青少年寬恕水平能力測驗之編製及其追蹤調查研究的應用

Mon-Long Gan; Hsiu-Shuang Huang; Ya-Ying Tseng; Li-Yun Hsu

doi:10.6251/BEP.202312_55(2).0003

山西大学，您好！

感谢采购，人社期刊库｜人社论文库，期间：2025/01/01~2025/12/31

感谢试用，科学期刊库｜科学论文库，期间：2025/04/01~2025/06/30

浏览高级检索

关闭
检索检索高级检索出版物检索
浏览期刊主题浏览核心期刊浏览期刊拼音浏览

关闭

查询符号(半角)	查询符号意义说明
空格	表示为「AND」两个查询词之交集
双引号 ( " " )	片语以双引号标示开始及结束，而且只寻找出现顺序相同的字词，例： " image process "
?	表示一个字母切截，输入两个?表两个字母，依此类推，例：输入「Appl?」，查得结果应为appl e , appl y … ( 常用于英文字查询 )
*	表示不限字母切截，由0~n. 例：输入「appl*」，查得结果应为appl e , appl es , appl y , appl ied , appl ication … ( 常用于英文字查询 )
AND、OR、NOT	布尔逻辑组合关键字，用来扩大或缩小查询范围的技巧。 (1) AND ：缩小查询范围 (2) OR ：扩大查询范围(3) NOT：排除不相关的范围

DOI 是数位物件识别码（ D igital O bject I dentifier ）的简称，
为物件在网路上的唯一识别码，可用于永久连结并引用目标物件。

使用DOI作为永久连结

每个DOI号前面加上「 http://dx.doi.org/ 」便成为永久网址。
如以DOI号为 10.5297/ser.1201.002 的文献为例，此文献的永久连结便是： http://dx.doi.org/ 10.5297/ser.1201.002 。
日后不论出版单位如何更动此文献位置，永久连结所指向的位置皆会即时更新，不再错失重要的研究。

引用含有DOI的文献

有DOI的文献在引用时皆应同时引用DOI。若使用APA、Chicago以外未规范DOI的引用格式，可引用DOI永久连结。

DOI可强化引用精确性、增强学术圈连结，并给予使用者跨平台的良好使用经验，目前在全世界已有超过五千万个对象申请DOI。如想对DOI的使用与概念有进一步了解，请参考（）。

ACI:

数据来源：Academic Citation Index，简称ACI

台湾最大的引用文献资料库，目前收录台湾与港澳地区所出版的人文学、社会学领域学术期刊之书目资料与参考文献，总期刊量超过690种，每年定期公布收录期刊的影响指数(Impact Factor)等指标给大众，并提供专家学者与学术单位实用的计量与分析功能。

五年影响指数（5-Year Impact Factor）：某一期刊前五年所出版的文章在当年度的平均被引用次数。

公式：（前五年发表论文在统计年的被引用次数）÷（前五年论文产出论文总篇数）

例如：A期刊2017年之五年影响指数

(A期刊2012-2016年发表论文在2017年的被引总次数)/(A期刊2012-2016年发表的论文总数)

什么是预刊文章？

为提供读者最前线之学术资讯，于期刊文献获同意刊登后、纸本印制完成前，率先于网路线上发表之文章即为预刊文章。预刊文章尚未有卷期、页次及出版日期资讯，但可藉由DOI号识别。 DOI号是文献的数位身份证字号，不论预刊或正式出版皆不会改变，读者可点击DOI连结，或于DOI号前面加上「 http://dx.doi.org/ 」连结到文献目前最新版本。

如何引用预刊文章？

请使用预刊文章的线上发表日期及DOI号来引用该篇文献。

引用范例(视不同引文格式规范可能有所差异)：

作者姓名。文章篇名。期刊名称。 YYYY/MM/DD线上预先发表。

doi:DOI 号

来源数据

P269 - 287

社会科学 > 心理学
社会科学 > 教育学

DOI： 10.6251/BEP

书目管理工具

相关连结

问题回报

全文下载

青少年宽恕水平能力测验之编制及其追踪调查研究的应用

Development of Forgiveness: A Longitudinal Survey of Forgiveness Levels among Adolescents

