Distinguishing neurotic from prosocial \guilt\

Abstract

Despite decades of empirical research, conclusions regarding the adaptiveness of dispositional guilt remain mixed. While some researchers proclaim guilt to be maladaptive and indicative of neuroticism or even psychopathology, others declare it to be adaptive, promoting positive interpersonal functioning and prosocial behavior. These discrepancies are likely exacerbated by the diverse collection of measures employed to assess dispositional (i.e., "trait" or "proneness to") guilt. Such measures vary widely in format, from simple lists of experienced feelings (i.e., "checklist measures") to detailed hypothetical scenarios (i.e., "scenario measures"). The current research examines whether these two classes of measures, despite sharing a name, capture two conceptually distinct constructs. More specifically, across four studies I investigate the possibility that checklist measures of dispositional guilt capture a neurotic, dysphoric form of this trait, while scenario measures capture an empathetic, prosocial form. Study 1 is a meta-analysis in which dispositional guilt and shame's differential associations to prosocial orientation-one aspect of adaptive interpersonal functioning-are examined. Results revealed an overall positive effect of dispositional guilt on prosocial orientation, and a marginally significant negative effect of shame on prosocial orientation. Importantly, in the case of guilt (but not in the case of shame) this main effect was significantly moderated by test format. Only scenario measures of dispositional guilt were significantly and positively associated with prosocial orientation; checklist measures exhibited no significant relationship. Study 2a sought to replicate and extend these meta-analytic findings in the field using a daily diary design. Participants completed self-reports of dispositional guilt and shame via one checklist and one scenario measure, then reported and classified their daily behavior in two-hour increments for one week. A series of random coefficient models revealed scenario-assessed guilt to significantly positively predict adaptive interpersonal behavior in everyday life, including: time spent socializing, time spent providing emotional support to others, time spent nurturing relationships, and time spent helping others. In contrast, checklist-assessed guilt was largely unrelated to adaptive interpersonal behavior. Neither checklist nor scenario measures of dispositional shame significantly predicted these behaviors. Taken together, the results of Study 1 and Study 2a provide strong evidence to suggest that checklist and scenario measures of trait guilt assess two distinct constructs, with the latter representing a prosocial variety. Given such findings, in Study 2b I sought to determine which, if any, of these measures is associated with affective experience in everyday life, and whether checklist-assessed guilt may be classified as "neurotic guilt." As expected, results revealed checklist-assessed guilt to be predictive of daily feelings of negative affect, guilt, and shame. In contrast, scenario-assessed guilt displayed no significant relationships with affective experience. Rather, scenario-assessed guilt only exhibited a significant positive relationship with daily well-being. Once again, this division between test formats was not seen in the case of shame. These results go beyond simply suggesting that checklist and scenario measures of trait guilt capture different varieties of guilt; rather, they suggest that scenario measures of guilt capture something other than guilty affect entirely. Study 2c sought to more appropriately characterize the personality trait assessed via scenario measures of dispositional guilt using self-reports of personality, informant reports of personality, and coded in-lab behavior. Results of these multi-method analyses suggest scenario-assessed guilt may be better characterized as a trait measure of "reparative social concern," as evidenced by its robust correlations with empathic concern, humanitarianism, agreeableness, and personal growth, among others. Future research directions are suggested, and an argument for the renaming of scenario-assessed guilt is presented.