Participants recalled instances when they felt vicariously ashamed or guilty for another’s wrongdoing and rated their appraisals of the event and resulting motivations. The study tested aspects of social association that uniquely predict vicarious shame and guilt. Results suggest that the experience of vicarious shame and vicarious guilt are distinguishable. Vicarious guilt was predicted by one’s perceived interdependence with the wrongdoer (e.g. high interpersonal interaction), an appraisal of control over the event, and a motivation to repair the other person’s wrongdoing. Vicarious shame was predicted by the relevance of the event to a shared social identity with the wrongdoer, an appraisal of self-image threat, and a motivation to distance from the event. Implications for intergroup behavior and emotion are discussed

This research differentiates shame and guilt as distinct emotional reactions that parents in the United States can have for their children's misdeeds. In Study 1, when 93 parents wrote about their child's worst transgression, their ratings of perceived public exposure and threat to their self‐image predicted shame, whereas the degree to which they felt a lack of control over their child and believed the act harmed others predicted guilt. In Study 2, when 123 mothers rated their reactions to an imagined wrongdoing, the presence of a critical observer tended to elevate shame but not guilt. Across both studies, guilt predicted adaptive parenting responses, whereas, shame predicted maladaptive responses. The discussion emphasizes the implications that self‐conscious emotions have for family dynamics.

To what degree do expressions of prejudice garner a negative emotional response from others not targeted by that bias? Existing evidence points in conflicting directions. On the one hand, research on group-based emotion indicates that people have strong negative reactions to group members who engage in harmful or discrediting acts toward outgroup members (e.g.