甘孟龙(Mon-Long Gan) ；黄秀霜(Hsiu-Shuang Huang) ；曾雅瑛(Ya-Ying Tseng) ；许力云(Li-Yun Hsu)

教育心理学报； 55 卷 2 期 (2023 / 12 / 01) ， P269 - 287

繁体中文;英文 DOI： 10.6251/BEP.202312_55(2).0003

青少年；追踪调查；宽恕水平； Rasch测量模式； adolescent ； longitudinal survey ； level of forgiveness ； Rasch measurement model

1 个人觉得这篇文章赞

摘要 │ 参考文献 (44) │ 国际计量

摘要〈TOP〉

并列摘要〈TOP〉

Forgiveness plays a crucial role across the human lifespan. It serves as a buffer against hostility, mitigates victimization, and fosters interpersonal harmony. Therefore, implementing forgiveness education programs for children and adolescents is imperative to prevent pathological behaviors and enhance emotional well-being and quality of life. Effective implementation of forgiveness education requires comprehending how individuals perceive forgiveness and the circumstances under which they choose to grant it. Enright (1991) proposed a social cognitive developmental model of forgiveness that aligns with Kohlberg's moral development theory. The model comprises six levels of forgiveness: Revengeful, compensational, expectational, lawful expectational, social harmony, and love. These levels not only represent the evolution of an individual's capacity for forgiveness but also influence their decisions and actions concerning forgiveness. Despite the model's significance, measuring forgiveness levels poses a challenge due to the reliance on the Understanding Forgiveness Interview, which constrains large-scale data collection and thus impedes further research and practical applications. The aim of this study was to develop a self-report Forgiveness Level Assessment tool that can effectively measure forgiveness levels and analyze factors affecting an individual's ability to forgive. The study also monitored changes in forgiveness levels among junior high school students over a 1-year period by using this tool. Accordingly, the study involved three phases: (1) Developing and psychometrically testing the Forgiveness Level Assessment tool, (2) exploring factors influencing forgiveness levels, and (3) conducting a longitudinal follow-up survey to monitor the progression of forgiveness among junior high school students over 1 year. The first phase involved three stages: Test item design, pilot testing, and formal analysis. Initially, the study designed 11 hypothetical situations reflecting forgiveness considerations in daily interactions among adolescents and their family, peers, and teachers. These included scenarios related to privacy invasion, loss of property, tardiness, academic dishonesty, father's gift, wrong change, social rejection, romantic complications, academic responsibilities, leadership difficulties, and pranks. Each hypothetical situation depicted a narrative through which the main character confronted various incidents and grievances, thereby enabling a comprehensive evaluation of their forgiveness levels. For example, in the scenario titled "A Gift from Father," the protagonist's friend borrowed a guitar that, although not valuable, had immense sentimental value because it was a birthday gift from the protagonist's late father. Weeks later, the friend discarded the guitar, mistaking its aged appearance for lack of value. This situation deeply angered the protagonist, not only because of the guitar's loss but also because it was a precious memento from their father. The researchers crafted similar test items to evoke empathy from participants and encourage them to project themselves into the story's characters, which in turn would trigger forgiveness-related thought processes. Each scenario was followed by two questions. The first question posed to participants was as follows: "What is the level of injury that the main character in the story has suffered?" Participants provided their response on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 ("very minor") to 5 ("very severe"), with a higher score indicating greater perceived harm. The second question was as follows: "Which way do you think will help the main character forgive?" Participants were provided with six options corresponding to the levels of forgiveness detailed in forgiveness development theory (Enright, 1991). These were scored from 1 to 6, with a higher score indicating a greater understanding of and capacity for forgiveness in the decision-making process. Participants could complete the test within 30 min. After the construction of the test items, the researchers collected data from 118 participants. A preliminary analysis led to the elimination of three