The "shoulds" and "should nots" of moral emotions : A self-regulatory perspective on shame and guilt
MetadataShow full item record
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.
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 . https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167209356788
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
© 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
Items in the St Andrews Research Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.