all items from each subscale, showed poor fit indices. Specifically, item 2 from both the proactive forgiveness and forgiveness for others subscales demonstrated low standardized loadings (0.20 and 0.27, respectively; ps < 0.001), suggesting that these items weakened the measurement model.
Subsequent nested models were tested: Model 2 excluded item 2 from the proactive forgiveness subscale; Model 3 excluded item 2 from the forgiveness for others subscale; and Model 4 excluded both problematic items. Model 4 yielded the best fit, with a CFI of 0.958, TLI of 0.980, SRMR of 0.048, and RMSEA of 0.071 (90% CI [0.034, 0.112]), indicating an acceptable model fit. This model was used in subsequent analyses. See Table 1 for comparison of fit indices across all tested models, and Figure 1 for the final factor structure of the scale.
All item-rest correlations exceeded the acceptable threshold of 0.40, suggesting that each item contributes meaningfully to its respective subscale. The internal consistency of the final subscales ranged from acceptable to excellent. Specifically, the forgiveness by God and proactive forgiveness subscales demonstrated the highest internal consistency (α = 0.88 and α = 0.81, respectively), while forgiveness for self and forgiveness for others showed acceptable reliability (α = 0.71 and α = 0.75; see Table 2).
Convergent validity was supported through correlations with external constructs. All TFS subscales negatively correlated with perceived stress, with proactive forgiveness showing the strongest negative correlation (r = −0.22, p < 0.001). Additionally, all subscales showed significant positive correlations with the centrality of religiosity. The strongest correlations were observed for forgiveness by God (r = 0.68, p < 0.001) and proactive forgiveness (r = 0.69, p < 0.001). Detailed statistics are presented in Table 3, which also includes intercorrelations among the TFS subscales.
Age, sex, and place of residence did not significantly differentiate participants’ forgiveness scores. However, significant differences emerged based on religious affiliation. Atheists and agnostics scored substantially lower on forgiveness by God compared to Orthodox Christians, Muslims, and other religious individuals (ps < 0.001). A similar pattern was observed for proactive forgiveness, with Orthodox Christians, Muslims, and other religious individuals reporting significantly higher scores than non-religious participants (ps < 0.001).

2.2. Cross-Cultural Comparison

In Study 2, we analyzed associations between forgiveness and health in Polish (n = 111) and Georgian (n = 110) participants. Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations between variables are presented in Appendix A (Table A1). Proactive forgiveness was not included in this study, as this dimension was not retained in the Polish adaptation of the TFS. As expected, the three forgiveness dimensions—forgiveness for self, forgiveness for others, and forgiveness by God—were positively interrelated. Additionally, all three were negatively correlated with anxiety and depressive symptoms, while forgiveness for self and forgiveness for others were also positively associated with quality of life. Anxiety and depressive symptoms were strongly positively correlated with each other and were both negatively associated with quality of life. These correlational patterns were consistent across both cultural groups. Age and sex showed no significant associations with any of the forgiveness dimensions or mental health variables (ps > 0.05).
As a next step, a multi-group SEM was estimated using ML estimation. The model included three latent predictors (forgiveness for self, forgiveness for others, and forgiveness by God) and three latent outcomes (anxiety, depressiveness, and quality of life). For self-forgiveness and forgiveness of God, all available items were used (two per dimension). For the remaining constructs, parceling was applied to reduce model complexity and improve estimation stability. In the case of forgiveness for others, as noted in the results subsection of Study 1, one item (Item 2 from the original TFS scale) was excluded from the Georgian version during the adaptation process due to cultural considerations. The remaining four items were randomly divided into two parcels: Parcel 1 included items 1 and 3, and Parcel 2 included items 4 and 5. The outcome variables were also represented by two parcels each. For anxiety (GAD-7), Parcel 1 included items 1, 3, and 4, while Parcel 2 included items 2, 5, and 7. For depressive symptoms (PHQ-9), Parcel 1 included items 1, 3, 5, and 6, and Parcel 2 included items 2, 4, and 7. For quality of life (EQ-5D-5L), Parcel 1 comprised items 1, 3, and 4, and Parcel 2 comprised items 2 and 5. The overall model demonstrated acceptable fit, χ2(84) = 102.43, p = 0.084, CFI = 0.923, TLI = 0.909, RMSEA = 0.076, 90% CI [0.032, 0.093], and SRMR = 0.049. Measurement invariance testing supported full scalar invariance. Constraint score tests comparing factor loadings and intercepts between groups were all non-significant—χ2(6) = 0.59, p = 0.997—indicating equivalence in the measurement model (separate model fit indices were not reported, as constraint score tests indicated no significant degradation in model fit across increasingly constrained models). Thus, cross-group comparisons of structural effects were considered interpretable.
In the Polish sample, forgiveness for self was the only significant predictor of depressive symptoms (β = −0.34, p = 0.037). Other forgiveness dimensions were not significantly associated with quality of life, depression, or anxiety. Detailed results are presented in Table 4, and the model structure is illustrated in Figure 2. Covariances between latent variables are reported in Appendix A (Table A2) and were omitted from Figure 2 to improve visual clarity.
In contrast, the Georgian group showed several significant associations. Forgiveness for self significantly predicted both higher quality of life (β = 0.42, p = 0.003) and lower depression (β = −0.37, p = 0.023). Forgiveness by God was a significant negative predictor of both depressive symptoms (β = −0.20, p = 0.043) and anxiety (β = −0.25, p = 0.022). Forgiveness for others was not significantly related to any outcome in this group. The structural model for the Georgian sample is presented in Figure 3.
Among the forgiveness dimensions, significant covariances were found between forgiveness for self and forgiveness for others in both groups (ps < 0.001). In the Polish sample, forgiveness for self was also significantly correlated with forgiveness by God (p = 0.018), while the association between forgiveness for others and forgiveness by God narrowly missed statistical significance (p = 0.051). In the Georgian group, no additional intercorrelations among forgiveness dimensions reached statistical significance. In both groups, depressive symptoms and anxiety were positively correlated (ps < 0.001), and both were negatively associated with quality of life (ps < 0.001), confirming the expected interrelations among the outcome variables.
Although descriptive differences in the magnitude and direction of path coefficients were observed for forgiveness by God—being positively and significantly associated with depression and anxiety in the Georgian sample, but non-significant in the Polish sample—the 90% confidence intervals for the unstandardized coefficients (B) overlapped in all cases. Thus, the results do not indicate statistically significant differences between groups on any of the structural paths tested.
After establishing full scalar invariance, independent-samples t-tests were conducted to compare mean-level differences in forgiveness and mental health outcomes across cultures. Georgian participants reported significantly higher levels of forgiveness for self (t(219) = −2.54, p = 0.012, d = 0.34) and forgiveness by God (t(219) = −5.92, p < 0.001, d = 0.80) than Polish participants. Conversely, Polish participants showed significantly higher levels of depressive symptoms (t(219) = 4.48, p < 0.001, d = 0.60). No significant group differences were found for forgiveness for others, anxiety, or quality of life (ps > 0.05).