items. Consequently, the final version of the test comprised eight items. The evaluation of the psychometric properties of this version indicated better fit with the partial credit model, as demonstrated by item mean square values ranging from 0.92 to 1.13. Moreover, a residual principal component analysis revealed that the first component's standardized residual eigenvalue was 1.60, signifying the tool's unidimensionality. The tool's reliability was robust, with an item separation reliability of .97 and an item separation coefficient of 5.69. This signifies the tool's capability to distinguish between eight levels of difficulty with reasonable accuracy and confirms the stability of the difficulty ordering. Furthermore, the participant separation reliability was .75, with a participant separation coefficient of 1.73, indicating the tool's efficacy in distinguishing participants into at least two ability levels. The item difficulty analysis demonstrated that the thresholds of the items formed a hierarchical order, with higher scores corresponding to higher ability values, consistent with the theoretical expectations of the forgiveness development model. Finally, the differential item functionality analysis across genders revealed that all items performed consistently, without bias. In summary, the Forgiveness Level Assessment tool was demonstrated to be effective and reliable as a research instrument. Regarding factors influencing forgiveness levels, this study examined changes in the forgiveness levels of 473 first-year junior high school students across three dimensions: Gender, offense type, and perceived severity of the offense. Independentsamples t-tests revealed no gender differences in cognitive understanding of forgiveness. However, this result does not imply parity in the propensity to forgive between the genders, because numerous complex factors can affect the progression from cognitive understanding to the behavioral response of forgiveness. In addition, a repeated-measures analysis of variance demonstrated significant differences in forgiveness levels among different types of offensive events, undermining the hypothesized universality of forgiveness responses. The analysis indicated that the ability of individuals to forgive varied according to the nature of the offense encountered. Furthermore, the study's results highlighted the influence of perceived offensive severity on forgiveness abilities. The participants demonstrated lower forgiveness levels when confronted with offenses they deem seriously injurious, thus confirming the critical role of perceived harm in shaping forgiveness responses. To conduct a longitudinal survey of changes in forgiveness among junior high school students over a 1-year period, this study employed a latent growth model over three time points. Analysis of data from 365 first-year junior high school students who completed all three surveys revealed a strong fit between the hypothesized model and the observed data: χ^2 (2) = 0.12, p > .05, comparative fit index = 1.00, normed fit index = 1.00, root mean square error of approximation = .00, standardized root mean square residual = .01. The analysis further demonstrated a mean intercept factor of 3.03 (t = 80.81, p < .05), indicating significant individual differences in initial forgiveness abilities among the students. The variance of the intercept factor was 0.11 (t = 2.36, p < .05), underscoring significant individual differences at the outset. However, the mean of the slope factor was estimated at 0.05 (p > .05), suggesting no significant change in forgiveness levels over the 1-year period. Enright et al. (1989) and Huang (1990) have suggested that the expectational stage of forgiveness greatly influences adolescent forgiveness levels, which do not change significantly over time. This may explain the lack of significant growth in forgiveness levels among the junior high school students over the 1-year period in this study. Thus, these results imply that educational intervention aimed at promoting forgiveness development within a shorter time frame are necessary.

参考文献 ( 44 ) 〈TOP〉

王佳琪, C.-C.(2020)。科学想像力图形测验之验证。教育心理学报，51，341-367。
连结：
王佳琪, C.-C.,何晓琪, H.-C.,郑英耀, Y.-Y.,邱文彬, W.-B.(2017)。科学想像力学习进程之验证：测量观点。教育心理学报，49，69-94。
连结：
王慧琦, H.-C.(2011)。大学生宽恕型态与人际冲突因应策略之研究。社会发展研究学刊，10，1-22。
连结：
李新民, H.-M.,陈密桃, M.-T.(2009)。宽恕的测量及其与焦虑的潜在关联。教育心理学报，41，1-28。
连结：
林维芬, W.-F.(2011)。「修订 Enright 宽恕治疗历程模式」团体介入方案对国小儿童宽恕态度、情绪智力与幸福感之研究。教育心理学报，42，591-612。
连结：

国际计量

〈TOP〉

E-mail ：

文章公开取用时，将寄通知信至您填写的信箱地址