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

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. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

The Interpersonal Adaptiveness of Dispositional Guilt and Shame: A Meta-Analytic Investigation.

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.