3. Discussion

3.1. Georgian Adaptation of the Toussaint Forgiveness Scale

This study sought to adapt and validate the TFS for the Georgian context and to explore the role of dispositional forgiveness in psychological functioning across two culturally and religiously distinct Christian populations—Poland and Georgia. The findings offer robust psychometric support for the Georgian version of the TFS and highlight important similarities and differences in the psychological relevance of forgiveness dimensions between the two national samples.
In the validation study, as hypothesized, all four dimensions of forgiveness—for self, others, by God, and proactive forgiveness—were negatively associated with stress and positively correlated with religiosity. These findings affirm the convergent validity of the scale and support the conceptualization of forgiveness as both a coping strategy and a spiritual resource (Worthington and Scherer 2004; Strelan 2020; Toussaint et al. 2017). In addition to demonstrating theoretical coherence, the Georgian version of the TFS met core psychometric standards. Internal consistency for all subscales was acceptable to high, with Cronbach’s alpha values exceeding 0.71, and the four-factor structure showing good model fit. Although individuals with a religious affiliation reported higher forgiveness by God scores than atheists or agnostics, forgiveness levels did not significantly differ across other sociodemographic variables such as age, sex, or place of residence—an outcome consistent with the existing literature and theoretical consensus (Toussaint et al. 2001; Charzyńska and Heszen 2013).
Two items were removed from the Georgian version of the scale to enhance factorial clarity. Empirical indicators—such as poor model fit and low standardized factor loadings—necessitated their exclusion. The first item—“try to get even in some way” (forgiveness for others)—had a particularly low loading and appeared culturally misaligned, as direct retaliation is generally discouraged in Georgia’s collectivist and harmony-oriented context (Grdzelidze 2010; Bakacsi et al. 2002; Horowski 2024). The second—“ask the other person’s forgiveness” (proactive forgiveness)—also showed weak psychometric performance, potentially reflecting ambiguity in meaning. In highly religious settings like Georgia, such behavior may stem more from social or moral expectations than from stable dispositional tendencies (Hook et al. 2009; Sandage and Williamson 2005). Notably, however, the remaining two items from the proactive forgiveness subscale—“Ask God’s forgiveness when you have hurt someone” and “Pray for someone who has hurt you”—remained semantically clear and psychometrically sound. This may suggest that, in the Georgian context, morally restorative action is more readily expressed through internal spiritual practices than through direct interpersonal gestures. Interestingly, while the proactive forgiveness subscale was retained in the Georgian version in this modified form, it was entirely excluded in both the Polish and French adaptations of the TFS due to similar concerns regarding cultural relevance and interpretive clarity (Charzyńska and Heszen 2013; Toussaint et al. 2023b).

3.2. Cross-Cultural Comparison

In the cross-cultural comparison, Georgian participants reported higher levels of forgiveness for self and forgiveness by God, while Polish participants exhibited more depressive symptoms. These differences may reflect cultural and theological distinctions in how divine forgiveness is understood and emotionally processed. In Orthodox contexts such as Georgia, spirituality is closely embedded in communal life and liturgical practice, and God is often portrayed as relational and merciful. Forgiveness by God is typically regarded as accessible through personal prayer, humility, and participation in the sacramental and mystical life of the Church—without requiring juridically structured acts such as formal confession (Ely 2004; Vassiliadis 2020; Merakou et al. 2016; Grdzelidze 2010). This theological orientation may foster a sense of spiritual reconciliation and acceptance that feels more cognitively and emotionally available, even in the absence of explicit self-criticism. By contrast, in Roman Catholic cultures like Poland, forgiveness by God is traditionally mediated through the sacrament of penance, which involves formal confession, contrition, and restitution. While this sacramental model can be deeply meaningful and transformative, it also emphasizes personal moral responsibility and individual accountability, which may increase susceptibility to self-critical thinking (Carey 2018; Horowski 2024; McKay et al. 2013; Palmer 2023). Consequently, self-forgiveness may be experienced as more psychologically demanding in Catholic contexts, particularly when accompanied by unresolved guilt or a strong sense of obligation to atone. At the same time, it is worth noting that no significant differences were found between the Georgian and Polish samples in forgiveness for others. This is especially relevant given that Georgian culture is sometimes viewed as emphasizing honor, revenge, and traditional masculinity (Tsiklauri 2015)—social norms that may appear to discourage interpersonal forgiveness. The absence of group-level differences suggests that such cultural scripts do not necessarily inhibit dispositional forgiveness.
Furthermore, the higher levels of depressive symptoms observed among Polish participants may reflect broader sociocultural pressures associated with more individualistic cultural orientations. In such contexts, personal achievement, autonomy, and self-enhancement are often emphasized, which can intensify internalized stress, perfectionism, and fear of failure (Hofstede 2001, 2011; Kessler and Bromet 2013). Compared to Georgia, Poland is significantly more economically developed and politically stable (World Bank 2023), potentially shifting sources of distress from survival-related concerns to performance-based and existential anxieties. These dynamics may contribute to a more internalized and self-critical experience of psychological distress, consistent with patterns observed in other Westernized, individualistic societies (Colla et al. 2006; Hidaka 2012).
SEM provided further insight into cultural differences in how forgiveness relates to mental health. In both samples, self-forgiveness emerged as a significant negative predictor of depressive symptoms and, in the Georgian sample, additionally predicted higher perceived health. These findings are consistent with prior evidence demonstrating that self-forgiveness is reliably associated with psychological benefits, including increased well-being, emotional stability, and life satisfaction (Macaskill 2012; Vismaya et al. 2024). While both national samples represent highly religious societies, it is important to note that forgiveness—for self and for others—can be equally effective in secular populations. Religiously motivated programs, such as REACH, do not yield stronger forgiveness outcomes compared to secular interventions; rather, their primary added benefit lies in enhancing spiritual well-being (Worthington 2024).
In the Georgian sample, a broader protective pattern was observed: forgiveness by God, in addition to forgiveness for self, was associated with lower depressive symptoms. This may reflect theological and cultural frameworks in which divine forgiveness is experienced as relational and restorative, particularly within Orthodox Christianity, where spiritual reconciliation and communal identity are closely intertwined. Such beliefs may enhance the perceived emotional availability of divine grace and support its role in psychological adjustment (Ely 2004; Vassiliadis 2020; Merakou et al. 2016; Grdzelidze 2010).
Although statistically significant differences between the groups were not detected in terms of structural path estimates—due to overlapping confidence intervals (CIs) for all unstandardized regression coefficients—important interpretative patterns emerged. This asymmetry, despite overlapping CIs, suggests potential cultural differentiation in the psychological function of divine forgiveness. It is worth noting that such overlap does not necessarily imply the absence of meaningful differences. As emphasized in the methodological literature, the presence of overlapping confidence intervals is often an overly conservative criterion for evaluating group differences and may obscure genuine divergences, especially in smaller samples (Schenker and Gentleman 2001; Cumming 2013). In such cases, theoretical coherence and the presence of significant effects in only one group support a cautious interpretation in terms of differential psychological functioning rather than statistically confirmed group-level differences.
Accordingly, the hypothesis that forgiveness by God plays a stronger protective role in the Georgian context is partially supported. The prediction is upheld insofar as forgiveness by God was meaningfully linked to psychological well-being only in the Georgian sample. However, the lack of statistically significant group differences in structural path comparisons limits the strength of conclusions regarding cultural moderation and prevents full empirical confirmation.
A further consideration concerns the specificity of effects observed in the SEM models. While both SEM and bivariate correlations capture relationships among forgiveness dimensions and psychological outcomes, SEM offers a more refined analytic approach by accounting for shared variance among predictors and isolating their unique contributions. This is particularly important when forgiveness-related constructs are conceptually and empirically interrelated, as overlapping variance can obscure the distinct role of each dimension. In contrast, bivariate correlations revealed moderate and relatively consistent associations, which may reflect combined rather than specific effects. SEM thus enables greater interpretive precision by separating overlapping predictors and clarifying the unique associations of each forgiveness construct with psychological outcomes.

