Efficacy of a Self-Directed Forgiveness Workbook for Christian Victims of Within-Congregation Offenders Chelsea L. Greer, Everett L. Worthington, Jr., Yin Lin, Caroline R. Lavelock, and Brandon J. Griffin Virginia Commonwealth University Multiple psychoeducational and psychotherapeutic interventions are available to aid victims of offense in the arduous process of forgiving wrongdoers. These interventions often require that trained professionals deliver the intervention, which is costly. In the present study, a Christian version of Worthington’s REACH Forgiveness intervention was adapted into a nominally 6-hr self-directed workbook for Christians who experi- enced an offense within their religious community. College students (N  52) com- pleted the workbook within a randomized waiting-list design with 3 assessments. A significant multivariate Condition  Time interaction showed that people improved while working on the workbook and maintained gains after completion. The workbooks produced a larger effect size in reducing unforgiveness than benchmarks of previous REACH Forgiveness psychoeducational interventions of comparable duration. Effect size fell within the upper limit of the standard of change. We conclude that workbook treatments may be cost-effective and easily disseminated. Additional workbook inter- vention studies are warranted. Keywords: forgiveness, intervention, Christian, offense, self-help In the last 30 years, forgiveness as a topic of psychological research grew from almost non- existent to fairly expansive (for a meta-analytic review, see Fehr, Gelfand, & Nag, 2010). Mul- tiple interventions have been developed, de- signed to encourage forgiveness of one’s of- fenders and delivered via psychoeducational groups, couple therapy, or personal psychother- apy (e.g., Greenberg, Warwar, & Malcolm, 2008; Luskin, Ginzburg, & Thoresen, 2005; McCullough, Worthington, & Rachal, 1997; Reed & Enright, 2006; Rye et al., 2005). Wade, Hoyt, Kidwell, and Worthington (2014) have meta-analytically reviewed 67 randomized clin- ical trials on psychoeducational forgiveness group interventions. Enright’s process approach had been investigated in 23 studies; Worthing- ton’s REACH Forgiveness model, 22 studies; the others combined, 22 studies. Wade et al. found that the major models by Enright (Enright & Fitzgibbons, 2000), Worthington (2006), and others (e.g., Goldman & Wade, 2012; Luskin, Ginzburg, & Thoresen, 2005; Rye et al., 2005) were all equally efficacious hour for hour. There was a strong dose-response relationship be- tween duration of treatment and outcomes; more severe problems (regardless of treatment approach) tended to be treated longer and pro- duce more change in forgiveness and mental health. However, if time of treatment was sta- tistically controlled, no treatment was more ef- ficacious than the others. Religiously and Spiritually Accommodated Forgiveness Interventions Despite deep roots of forgiveness in all major religions (for a recent meta-analysis see Davis, Worthington, Hook, & Hill, 2013), almost all of the treatments have been aimed at secular ap- This article was published Online First August 18, 2014. Chelsea L. Greer, Everett L. Worthington, Jr., Yin Lin, Caroline R. Lavelock, and Brandon J. Griffin, Psychology Department, Virginia Commonwealth University. Chelsea L. Greer is now at the Department of Psychol- ogy, Spring Hill College. Portions of this research was funded by Grant 2266, Forgiveness and Relational Spirituality, to Everett L. Wor- thington, Jr. Correspondence concerning this article should be ad- dressed to Chelsea L. Greer, Department of Psychology, Spring Hill College, 4000 Dauphin Street, Mobile, AL 36608. E-mail: cgreer@shc.edu This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. Spirituality in Clinical Practice © 2014 American Psychological Association 2014, Vol. 1, No. 3, 218 –230 2326-4500/14/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/scp0000012 218