The University of St Andrews

Research@StAndrews:FullText >
University of St Andrews Research >
University of St Andrews Research >
University of St Andrews Research >

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
This item has been viewed 50 times in the last year. View Statistics

Files in This Item:

File Description SizeFormat
SheikhJanoff_Bulman_GuiltandShamePSPBInPressversion.pdf249.06 kBAdobe PDFView/Open
Title: The "shoulds" and "should nots" of moral emotions : A self-regulatory perspective on shame and guilt
Authors: Sheikh, Sana
Janoff-Bulman, Ronnie
Keywords: Guilt
Moral emotions
Proscriptive regulation
Prescriptive regulation
BF Psychology
Issue Date: Feb-2010
Citation: Sheikh , S & Janoff-Bulman , R 2010 , ' The "shoulds" and "should nots" of moral emotions : A self-regulatory perspective on shame and guilt ' Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , vol 36 , no. 2 , pp. 213-224 . , 10.1177/0146167209356788
Abstract: A self-regulatory framework for distinguishing between shame and guilt was tested in three studies. Recently, two forms of moral regulation based on approach versus avoidance motivation have been proposed in the literature. Proscriptive regulation is sensitive to negative outcomes, inhibition based, and focused on what we should not do. Prescriptive regulation is sensitive to positive outcomes, activation based, and focused on what we should do. In the current research, consistent support was found for shame’s proscriptive and guilt’s prescriptive moral underpinnings. Study 1 found a positive association between avoidance orientation and shame proneness and between approach orientation and guilt proneness. In Study 2, priming a proscriptive orientation increased shame and priming a prescriptive orientation increased guilt. In Study 3, transgressions most apt to represent proscriptive and prescriptive violations predicted subsequent judgments of shame and guilt, respectively. This self-regulatory perspective provides a broad interpretive framework for understanding and extending past research findings.
Version: Postprint
Status: Peer reviewed
ISSN: 0146-1672
Type: Journal article
Rights: © 2010 by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc. Published by Sage Publications. This work is made available online in accordance with publisher policies. This is an author version of this work which may vary slightly from the published version. To see the final definitive version of this paper please visit the publisher’s website
Appears in Collections:University of St Andrews Research
Psychology & Neuroscience Research

This item is protected by original copyright

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.


DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2012  Duraspace - Feedback
For help contact: | Copyright for this page belongs to St Andrews University Library | Terms and Conditions (Cookies)