3.3. Limitations

Several limitations of this study should be acknowledged. First, the relatively modest sample sizes in both cultural groups may have limited statistical power, particularly in detecting between-group differences in structural effects. To mitigate this constraint, item parceling was applied in the SEM models to improve estimation stability and reduce parameter complexity—an approach commonly recommended in smaller samples. Second, although the Georgian version of the TFS demonstrated strong psychometric properties, we were not able to include an alternative, validated forgiveness measure for concurrent validation, as no such tools are currently available in Georgian. Instead, we relied on conceptually adjacent constructs, such as perceived stress and religiosity, to establish convergent validity. Third, the study relied on non-clinical, convenience samples consisting of generally healthy adult participants. While appropriate for initial validation and population-level comparisons, the generalizability of these findings to clinical populations experiencing acute psychological distress remains limited. Future research should replicate these findings in clinical, pastoral, or trauma-exposed groups to assess the robustness of the observed associations under more severe emotional conditions. Fourth, due to the cross-sectional nature of the study, causal inferences cannot be drawn regarding the directionality of associations between forgiveness dimensions and mental health outcomes. Although theoretical models posit forgiveness as a coping resource that fosters well-being, longitudinal designs are necessary to verify the temporal precedence and potential mediating mechanisms of this relationship. Fifth, future research could also examine how hierarchical theological models—such as those emphasizing sacramental mediation of forgiveness in Georgian Orthodoxy—may influence experiences of moral agency and spiritual autonomy, potentially reinforcing or mitigating exclusionary dynamics.

3.4. Practical Implications

The findings offer important directions for culturally responsive psychological interventions. Given the robust links between forgiveness for self and psychological well-being, structured programs such as Restore: The Journey Toward Self-Forgiveness (Toussaint et al. 2014) may serve as effective tools for improving perceived health. This intervention, grounded in the stress-and-coping model of self-forgiveness (Toussaint et al. 2017), promotes psychological resilience through structured reflection, cognitive-emotional processing, and meaning reconstruction. Empirical evidence shows that Restore increases self-forgiveness, acceptance, life satisfaction, and even physiological indicators of well-being such as heart rate variability, confirming its relevance across both mental and physical health domains (Skalski-Bednarz et al. 2024b).
Importantly, this study also highlights the culturally specific role of divine forgiveness, which was particularly salient in the Georgian sample. In such contexts, mental health promotion may benefit from explicitly integrating the relational and affective experience of divine grace. This includes fostering a felt sense of being forgiven by God, not merely as a doctrinal truth, but as an emotionally intimate, present, and supportive relationship. Therapeutic approaches that address these dimensions—such as spiritually integrated psychotherapy, narrative processing of forgiveness experiences, or guided contemplation—may be especially impactful in deeply religious Orthodox societies. Taken together, the combination of secular and spiritual components of forgiveness offers a promising direction for holistic mental health care tailored to diverse sociocultural realities.
Conversely, in sociocultural contexts where religious language is closely tied to political narratives—such as in Poland (see Hruby 1982–1983)—it may be particularly important for therapeutic and educational initiatives to reframe forgiveness as a personal, relational, and moral practice rather than a political or institutional directive. This distinction can help preserve the authenticity of forgiveness and protect it from being co-opted as a tool of social control.
Moreover, integrating a practical spiritual theology perspective reveals that the acts of forgiveness—particularly self-forgiveness and forgiveness by God—can be understood as part of a broader spiritual journey toward wholeness, echoing Walter Hilton’s mystical insights on transformation through divine union (Goodrich 2021). In this view, forgiveness fosters not only psychological resilience but also deeper spiritual maturity, advancing emotional healing and relational restoration—especially when rooted in communal spiritual traditions such as the spiritual works of mercy (Shaniuk 2020). To enhance the spiritual authenticity of forgiveness practices in contexts where religious rituals risk becoming routine, such as the Catholic sacrament of confession, therapeutic and pastoral strategies could emphasize inner transformation, narrative exploration, and emotional integration. These approaches may help reframe confession not merely as a formal requirement, but as an opportunity for genuine spiritual growth and relational healing (Smucker 2002).

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Participants

In Study 1, 321 adult participants were recruited in Georgia to validate the Georgian adaptation of the TFS. Eligibility criteria included being at least 18 years old and residing in Georgia; no other exclusion conditions were applied. Participants were recruited during the winter of 2024 through university networks, community centers, and online forums, ensuring broad demographic representation. Data were collected anonymously using Google Forms.
The mean age of the sample was 34.2 years (SD = 8.9), and 68% of participants were of female sex. In terms of religious affiliation, 79% identified as Orthodox Christians, 17% as Jews, 2% as Muslims, and 2% as unaffiliated or affiliated with other religious groups. Residential distribution aligned with national patterns: 57% of participants lived in urban areas, 29% in small towns, and 14% in rural regions. Regarding education, 41% held a university degree, 38% had completed secondary education, and 21% had vocational or technical qualifications. Marital status was distributed as follows: 47% were single, 33% married, 15% in non-marital partnerships, and 5% divorced or widowed.
Study 2 was conducted in the spring of 2025 and employed a cross-cultural, cross-religious comparative design. It included two groups: 111 Polish participants who self-identified as Roman Catholics (Mage = 37.5, SD = 7.2), and 110 Georgian participants who identified as Orthodox Christians (Mage = 36.1, SD = 5.5). Eligibility criteria mirrored those of Study 1 (adulthood and residence in the respective country), with the additional requirement of specific religious affiliation. Participants were recruited via academic mailing lists and social media platforms. Data collection was again conducted using Google Forms. In the Polish sample, 66% were of female sex; in the Georgian Orthodox group, 64% were female. No additional sociodemographic data (e.g., education, residence, marital status) were collected or controlled for in this phase of the project.
Informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to data collection in both studies. All procedures were reviewed and approved by the relevant institutional ethics committee and conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and established ethical research standards. Participants did not receive any compensation for their participation in either study.

4.2. Procedure

In Study 1, participants completed the Georgian version of the TFS, along with a single-item measure of stress perception and a brief instrument assessing the centrality of religiosity. The procedure took approximately 17 min to complete.
In Study 2, participants completed the same version of the TFS, along with standardized instruments measuring quality of life, anxiety, and depressive symptoms. This part of the study required approximately 25 min. All instruments were presented in the participants’ native language (Georgian or Polish), using previously validated versions.

