The meaning of guilt: Reconciling the past to inform the future.

Abstract

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.

Psychometric Evaluation of the Personal Feelings Questionnaire–2 (PFQ-2) Shame Subscale Among Spanish-Speaking Female Sex Workers in Mexico

“…Similar to other studies (Barr & Cacciatore, 2007; Di Sarno et al, 2019; Dorahy et al, 2013; Gambin & Sharp, 2018; D. H. Harder & Zalma, 1990; Rüsch et al, 2007; Tignor & Colvin, 2019), we also observed that the revised shame subscale had good internal consistency and could therefore be considered a reliable measure of the frequency of shame experiences in our sample. Our observed sample mean of 5.65 for the revised shame subscale appeared to be low given the possible range of scores (range = 0-18).…”

“…W. Harder et al, 1992; D. W. Harder & Greenwald, 1999; Tignor & Colvin, 2019) that used the PFQ-2 in its original English form. The lower levels of shame observed in our sample may indicate that the Spanish-translated adjectives included in the PFQ-2 shame subscale, which were developed and tested in English among undergraduate students, may not hold the same negative emotional magnitude (e.g., “self-consciousness”) or be as relatable (e.g., “childish”) to the experiences of shame among our sample of FSWs in Mexico.…”

The regulating role of mindfulness in enacted workplace incivility: An experience sampling study.

“…Notably, this line of argumentation refers to contextualized forms of guilt, that is, the experience of guilt in response to transgressions as an adaptive, normative guilt response. Such contextualized guilt needs to be distinguished from trait guilt, a person's chronic disposition to experience guilt irrespective of context, which is maladaptive (Tignor, & Colvin, 2019). 2…”

Explorations in Reported Moral Behaviors, Values, and Moral Emotions in Four Countries

“…Shame as measured by the TOSCA has shown far less systematic associations with values than has guilt, but positive correlations with tradition and conformity and negative correlations with self-direction and power have been found ( Silfver et al, 2008 ; Helkama et al, 2018 ). Guilt is associated with prosocial behavior ( Tignor and Colvin, 2019 ).…”