Much of the stress and strain of student life remains hidden. The StudentLife continuous sensing app assesses the day-today and week-by-week impact of workload on stress, sleep, activity, mood, sociability, mental well-being and academic performance of a single class of 48 students across a 10 week term at Dartmouth College using Android phones. Results from the StudentLife study show a number of significant correlations between the automatic objective sensor data from smartphones and mental health and educational outcomes of the student body. We also identify a Dartmouth term lifecycle in the data that shows students start the term with high positive affect and conversation levels, low stress, and healthy sleep and daily activity patterns. As the term progresses and the workload increases, stress appreciably rises while positive affect, sleep, conversation and activity drops off. The StudentLife dataset is publicly available on the web.
Despite decades of empirical research, conclusions regarding the adaptiveness of dispositional guilt and shame are mixed. We use meta-analysis to summarize the empirical literature and clarify these ambiguities. Specifically, we evaluate how guilt and shame are uniquely related to pro-social orientation and, in doing so, highlight the substantial yet under-acknowledged impact of researchers' methodological choices. A series of meta-analyses was conducted investigating the relationship between dispositional guilt (or shame) and pro-social orientation. Two main methodological moderators of interest were tested: test format (scenario vs. checklist) and statistical analysis (semi-partial vs. zero-order correlations). Among studies employing zero-order correlations, dispositional guilt was positively correlated with pro-social orientation (k = 63, Mr = .13, p < .001), whereas dispositional shame was negatively correlated, (k = 47, Mr = -.05, p = .07). Test format was a significant moderator for guilt studies only, with scenario measures producing significantly stronger effects. Semi-partial correlations resulted in significantly stronger effects among guilt and shame studies. Although dispositional guilt and shame are differentially related to pro-social orientation, such relationships depend largely on the methodological choices of the researcher, particularly in the case of guilt. Implications for the study of these traits are discussed.
Despite decades of empirical research, a deceptively simple question remains unanswered: Is guilt good? Whereas some researchers assert that routine experiences of guilt (i.e., “trait guilt”) are maladaptive and indicative of poor psychological adjustment, others assert trait guilt to be adaptive and indicative of a prosocial disposition. In the current research we outline the theoretical underpinnings of 2 of the most commonly employed measures of trait guilt: unsituated measures (e.g., the Personal Feelings Questionnaire (PFQ; Harder & Lewis, 1987) and situated scenario-based measures (e.g., the Test of Self-Conscious Affect [TOSCA]; Tangney, Wagner, & Gramzow, 1989). We examine the construct validity of both measure types across 3 studies using a variety of traits (self- and informant-reported), states, and behaviors. Results provide overwhelming support for a “2-construct” argument, with PFQ guilt (our unsituated measure of choice) and TOSCA guilt (our situated measure of choice) displaying divergent results across nearly all traits, states, and behaviors measured. While the correlates of PFQ guilt were consistently maladaptive, the correlates of TOSCA guilt were consistently adaptive. Furthermore, only the PFQ predicted daily experiences of negative affect and state guilt. TOSCA guilt was unrelated to negative affective experience in daily life, thereby calling into question its conceptualization as an affective trait. Findings using the TOSCA and PFQ shame scales are also presented. We conclude by presenting a preliminary process model of guilt that may have utility for designing future research studies and developing new guilt questionnaires.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.