4.3. Measures

Dispositional forgiveness was assessed using the TFS (Toussaint et al. 2001), which in the original English version consists of 12 items representing four subscales: forgiveness for others (5 items); forgiveness for self (2 items); forgiveness by God (2 items); and proactive forgiveness (3 items). Participants responded to all items using a consistent 5-point response format, either ranging from 1 = “strongly disagree” to 5 = “strongly agree”, or, for some items, from 1 = “rarely” to 5 = “very often”, depending on item phrasing. Sample items include: “When someone has hurt you, how often do you: try to forgive the other person?” (forgiveness for others); “I often feel that no matter what I do now I will never make up for the mistakes I have made in the past” (forgiveness for self; reverse-coded); “I know that God forgives me” (forgiveness by God); and “Ask God’s forgiveness when you have hurt someone” (proactive forgiveness). However, the Polish adaptation (Charzyńska and Heszen 2013) does not distinguish proactive forgiveness as a separate factor, and these two items were excluded from analysis in Study 2 to ensure comparability across both language versions. Similarly, our Georgian adaptation required the exclusion of item 2 from the forgiveness of others subscale due to psychometric concerns. The Georgian version was developed using a standard forward–backward translation procedure with expert review, and the final items are presented in Appendix B. For Polish participants, a previously published and validated adaptation was used (Charzyńska and Heszen 2013). Subscale scores were computed by averaging relevant item responses, with higher values indicating greater levels of dispositional forgiveness. Internal consistency in Study 1 is reported in the Results section. In Study 2, reliability was assessed separately for each language version. In the Georgian sample, Cronbach’s α values were 0.74 for forgiveness for others, 0.72 for forgiveness for self, and 0.89 for forgiveness by God. In the Polish sample, corresponding values were 0.71, 0.70, and 0.79, respectively.
A single-item stress scale was used to assess perceived distress (Fredriksson-Larsson et al. 2015; Elo et al. 2003), following the same translation procedures as those applied to the forgiveness scale. The item described stress as a condition in which an individual feels tense, restless, nervous, or anxious, or has trouble sleeping because of persistent mental distress. Participants were asked: “Stress refers to a situation where a person feels tense, restless, nervous, or anxious, or is unable to sleep at night because their mind is constantly troubled. Do you experience that kind of stress these days?” Responses were given on a five-point response scale ranging from 1 = “not at all” to 5 = “very much so”.
Centrality of religiosity was measured using the short form of the Centrality of Religiosity Scale (CRS-5), a psychometric instrument developed by Huber (2003) and adapted into Georgian by Ackert et al. (2020) to assess the importance of religion in an individual’s personality structure. The CRS-5 captures five core dimensions of religiosity: ideology; intellect; religious experience; private religious practice; and public religious practice. Each dimension is represented by a single item, resulting in a five-item scale designed for use in Abrahamic religious contexts (e.g., Christianity, Islam, Judaism). Participants responded using a 5-point response format, which varied slightly by item. For frequency-based items, the scale ranged from 1 = “never” to 5 = “very often”; for belief or agreement-based items, it ranged from 1 = “not at all” to 5 = “very much so”. A sample item from the scale is: “How often do you experience situations in which you have the feeling that God or something divine intervenes in your life?” Internal consistency for the CRS-5 in our Study 1 was acceptable, with Cronbach’s α = 0.77. In this study, a total score was used as an indicator of a second-order latent construct, reflecting the centrality of religiosity across all five core dimensions.
Generalized anxiety symptoms were assessed using the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item scale (GAD-7), originally developed by (Spitzer et al. 2006). The GAD-7 is a widely used screening instrument designed to measure the frequency of anxiety symptoms experienced over the preceding two weeks. It comprises seven items (e.g., “Feeling nervous, anxious, or on edge”), each assessing a symptom of generalized anxiety disorder. Participants responded using a 4-point frequency scale ranging from 0 = “not at all” to 3 = “nearly every day”. A total score was computed as a composite indicator of anxiety severity. In this study, the Georgian version validated by Javakhishvili et al. (2021) and the Polish version adapted by Basińska and Kwissa-Gajewska (2023) were used. Internal consistency in Study 2 was excellent in both language versions, with Cronbach’s α = 0.95 in the Georgian sample and α = 0.96 in the Polish sample.
Depressive symptoms were assessed using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), a self-report instrument originally developed by Kroenke et al. (2001) to assess the presence and severity of depressive symptoms over the preceding two weeks. The scale consists of nine items, each corresponding to a DSM-IV symptom of major depression (e.g., “Little interest or pleasure in doing things”). Participants responded using a 4-point frequency scale ranging from 0 = “not at all” to 3 = “nearly every day”. A total score was computed to reflect overall depression severity. In this study, we used validated versions of the PHQ-9 for both language groups: the Georgian version validated by Javakhishvili et al. (2021) and the Polish version adapted by (Kokoszka et al. 2016). Internal consistency in Study 2 was excellent in both samples, with Cronbach’s α = 0.92 in the Georgian sample and α = 0.94 in the Polish sample.
Health-related quality of life and perceived health status were assessed using the EQ-5D-5L, a standardized instrument developed by the EuroQol Group to measure functioning across five health dimensions: mobility; self-care; usual activities; pain/discomfort; and anxiety/depression (EuroQol Group 2019). The scale was available in both Polish and Georgian language versions. Each domain is rated on a 5-point ordinal scale ranging from 1 = “no problems” to 5 = “extreme problems” or “unable to perform”, depending on the item. A health index score can be calculated based on the combination of responses across the five dimensions, with resulting scores ranging from values below 0 (indicating health states valued as worse than death) to 1.000, which represents full health, defined as having no problems in any dimension (i.e., profile: 1-1-1-1-1). To facilitate structural equation modeling, individual item responses were rescaled to a 0–1 range (corresponding to the direction of the health index, with higher values indicating better functioning) and then averaged within each parcel.

4.4. Statistical Analysis

All analyses were conducted using Jamovi 2.4, a graphical interface for R. For CFA and SEM, the SEM module in Jamovi was used, which is based on the lavaan package (Rosseel 2012). Preliminary data screening included checks for missing values, normality, and descriptive statistics for all key variables.
In Study 1, confirmatory factor analysis was performed to evaluate the factor structure of the Georgian version of the TFS. In both studies, model fit was assessed using multiple indices: the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and the Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI), where values ≥ 0.90 are considered acceptable and ≥0.95 good; the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), where values ≤ 0.08 are considered acceptable and ≤0.06 good; and the Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR), where values ≤ 0.08 indicate good fit (Byrne 2016). Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach’s α, and Pearson correlations were used to explore associations among forgiveness dimensions, religiosity, and perceived stress. Alternative measurement models were compared using the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) and Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC). Lower values of AIC and BIC indicate better model fit, and differences greater than 10 points are typically interpreted as strong evidence in favor of the better-fitting model (Burnham and Anderson 2004).
In Study 2, SEM was used to test the hypothesized relationships between forgiveness and health. Due to modest sample sizes in both groups, item parceling was applied to reduce model complexity and enhance estimation stability. Constructs were represented by two parcels each, created by averaging randomly grouped items; for measures with only two items, each item was used as an individual indicator. This approach is frequently recommended in SEM with smaller samples, as it reduces the number of parameters and improves model convergence. Additionally, independent-samples t-tests accompanied by Cohen’s d effect size calculations were conducted to assess mean-level differences in forgiveness and mental health variables between Polish and Georgian participants. Measurement invariance across groups (Polish and Georgian participants) was assessed using constraint score tests, which supported full scalar invariance.

5. Conclusions

This study offered a dual contribution by adapting and validating the TFS for the Georgian context and by comparing the role of dispositional forgiveness across two culturally and religiously distinct Christian societies. Psychometric analyses confirmed that the Georgian version of the scale is structurally sound and demonstrates strong internal consistency and convergent validity. These findings help address a notable gap in the literature, particularly within a cultural setting where forgiveness had not previously been assessed using validated psychological tools.
Cross-cultural comparisons revealed that forgiveness of self consistently predicted better psychological functioning across both samples. However, forgiveness by God emerged as a significant predictor of reduced depression and anxiety only in the Georgian group. Although between-group differences in structural coefficients were not statistically significant, the observed pattern supports a culturally differentiated understanding of forgiveness—where forgiveness by God appears to play a more salient protective role in mental health.
These findings are consistent with broader cross-cultural research suggesting that, while the basic psychological mechanisms of forgiveness may be universal, cultures vary in how they emphasize its emotional, relational, or spiritual dimensions. Overall, this study enhances our understanding of how forgiveness functions within culturally embedded spiritual frameworks and underscores the importance of integrating psychological and theological constructs in research on well-being across diverse societies. Further inclusion of additional religious or cultural communities in future research could enrich these insights and support more universally applicable conclusions regarding the role of forgiveness across diverse sociocultural contexts.

