Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

This dissertation aims at understanding guilt and shame emotional processes. We study guilt and shame components in adult, non-clinical samples. The studies in Part two are cross-cultural. Part one studies individual differences to guilt and shame events using a recently constructed measure, the Leuven Guilt and Shame Scale (LEGSS; Fontaine et al., 2006). This scenario instrument empirically probes existing conceptualizations of guilt and shame, and its main advantage in comparison to other measures is that it covers a broad range of situations and responses. Chapter 1 provides additional evidence for the underlying structure of the LEGSS in two related but distinct factors ‘action-orientedness’ (reminiscent of Tangney’s guilt proneness) and ‘self-devaluation’ (reminiscent of Tangney’s shame proneness). Chapter 2 confirms the existence of two separate tendencies, which show differential relationships with external variables. In Chapter 3 we report on a shortened version of the LEGSS (construction, internal structure, validation). From Part one, we concluded that it is not justified to equate the factors found in (our and other) studies with scenario instruments to ‘guilt’ and ‘shame’ (as has been done before, Tangney & Dearing, 2002): it is ‘action-orientedness’ but not guilt that is related to constructive indices (empathy) and ‘self-devaluation’ but not shame that is related to non-constructive indices (depression, anxiety, psychological symptoms, trait anger, anger turned inwards, ruminative guilt). Part two aims at investigating the role of anger within guilt and shame episodes, using a conceptual model based on earlier work with the LEGSS (Fontaine, 2002). The core prediction of this model is that while some guilt and shame episodes are related to anger experiences, others are not (depending on how one appraises the role of others in the situation). Chapter 4 reports on a subtest of this model in Belgium and in Peru, where we collected written descriptions of guilt and shame events (with varying appraisal perspectives), and ratings of each event on emotion terms. Chapter 5 builds further on the studies in Chapter 4, constructing a new scenario instrument (the LEGSS-2) including anger-related types of guilt and shame situations, and anger responses (Kuppens, 2004; Van Coillie, 2005). In essence, the results in Part two reject the conceptual model. They suggest that both guilt and shame emotions (which occur in response to failures and transgressions) operate as suppressors of anger and aggression. Additionally, they provide evidence for the above-mentioned tendencies (which both can be considered as involvement) but also indicate proneness to emotional detachment.