A Measure of Adherence to Conventional Morality

Tooke, William; Ickes, William

doi:10.1521/jscp.1988.6.3-4.310

Cited by 26 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These measures included the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI, Davis, 1980), which measures empathic concern, perspective-taking, and personal distress; the Conventional Morality Scale (Tooke & Ickes, 1988), which measures subscription to Judeo-Christian conceptions of morality; the neuroticism subscale from the Big Five-44 personality inventory (John, Donahue, & Kentle, 1991), and the Rosenberg (1965) Self-Esteem scale.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Shame Proneness and Guilt Proneness: Toward the Further Understanding of Reactions to Public and Private Transgressions

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Study 1, participants completed five extant shame and guilt proneness inventories based on different theoretical conceptions of the difference between shame and guilt. Factor analyses revealed that despite very different theoretical distinctions, the shame proneness subscales loaded on one factor, and the guilt proneness subscales loaded on one factor. In Study 2, we altered scale items so that hypothetical transgressions were committed in either public or private, and likelihood response options were either typical of a "shame-prone response" (negative selfevaluation; avoidance behavior) or a "guilt-prone response" (negative behavior-evaluation; approach behavior). Our findings indicate that shame and guilt proneness can be measured both by responses to transgressions (e.g., negative self-evaluation and avoidance responses vs.negative behavior-evaluation and approach responses) and the situational context in which the transgression occurs (e.g., public vs. private). We provide recommendations regarding optimal measurement of shame and guilt proneness. What are shame and guilt, and how do they differ? Within psychology, as well as everyday conversation, the terms shame and guilt are often used interchangeably. There is a general confusion about the distinctiveness of these emotions, possibly because of their many similarities. Both are negatively valenced, morality-based, self-conscious, and self-referential emotions (Tangney & Dearing, 2002), and both are associated with the desire to undo one's actions (Frijda, Kuipers, & ter Schure, 1989). In addition, both shame and guilt are experienced when one makes internal attributions about a personal transgression, and both are characterized by feelings of distress. Moreover, shame and guilt frequently co-occur: After committing a moral transgression, individuals often experience a heightened level of both emotions. KeywordsAdding to the confusion, people who are dispositionally prone to feeling shame are often prone to feeling guilt, and vice versa. Shame proneness and guilt proneness are traits that reflect individual differences in cognitive, affective, and behavioral responses to personal transgressions (Tangney & Dearing, 2002). In a widely-used scale of dispositional proneness to shame and guilt, the Test of Self-Conscious Affect (TOSCA; Tangney, Wagner, & Gramzow, 1989), shame and guilt proneness are correlated between .40-.50 (e.g., Tangney, Wagner, Hill-Barlow, Marschall, & Gramzow, 1996).Despite the similarities between shame and guilt, there are also a number of phenomenological differences. Individuals report that shame is associated with not living up to personal standards while guilt is associated with actions that harmed others or the violation of personal duties (Keltner & Buswell, 1997). In recalled experiences of shame, individuals report blushing, higher distress levels, and feeling self-conscious and small. In recalled experiences of Shame Proneness and Guilt Proneness 4 guilt, individuals report having done something wrong, wishing the ...

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Shame Proneness and Guilt Proneness: Toward the Further Understanding of Reactions to Public and Private Transgressions

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The following questionnaires were included in the survey: Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI; Davis, 1980); Conventional Morality scale (Tooke & Ickes, 1988); Big Five-44 inventory (John, Donahue, & Kentle, 1991); Self-Importance of Moral Identity Scale (Aquino & Reed, 2002); New Indices of Religious Orientation inventory (NIRO; Francis, 2007); Aggression Questionnaire (AQ; Buss & Perry, 1992); Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale (Rosenberg, 1965); SelfCompassion scale (Neff, 2003); Self-Monitoring scale (Snyder & Gangestad, 1986); Regulatory GASP 17…”

Section: Participants and Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Introducing the GASP scale: A new measure of guilt and shame proneness.

Cohen¹,

Wolf²,

Panter³

et al. 2011

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

514

660

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although scholars agree that moral emotions are critical for deterring unethical and antisocial behavior, there is disagreement about how two prototypical moral emotions-guilt and shameshould be defined, differentiated, and measured. We addressed these issues by developing a new assessment-the Guilt And Shame Proneness scale (GASP)-that measures individual differences in the propensity to experience guilt and shame across a range of personal transgressions. The GASP contains two guilt subscales that assess negative behavior-evaluations (NBEs) and repair action tendencies following private transgressions and two shame subscales that assess negative self-evaluations (NSEs) and withdrawal action tendencies following publically-exposed transgressions. Both guilt subscales were highly correlated with one another and negatively correlated with unethical decision making. Although both shame subscales were associated with relatively poor psychological functioning (e.g., neuroticism, personal distress, low self-esteem), they were only weakly correlated with one another and their relationships with unethical decision making diverged. Whereas shame-NSE constrained unethical decision making, shame-withdraw did not. Our findings suggest that differentiating the tendency to make negative self-evaluations following publically-exposed transgressions from the tendency to hide or withdraw from public is critically important for understanding and measuring dispositional shame proneness. The GASP's ability to distinguish these two classes of responses represents an important advantage of the scale over existing assessments. Although further validation research is required, the present studies are promising in that they suggest the GASP has the potential to be an important measurement tool for detecting individuals susceptible to corruption and unethical behavior.

show abstract

“…The measure's reliability coefficient in the current sample was .90. For validity information, see Tooke and Ickes (1988) and Tooke (1988).…”

Section: Online Survey Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We will introduce these insights successively, beginning with our interpretation of the effect for the strongest predictor of verbal rudeness-the respondents' scores on Tooke and Ickes's (1988) measure of adherence to conventional morality.…”

Section: Interpretation Of the Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

F#!%ing Rudeness

Ickes

Park

Robinson

2011

Journal of Language and Social Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In an online survey study (n = 275), several demographic and personality variables were used to predict scores on the Rudeness Scale, a new measure of the propensity to verbally abuse strangers. The results of multiple regression analyses revealed a number of significant main effects. These effects revealed that the people in the authors' sample who reported the greatest propensity to verbally abuse strangers were Hispanic/Latino or Black individuals who scored low in adherence to the standards of conventional morality but high in ego defensiveness (unwillingness to accept criticism or correction from others) and affect intensity for anger and frustration. The authors' interpretation of the findings combines insights derived from Swann's self-verification theory, contrasting views of ego defensiveness, and Larsen et al.'s work on affect intensity with a dispositional view of verbal rudeness that emphasizes its use as a weapon in interpersonal struggles for power, status, and "face."

show abstract

A Measure of Adherence to Conventional Morality

Cited by 26 publications

References 7 publications

Shame Proneness and Guilt Proneness: Toward the Further Understanding of Reactions to Public and Private Transgressions

Shame Proneness and Guilt Proneness: Toward the Further Understanding of Reactions to Public and Private Transgressions

Introducing the GASP scale: A new measure of guilt and shame proneness.

F#!%ing Rudeness

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About