Author Contributions

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, S.B.S.-B. and L.L.T.; methodology, S.B.S.-B.; software, S.B.S.-B.; validation, S.B.S.-B., N.M. and M.R.; formal analysis, S.B.S.-B.; investigation, S.B.S.-B.; resources, S.B.S.-B.; data curation, N.M. and M.R.; writing—original draft preparation, S.B.S.-B.; writing—review and editing, S.B.S.-B., P.D. and J.S.; visualization, S.B.S.-B.; supervision, N.M.; project administration, S.B.S.-B.; funding acquisition, S.B.S.-B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by the International Visegrad Fund under Grant No. 52410344, awarded to S.B.S.-B. as part of a visiting professorship at Ilia State University in Tbilisi, Georgia, during which this manuscript was prepared. Open access funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation)—Projektnummer 512640851.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Scientific Research Ethics Committee of University of Economics and Human Sciences in Warsaw (2/06/2023; 15 June 2023).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The dataset underpinning the conclusions of this research is accessible upon request from the corresponding author, S.B.S.-B. These data are not publicly available to protect the confidentiality of research participants and prevent any potential compromise of their privacy.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of the data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
TFSToussaint Forgiveness Scale
SEMStructural Equation Modeling
CFAConfirmatory Factor Analysis
MLMaximum Likelihood
CFI Comparative Fit Index
TLI Tucker–Lewis Index
SRMR Standardized Root Mean Square Residual
RMSEA Root Mean Square Error of Approximation
AIC Akaike Information Criterion
BIC Bayesian Information Criterion
CRS-5 Centrality of Religiosity Scale (5-item version)
PHQ-9 Patient Health Questionnaire-9
GAD-7 Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7
EQ-5D-5L EuroQol 5 Dimensions, 5 Levels
CI Confidence Interval
SDStandard Deviation

Appendix A

Table A1. Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations between forgiveness and mental health variables in Polish and Georgian samples.
Table A1. Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations between forgiveness and mental health variables in Polish and Georgian samples.
VariableM (SD)1.2.3.4.5.
Poland (n = 111)
1. Forgiveness for Self3.34 (1.22)--
2. Forgiveness for Others3.63 (0.89)0.51 ***--
3. Forgiveness by God3.22 (1.01)0.36 ***0.55 ***--
4. Anxiety1.04 (0.66)−0.41 ***−0.41 ***−0.21 *--
5. Depressiveness1.23 (0.15)−0.37 ***−0.49 ***−0.24 **0.65 ***--
6. Quality of Life0.89 (0.17)0.32 ***0.26 **0.13−0.61 ***−0.59 ***
Georgia (n = 110)
1. Forgiveness for Self3.76 (1.24)--
2. Forgiveness for Others3.46 (0.91)0.42 ***--
3. Forgiveness by God3.99 (0.92)0.21 *0.59 ***--
4. Anxiety1.22 (0.68)−0.47 ***−0.45 ***−0.26 ***--
5. Depressiveness1.13 (0.18)−0.42 ***−0.47 ***−0.28 **0.69 ***--
6. Quality of Life0.91 (0.16)0.37 ***0.33 ***0.20 *−0.65 ***−0.67 ***
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Table A2. Covariances between forgiveness and mental health variables in Polish and Georgian samples.
Table A2. Covariances between forgiveness and mental health variables in Polish and Georgian samples.
Variable 1Variable 2BSE90% CIβz
LowerUpper
Poland (n = 111)
Forg. for SelfForg. for Others1.030.210.691.370.404.95 ***
Forg. for SelfForg. by God0.440.190.130.740.262.37 *
Forg. for OthersForg. by God0.390.200.060.720.121.95
Quality of LifeDepressiveness−0.210.07−0.33−0.09−0.41−2.96 **
Quality of LifeAnxiety−0.430.10−0.60−0.26−0.62−4.19 ***
DepressivenessAnxiety0.370.090.230.520.704.18 ***
Georgia (n = 110)
Forg. for SelfForg. for Others1.300.240.921.690.485.52 ***
Forg. for SelfForg. by God0.320.180.020.620.191.77
Forg. for OthersForg. by God0.290.21−0.050.630.091.38
Quality of LifeDepressiveness−0.300.07−0.41−0.18−0.73−4.24 ***
Quality of LifeAnxiety−0.500.10−0.67−0.34−0.91−5.03 ***
DepressivenessAnxiety0.360.080.230.490.784.52 ***
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.

Appendix B

Items of the Georgian Version of the Toussaint Forgiveness Scale:
  • ხშირად ვგრძნობ, რომ ახლა რაც უნდა გავაკეთო, ვერასოდეს გამოვისყიდი წარსულში დაშვებულ შეცდომებს
  • მიჭირს საკუთარ თავს ვაპატიო ზოგი რამ, რაც არასწორად გავაკეთე.
  • როდესაც ვინმეს ტკივილი მოუყენებია თქვენთვის, რამდენად ხშირად: დაგიტოვებიათ გულში წყენა
  • როდესაც ვინმეს ტკივილი მოუყენებია თქვენთვის, რამდენად ხშირად: გიცდიათ ამ ადამიანის პატიება
  • ზოგი წყენა თვეების ან წლების განმავლობაში არ მავიწყდება.
  • ვაპატიე მათ, ვინც ტკივილი მომაყენა.
  • ცოდნა, რომ ჩემი ცოდვები მიმეტევა, ძალას მაძლევს, რომ ჩემს ნაკლოვანებებს თვალებში ჩავხედო და უკეთესი ადამიანი ვიყო.
  • ვიცი, რომ ღმერთი მპატიობს
  • ღმერთს სთხოვთ პატიებას, როდესაც ვინმეს ტკივილს მიაყენებთ.
  • ლოცულობთ მისთვის, ვინც თქვენ მოგაყენათ ტკივილი.

References

  1. Ackert, Michael, Erekle Maglakelidze, Irina Badurashvili, and Stefan Huber. 2020. Validation of the Short Forms of the Centrality of Religiosity Scale in Georgia. Religions 11: 57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Bakacsi, Gyula, Takács Sándor, Karácsonyi András, and Imrek Viktor. 2002. Eastern European Cluster: Tradition and Transition. Journal of World Business 37: 69–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Basińska, Beata Aleksandra, and Zuzanna Kwissa-Gajewska. 2023. Psychometric Properties of the Polish Version of the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale (GAD-7) in a Non-Clinical Sample of Employees during Pandemic Crisis. International Journal of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health 36: 493–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Berry, Jack W., Everett L. Worthington, Lynn E. O’Connor, Les Parrott, and Nathaniel G. Wade. 2005. Forgivingness, Vengeful Rumination, and Affective Traits. Journal of Personality 73: 183–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Burnham, Kenneth P., and David R. Anderson. 2004. Multimodel Inference. Sociological Methods & Research 33: 261–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Byrne, Barbara M. 2016. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. New York: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  7. Carey, Patrick W. 2018. Confession: Catholics, Repentance, and Forgiveness in America. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  8. Charzyńska, Edyta, and Irena Heszen. 2013. Zdolnosc Do Wybaczania i Jej Pomiar Przy Pomocy Polskiej Adaptacji Skali Wybaczania LL Toussainta. DR Williamsa, MA Musicka i SA Everson [The Capacity to Forgive and Its Measurement with the Polish Adaptation of The Forgiveness Scale LL Toussaint, D. R. Williams, MA Musick and SA Eversonj. Przeglgd Psychologiczny 56: 423–46. [Google Scholar]
  9. Cipriani, Roberto. 2009. Religions in Europe. Religion 39: 109–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Colla, Judith, Stephan Buka, David Harrington, and Jane M. Murphy. 2006. Depression and Modernization. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 41: 271–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Cumming, Geoff. 2013. Understanding the New Statistics. New York: Routledge. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Elo, Anna Liisa, Anneli Leppänen, and Antti Jahkola. 2003. Validity of a Single-Item Measure of Stress Symptoms. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health 29: 444–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Ely, Peter B. 2004. Forgiveness in Christianity. Ultimate Reality and Meaning 27: 108–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Enright, Robert D., and Catherine T. Coyle. 1998. Researching the Process Model of Forgiveness within Psychological Interventions. In Dimensions of Forgiveness: Psychological Research and Theological Perspectives. Edited by Everett L. Worthington, Jr. Philadelphia: Templeton Foundation Press, pp. 139–62. [Google Scholar]
  15. EuroQol Group. 2019. EQ-5D-5L User Guide: Basic Information on How to Use the EQ-5D-5L Instrument (Version 3.0). Rotterdam: EuroQol Research Foundation. [Google Scholar]
  16. Exline, Julie J. 2019. Anger toward God and Divine Forgiveness. In Handbook of Forgiveness, 2nd ed. Edited by Everett L. Worthington, Jr. and Nathaniel G. Wade. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 117–27. [Google Scholar]
  17. Fernández-Capo, Maria, Silvia Recoder Fernández, María Gámiz Sanfeliu, Juana Gómez Benito, and Everett L. Worthington. 2017. Measuring Forgiveness. European Psychologist 22: 247–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Fincham, Frank D. 2022. Towards a Psychology of Divine Forgiveness. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality 14: 451–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Fincham, Frank D., and Ross W. May. 2019. Self-Forgiveness and Well-Being: Does Divine Forgiveness Matter? The Journal of Positive Psychology 14: 854–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Fincham, Frank D., and Ross W. May. 2020. Divine, Interpersonal and Self-Forgiveness: Independently Related to Depressive Symptoms? The Journal of Positive Psychology 15: 448–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Fredriksson-Larsson, Ulla, Eva Brink, Gunne Grankvist, Ingibjörg H. Jonsdottir, and Pia Alsen. 2015. The Single-Item Measure of Stress Symptoms after Myocardial Infarction and Its Association with Fatigue. Open Journal of Nursing 5: 345–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Goodrich, Kevin. 2021. Foundations of Practical Spiritual Theology: Walter Hilton as a Case Study in Retrieval. Open Theology 7: 91–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Grdzelidze, Tamara. 2010. The Orthodox Church of Georgia: Challenges under Democracy and Freedom (1990–2009). International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church 10: 160–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Hidaka, Brandon H. 2012. Depression as a Disease of Modernity: Explanations for Increasing Prevalence. Journal of Affective Disorders 140: 205–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ho, Man Yee, and Everett L. Worthington. 2020. Is the Concept of Forgiveness Universal? A Cross-Cultural Perspective Comparing Western and Eastern Cultures. Current Psychology 39: 1749–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Hofstede, Geert. 2001. Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations. Thousand Oaks: Sage. [Google Scholar]
  27. Hofstede, Geert. 2011. Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture 2: 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Hook, Joshua N., Everett L. Worthington, and Shawn O. Utsey. 2009. Collectivism, Forgiveness, and Social Harmony. The Counseling Psychologist 37: 821–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Horowski, Jarosław. 2024. The Christian Concept of Forgiveness and Religious Education Facing the Problem of Individualism. British Journal of Religious Education 46: 71–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Hruby, Suzanne. 1982–1983. The Church in Poland and its Political Influence. Journal of International Affairs 36: 317–28. [Google Scholar]
  31. Huber, Stefan. 2003. Zentralität und Inhalt: Ein Neues Multidimensionales Messmodell der Religiosität [Centrality and Content: A New Multidimensional Measurement Model of Religiosity]. Opladen: Leske + Budrich. [Google Scholar]
  32. Jarjabka, Ákos. 2009. Organizational Culture and the Central–Eastern European Culture—Differences and Similarities. Paper presented at the 7th International Scientific Conference, Belgrade, Serbia, November 27. [Google Scholar]
  33. Jastrzębski, Andrzej. 2023. Twelve-Step Spirituality in View of the Sacrament of Reconciliation in the Catholic Church. Polonia Sacra 27: 175–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Javakhishvili, Nino, Seth J. Schwartz Schwartz, and Nino Skhirtladze. 2021. Validation of Georgian Versions of Brief Depression and Anxiety Questionnaires. Georgian Psychological Journal 3: 9–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Kessler, Ronald C., and Evelyn J. Bromet. 2013. The Epidemiology of Depression Across Cultures. Annual Review of Public Health 34: 119–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Kokoszka, Andrzej, Adam Jastrzębski, and Marcin Obrębski. 2016. Psychometric Properties of the Polish Version of Patient Health Questionnaire-9. Psychiatria 13: 187–93. [Google Scholar]
  37. Kroenke, Kurt, Robert L. Spitzer, and Janet B. W. Williams. 2001. The PHQ-9. Journal of General Internal Medicine 16: 606–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Lundahl, Brad W., Mary Jane Taylor, Ryan Stevenson, and K. Daniel Roberts. 2008. Process-Based Forgiveness Interventions: A Meta-Analytic Review. Research on Social Work Practice 18: 465–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Macaskill, Ann. 2012. Differentiating Dispositional Self-Forgiveness from Other-Forgiveness: Associations with Mental Health and Life Satisfaction. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 31: 28–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. McKay, Ryan, Jenna Herold, and Harvey Whitehouse. 2013. Catholic Guilt? Recall of Confession Promotes Prosocial Behavior. Religion, Brain & Behavior 3: 201–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Merakou, Kyriakoula, Eleni Xefteri, and Anastasia Barbouni. 2016. Sense of Coherence in Religious Christian Orthodox Women in Greece. Community Mental Health Journal 53: 353–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Morrison, Glenn. 2025. A Spiritual Theology of the Conscience: An Extraordinary Force of Grace. Religions 16: 440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Mróz, Justyna, Kinga Kaleta, and Katarzyna Skrzypińska. 2021. The Role of Spiritual Intelligence and Dispositional Forgiveness in Predicting Episodic Forgiveness. Journal of Beliefs & Values 42: 415–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Palmer, Catherine. 2023. Do Catholics Have an External Locus of Evaluation? Inauthentic Experiences of Catholic Guilt in the Pursuit of Self-Forgiveness. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses 30499668. Master’s thesis, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK. [Google Scholar]
  45. Pandey, Ruchi, Gyanesh Kumar Tiwari, Priyanka Parihar, and Pramod Kumar Rai. 2023. The Relationship between Self-Forgiveness and Human Flourishing: Inferring the Underlying Psychological Mechanisms. Polish Psychological Bulletin 51: 23–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Popovaite, Inga. 2014. Religiosity Patterns of Minority and Majority Religious Groups in Armenia and Georgia. Paper Presented at the International Symposium on Identity, Baku, Azerbaijan, June 28; Available online: https://www.academia.edu/7296222/ (accessed on 5 May 2025).
  47. Rosseel, Yves. 2012. Lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling. Journal of Statistical Software 48: 1–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Rye, Mark S., Dawn M. Loiacono, Chad D. Folck, Brandon T. Olszewski, Todd A. Heim, and Benjamin P. Madia. 2001. Evaluation of the Psychometric Properties of Two Forgiveness Scales. Current Psychology 20: 260–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Sandage, Steven J., and Ian Williamson. 2005. Forgiveness in Cultural Context. In Handbook of Forgiveness. Edited by Everett L. Worthington, Jr. New York: Brunner-Routledge, pp. 41–56. [Google Scholar]
  50. Schenker, Nathaniel, and Jane F. Gentleman. 2001. On Judging the Significance of Differences by Examining the Overlap Between Confidence Intervals. The American Statistician 55: 182–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Shaniuk, Paul M. 2020. The Spiritual Works of Mercy as a Tool to Prevent Burnout in Medical Trainees. The Linacre Quarterly 87: 399–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Skalski-Bednarz, Sebastian Binyamin. 2024. The Interplay of Forgiveness by God and Self-Forgiveness: A Longitudinal Study of Moderating Effects on Stress Overload in a Religious Canadian Sample. BMC Psychology 12: 717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Skalski-Bednarz, Sebastian Binyamin, Jon R. Webb, Colwick M. Wilson, Loren L. Toussaint, Janusz Surzykewicz, Sandra D. Reid, David R. Williams, and Everett L. Worthington, Jr. 2024a. Pathways to Flourishing: The Roles of Self- and Divine Forgiveness in Mitigating the Adverse Effects of Stress and Substance Use among Adults in Trinidad and Tobago. Religions 15: 1060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Skalski-Bednarz, Sebastian Binyamin, Loren L. Toussaint, and Janusz Surzykiewicz. 2024b. Beyond HIV Shame: Effects of Self-Forgiveness in Improving Mental Health in HIV-Positive Individuals in Poland. Journal of Religion and Health 63: 4232–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Skalski-Bednarz, Sebastian Binyamin, Loren L. Toussaint, Anna Kwiatkowska, and Adrianna Mendrek. 2025. Latent Profile Analysis of Moral Foundations: Emotional and Decisional Forgiveness Approaches to Models of Morality. International Journal of Psychology 60: e70009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Skalski-Bednarz, Sebastian Binyamin, Loren L. Toussaint, Jon R. Webb, and Dariusz Krok. 2024c. Forgiveness of Others and Health: A Review of Key Models and Implications. Humanitas Pedagogika i Psychologia 2: 221–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Skalski-Bednarz, Sebastian Binyamin, Loren L. Toussaint, Karol Konaszewski, and Janusz Surzykiewicz. 2024d. Episodic Forgiveness in Young American Adults and Its Pathways to Distress by Health, Outlook, Spirituality, Aggression, and Social Support. Health Psychology Report. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Smucker, Marcus. 2002. Confession: The Way of Transformation. Vision. A Journal for Church and Theology 3: 29–35. [Google Scholar]
  59. Spitzer, Robert L., Kurt Kroenke, Janet B. W. Williams, and Bernd Löwe. 2006. A Brief Measure for Assessing Generalized Anxiety Disorder. Archives of Internal Medicine 166: 1092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Stackhouse, Madelynn R. D. 2019. Trait Forgiveness as a Predictor of State Forgiveness and Positive Work Outcomes after Victimization. Personality and Individual Differences 149: 209–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Strelan, P. 2020. The Stress-and-Coping Model of Forgiveness: Theory, Research, and the Potential of Dyadic Coping. In Handbook of Forgiveness, 2nd ed. Edited by Everett L. Worthington, Jr. and Nathaniel G. Wade. New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, pp. 63–73. [Google Scholar]
  62. Thompson, Laura Yamhure, Charles R. Snyder, Lesa Hoffman, Scott T. Michael, Heather N. Rasmussen, Laura S. Billings, Laura Heinze, Jason E. Neufeld, Hal S. Shorey, Jessica C. Roberts, and et al. 2005. Dispositional Forgiveness of Self, Others, and Situations. Journal of Personality 73: 313–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Toussaint, Loren. 2022. Forgiveness and Flourishing. Spiritual Care 11: 313–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Toussaint, Loren, Everett L. Worthington, Jon R. Webb, Colwick Wilson, and David R. Williams. 2023a. Forgiveness in Human Flourishing. In Human Flourishing. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 117–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Toussaint, Loren, Michael Barry, Lynn Bornfriend, and Maurie Markman. 2014. Restore: The Journey toward Self-Forgiveness: A Randomized Trial of Patient Education on Self-Forgiveness in Cancer Patients and Caregivers. Journal of Health Care Chaplaincy 20: 54–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Toussaint, Loren L., David R. Williams, Marc A. Musick, and Susan A. Everson. 2001. Forgiveness and Health: Age Differences in a U.S. Probability Sample. Journal of Adult Development 8: 249–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Toussaint, Loren L., Jon R. Webb, and Jameson K. Hirsch. 2017. Self-Forgiveness and Health: A Stress-and-Coping Model. In Handbook of the Psychology of Self-Forgiveness. Cham: Springer, pp. 87–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Toussaint, Loren L., Sebastian Binyamin Skalski-Bednarz, Jean-Philippe Lanoix, Karol Konaszewski, and Janusz Surzykiewicz. 2023b. The Relationship Between Forgiveness and Health Outcomes Among People Living with HIV: A Cross-Sectional Study in France. AIDS and Behavior 27: 3332–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Tsang, Jo Ann, Michael E. McCullough, and William T. Hoyt. 2005. Psychometric and Rationalization Accounts of the Religion-Forgiveness Discrepancy. Journal of Social Issues 61: 785–805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Tsiklauri, Khatia. 2015. The Properties of the Value Systems Among the Believers of Traditional Religions in Georgia. Karadeniz Uluslararası Bilimsel Dergi 27: 139–49. [Google Scholar]
  71. Vassiliadis, Petros. 2020. Mission and Reconciliation in the Orthodox Church. International Review of Mission 109: 180–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Vismaya, A., Aswathy Gopi, John Romate, and Eslavath Rajkumar. 2024. Psychological Interventions to Promote Self-Forgiveness: A Systematic Review. BMC Psychology 12: 258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Webb, Jon. R., and Loren L. Toussaint. 2020. Forgiveness, Well-Being, and Mental Health. In Handbook of Forgiveness, 2nd ed. Edited by Everett L. Worthington, Jr. and Nathaniel G. Wade. New York: Routledge, pp. 188–97. [Google Scholar]
  74. Webb, Jon R., David J. Bumgarner, Elizabeth Conway-Williams, Trever Dangel, and Benjamin B. Hall. 2017. A Consensus Definition of Self-Forgiveness: Implications for Assessment and Treatment. Spirituality in Clinical Practice 4: 216–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. White, Thomas, Joe M. Chelladurai, Pamela A. Monroe, James C. Garand, David C. Dollahite, and Loren D. Marks. 2018. Kept Together by Faith: Confession and Forgiveness among American Catholic and Orthodox Christian Families. Marriage & Family Review 54: 677–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. World Bank. 2023. World Development Indicators. Available online: https://data.worldbank.org/ (accessed on 10 January 2025).
  77. Worthington, Everett L. 2013. Forgiveness and Reconciliation: Theory and Application. New York: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  78. Worthington, Everett L. 2024. REACH Forgiveness: A Narrative Analysis of Group Effectiveness. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy 74: 330–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Worthington, Everett L., and Michael Scherer. 2004. Forgiveness Is an Emotion-Focused Coping Strategy That Can Reduce Health Risks and Promote Health Resilience: Theory, Review, and Hypotheses. Psychology & Health 19: 385–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Worthington, Everett L., Charlotte Van Oyen Witvliet, Pietro Pietrini, and Andrea J. Miller. 2007. Forgiveness, Health, and Well-Being: A Review of Evidence for Emotional Versus Decisional Forgiveness, Dispositional Forgivingness, and Reduced Unforgiveness. Journal of Behavioral Medicine 30: 291–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Worthington, Everett L., Jr. 2020. Understanding Forgiveness of Other People: Definitions, Theories, and Processes. In Handbook of Forgiveness, 2nd ed. Edited by Everett L. Worthington, Jr. and Nathaniel G. Wade. London: Routledge, pp. 11–21. [Google Scholar]
  82. Worthington, Everett L., Jr., Jack W. Berry, and Les Parrott. 2001. Unforgiveness, Forgiveness, Religion, and Health. In Faith and Health: Psychological Perspectives. Edited by Thomas G. Plante and Allen C. Sherman. New York: Guilford Press, pp. 107–38. [Google Scholar]
Religions 16 00720 g001
Figure 1. Final confirmatory factor analysis model of the Georgian version of the Toussaint Forgiveness Scale. Standardized factor loadings are shown. Residuals are omitted for clarity (* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001; N = 321).
Figure 1. Final confirmatory factor analysis model of the Georgian version of the Toussaint Forgiveness Scale. Standardized factor loadings are shown. Residuals are omitted for clarity (* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001; N = 321).
Religions 16 00720 g001
Religions 16 00720 g002
Figure 2. Structural model of associations between forgiveness dimensions and mental health outcomes in the Polish sample. Residuals and covariances are omitted for clarity (* p < 0.05, *** p < 0.001; n = 111).
Figure 2. Structural model of associations between forgiveness dimensions and mental health outcomes in the Polish sample. Residuals and covariances are omitted for clarity (* p < 0.05, *** p < 0.001; n = 111).
Religions 16 00720 g002
Religions 16 00720 g003
Figure 3. Structural model of associations between forgiveness dimensions and mental health outcomes in the Georgian sample. Residuals and covariances are omitted for clarity (* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001; n = 110).
Figure 3. Structural model of associations between forgiveness dimensions and mental health outcomes in the Georgian sample. Residuals and covariances are omitted for clarity (* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001; n = 110).
Religions 16 00720 g003
Table 1. Fit indices for the tested confirmatory factor analysis models of the Georgian version of the Toussaint Forgiveness Scale (N = 321).
Table 1. Fit indices for the tested confirmatory factor analysis models of the Georgian version of the Toussaint Forgiveness Scale (N = 321).
Modelχ2dfCFITLISRMRRMSEALowerUpperAICBIC
Model 1163 ***480.7840.7030.09450.1180.1040.1321307613235
Model 2113 ***380.8420.7710.08370.1090.0930.1251202612173
Model 387 ***380.8050.7170.09060.1240.1080.1391201912166
Model 441290.9580.980.04780.0710.0340.1121096811104
Model 1—Full model: includes all items from each subscale; Model 2—Excludes Item 2 from the proactive forgiveness subscale; Model 3—Excludes Item 2 from the forgiveness for others subscale; Model 4—Excludes Item 2 from both the proactive forgiveness and forgiveness for others subscales, *** p < 0.001.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics and item-rest correlations within the subscales of the Toussaint Forgiveness Scale, along with internal consistency coefficients (N = 321).
Table 2. Descriptive statistics and item-rest correlations within the subscales of the Toussaint Forgiveness Scale, along with internal consistency coefficients (N = 321).
Item-Rest Correlation
ItemM (SD)Forgiveness for SelfForgiveness for OthersForgiveness by GodProactive Forgiveness
Item 1-R (S1)3.35 (1.48)0.44 ***
Item 2-R (S2)4.17 (1.47)0.44 ***
Item 3-R (O1)3.19 (1.17) 0.51 ***
Item 4 (O3)3.9 (1.16) 0.46 ***
Item 5-R (O4)2.51 (1.48) 0.49 ***
Item 6 (O5)4.35 (1.25) 0.56 ***
Item 7 (G1)2.93 (1.71) 0.63 ***
Item 8 (G2)2.88 (1.84) 0.63 ***
Item 9 (P1)3.46 (1.91) 0.66 ***
Item 10 (P2)4.21 (1.65) 0.66 ***
Cronbach’s α0.710.750.880.81
R = reversed item, *** p < 0.001.
Table 3. Descriptives, intercorrelations, and external validity evidence for the Georgian Version of the Toussaint Forgiveness Scale (N = 321).
Table 3. Descriptives, intercorrelations, and external validity evidence for the Georgian Version of the Toussaint Forgiveness Scale (N = 321).
VariableM (SD)1.2.3.4.5.
1. Forgiveness for Self3.75 (1.21)--
2. Forgiveness for Others3.49 (0.83)0.41 ***--
3. Forgiveness by God3.98 (1.57)0.22 ***0.58 ***--
4. Proactive Forgiveness2.91 (1.60)0.13 *0.070.61 ***--
5. Stress Perception3.34 (1.31)−0.12 *−0.19 ***−0.19 ***−0.22 ***--
6. Centrality of Religiosity3.03 (0.89)0.18 **0.12 *0.68 ***0.69 ***−0.04
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Table 4. Regression coefficients from the multi-group structural equation model predicting mental health outcomes from forgiveness dimensions in Polish and Georgian samples.
Table 4. Regression coefficients from the multi-group structural equation model predicting mental health outcomes from forgiveness dimensions in Polish and Georgian samples.
OutcomePredictorBSE90% CIβz
LowerUpper
Poland (n = 111)
AnxietyForg. for Self−0.080.12−0.270.12−0.10−0.62
AnxietyForg. for Others−0.100.10−0.270.06−0.26−1.03
AnxietyForg. by God−0.010.06−0.110.10−0.01−0.12
DepressivenessForg. for Self−0.210.10−0.38−0.05−0.34−2.09 *
DepressivenessForg. for Others−0.100.10−0.270.06−0.31−1.04
DepressivenessForg. by God0.060.05−0.020.130.111.19
Quality of LifeForg. for Self0.160.10−0.010.320.211.56
Quality of LifeForg. for Others0.070.07−0.040.180.170.99
Quality of LifeForg. by God0.030.06−0.060.130.060.57
Georgia (n = 110)
AnxietyForg. for Self−0.200.12−0.400.01−0.27−1.64
AnxietyForg. for Others−0.080.08−0.220.06−0.21−0.97
AnxietyForg. by God0.150.070.040.260.252.29 *
DepressivenessForg. for Self−0.220.10−0.37−0.06−0.37−2.27 *
DepressivenessForg. for Others−0.070.07−0.180.05−0.23−0.97
DepressivenessForg. by God0.100.050.020.170.202.02 *
Quality of LifeForg. for Self0.290.100.130.440.422.97 **
Quality of LifeForg. for Others0.040.05−0.040.120.120.88
Quality of LifeForg. by God−0.050.05−0.140.04−0.09−0.90
Forg. = Forgiveness, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Skalski-Bednarz, S.B.; Toussaint, L.L.; Makhashvili, N.; Razmadze, M.; Dębski, P.; Surzykiewicz, J. Dispositional Forgiveness and Mental Health and Well-Being: Adaptation of the Toussaint Forgiveness Scale in Georgia and Cross-Cultural Comparison with Poland. Religions 2025, 16, 720. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel16060720

AMA Style

Skalski-Bednarz SB, Toussaint LL, Makhashvili N, Razmadze M, Dębski P, Surzykiewicz J. Dispositional Forgiveness and Mental Health and Well-Being: Adaptation of the Toussaint Forgiveness Scale in Georgia and Cross-Cultural Comparison with Poland. Religions. 2025; 16(6):720. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel16060720

Chicago/Turabian Style

Skalski-Bednarz, Sebastian Binyamin, Loren L. Toussaint, Nino Makhashvili, Mariam Razmadze, Paweł Dębski, and Janusz Surzykiewicz. 2025. "Dispositional Forgiveness and Mental Health and Well-Being: Adaptation of the Toussaint Forgiveness Scale in Georgia and Cross-Cultural Comparison with Poland" Religions 16, no. 6: 720. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel16060720

APA Style

Skalski-Bednarz, S. B., Toussaint, L. L., Makhashvili, N., Razmadze, M., Dębski, P., & Surzykiewicz, J. (2025). Dispositional Forgiveness and Mental Health and Well-Being: Adaptation of the Toussaint Forgiveness Scale in Georgia and Cross-Cultural Comparison with Poland. Religions, 16(6), 720. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel16060720

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop