Shame and guilt and their relationship to positive expectations and anger expressiveness - Statistical Data Included

Adolescence, Winter, 2001 by Nita Lutwak, Jacqueline B. Panish, Joseph R. Ferrari, Brian E. Razzino

Recent research has distinguished two separate, but related, affective processes: guilt and shame. Guilt and shame bear significant resemblance to one another in that each are dysphoric affects and involve varied selfattributions, and both are believed to be a form of superego functioning that may regulate human behavior (Gilbert, 1997; Lewis, 1971). Although shame and guilt have been used interchangeably, significant distinctions between these moral affects seem to exist (Lutwak & Ferrari, 1996; Lutwak, Ferrari, & Cheek, 1998; Tangney, Wagner, Fletcher, & Granazow, 1992; Tangney, Wagner, & Gramzow, 1989). In particular, guilt has been noted to be an adaptive and constructive moral affect (Tangney, 1991), often involving the sell's negative evaluation of some specific behavior (or lack of behavior) when an internalized standard has been violated. These feelings may instill a sense of tension, remorse, and regret, which motivates reparative action (such as a personal apology; Tangney, 1991).

In contrast, shame typically involves an acutely painful experience that is overwhelmingly self-focused and more diffuse than guilt (Lewis, 1971). Individuals experiencing shame might feel a sense of worthlessness, incompetence, or a generalized feeling of contempt for themselves, thereby demonstrating a reflection of overly harsh self-evaluations (Tangney, 1994). Consequently, repeated experiences of shame have been found to be associated with a number of negative cognitive behavioral experiences, including depression, self-derogation, shyness, interpersonal anxiety, perfectionism, and a diffuse-oriented identity (e.g., Harder & Zalma, 1990; Lutwak & Ferrari, 1996; Lutwak et al., 1998; Tangney & Fischer, 1995).

Lewis (1971) and others (Gilbert, 1997; Gramzow & Tangney; 1992; Mollon, 1984) have examined shamestates and their role in the development of personality and psychopathology. In particular, the relationship between shame and narcissistic personality features (e.g., compensatory grandiosity, perfectionism) has received attention in recent clinical literature (Gramzow & Tangney, 1992; Morrison, 1983). It has been asserted that shame-prone individuals construct an idealistic self-image in order to cope with frequent, crippling shame experiences (Kohut, 1971; Morrison, 1983). Clinical theory might suggest that individuals who appear to be sure of themselves and have expectations for future success may also have frequent and lasting shame experiences (Morrison, 1989). However, while Morrison (1989) postulated that shame-prone individuals were more susceptible to pathological aspects of narcissism (e.g., exploitation of others,

violent/destructive behavior, pursuing unrealistic goals), research indicates that sha me-prone individuals seem to have a deficit in healthy narcissism (e.g., self-admiration, leadership ability). This healthy narcissism may actually aid guilt-prone individuals in productive day-to-day interactions (Gramzow & Tangney, 1992).

Modes of expressing anger and hostility have been noted to be heavily directed by experiences of shame (Tangney, Wagner, Fletcher & Gramzow, 1992). Lewis (1971) suggests that anger may be an emotion which is not accepted by the self as valid or a personal right for shame-prone individuals. Angered, shame-prone individuals may become ashamed of their anger, since this emotion seems to be viewed by them as taboo and unacceptable (Miller, 1985). Recent research by Tangney, Wagner, Hill-Barlow, Marshall, and Gramzow (1996) does indicate that shame-prone individuals are more likely than guilt-prone individuals to engage in unexpressed, indirect aggression (e.g., self-aggression, held-in anger). However, they also found shameprone individuals to engage in more active (e.g., physical, verbal) acts of aggression during conflict situations. It seems shame-prone individuals may be meek, submissive and passive when experiencing anger. Furthermore, shame-prone individuals also may express their anger in irrational and

counterproductive ways.

In contrast to shame-prone individuals, guilt-prone persons are more likely to keep their anger focused on specific aspects of behavior and are more amenable to discuss non-hostile solutions with the target person (Tangney et al., 1996). Those who experience "shame-free" guilt are more likely to experience feelings of anger that are "proportionate with the seriousness of the eliciting situation," and more prone to accept their negative feelings (Tangney et al., 1992). Overall, expressions of anger by guilt-prone individuals are considered to be constructive in nature and oriented toward peaceful forms of communication (Tangney, 1990).

Gender seems to play a large role in the intensity and frequency of moral affective experiences (Lutwak et al., 1998; Tangney & Fischer, 1995). Evidence indicates that women are more likely to experience empathy and guilt while also engaging in more prosocial/reparative behaviors than men (Gilligan, 1982; Lutwak & Ferrari, 1996; Tangney et al., 1992; Zahn-Waxler, Cole, & Barrett, 1991). Moreover, in some studies (Lutwak et al., 1998) women have displayed higher scores than men on measures of shame. As previously noted, shame has been linked with negative self-appraisals, which may impact one's expectation for success

in future endeavors. In addition to heightened sensitivity, women also appear to display decrements in their overt expression of anger early in life (Goodenough, 1931).

Research has examined the contributions of socialization to moral orientation differences in females and males (Barnett, McMinimy, Flouer, & Masbad, 1987; Biringen, Robinson & Emde, 1994). Yet, little has been done to examine the implications these gender differences may have regarding expectations for success and expressions of anger, hostile emotions as they relate to moral affects, among late adolescents and young adults. The current study examined the relationship between moral affects with expectations for future success, and anger expression in college students. Based on previous social research (Tangney, 1994; Tangney et al., 1996) and clinical theory (Lewis, 1971; Morrison, 1983), it was expected that shame-prone individuals would have a tendency to direct anger inward (holding in or suppressing their hostility), reflecting a self-critical response to a social transgression (Lutwak & Ferrari, 1996). In contrast, guilt-prone individuals would be most likely to control their anger in socially appropria te ways and seek non-hostile problem solution (Tangney, 1996). Given the empirical evidence of gender differences in moral affective experiences and anger expression, this study also investigated the existence and implications of gender differences in the way moral affects, expectations for success and anger expression may be interrelated.

METHOD

Participants

College students (174 females, 91 males) from a medium-size, public, urban university participated in the current study to fulfill a psychology course requirement. The mean age of participants was 20.1 years (SD = 5.4), with a range from 16 to 23 years. Ethnic background of the participants reflected the racial diversity of the student population at this university: 25% Asian American, 22% Latin American, 21% African American, 29% European American, and 3% Middle Eastern.

Psychometric Inventories

The Test of Self-Conscious Affect (TOSCA; Tangney, Wagner, & Gramzow, 1989) was used to assess shameproneness and guilt-proneness. The TOSCA consists of a series of brief scenarios (10 negative, 5 positive) and associated responses that yield separate proneness to shame and guilt indices. The scenarios and

responses were selected from the affective, behavioral, and cognitive alternatives provided by college students and older adults. The TOSCA has several advantages over other shame and guilt measures in that it contains items generated by participants and not by an experimenter (enhancing validity), and its psychometric properties are rather strong (test-retest reliability of .85 and .74 for shame and guilt, respectively; Tangney, Wagner, Fletcher, & Gramzow, 1992). The TOSCA also has been shown to have acceptable internal consistency (alpha = .76 and .66 for shame and guilt, respectively; Tangney, Wagner, Fletcher, & Gramzow, 1992), and maintained this consistency with the current total sample (alpha .62 and .63, respectively). The TOSCA shame and guilt scales have been shown to be correlated in previous studies (r = .44; Tangney, 1994). TOSCA shame-proneness scores, but not guilt-proneness scores, have been related to a range of psychopathologies (Tangney, 1994), including depression (Rayner, Singer, & O'Conner, 1995). Guilt-proness scores have been related to optimistic appraisals of stressful situations (Burggraf 1995).

The 30-item Generalized Expectancy for Success Scale (GESS; Fibel & Hale, 1978) was administered to assess a general sense of efficacy. This scale included items that began with the stem "In the future I expect I will," and respondents were instructed to indicate their likelihood of each event by circling a response on a 5-point rating scale from 1 (highly improbable) to 5 (highly probable) for each item. Seventeen items were phrased in the positive direction and 13 in the negative (failure) direction and arranged in random order. Fibel and Hale (1978) found higher scores on the GESS to positively correlate with measures of general selfefficacy. Moreover, these researchers indicated that individuals with low expectancies for success were more prone to depressive symptoms, anxiety and greater hostility. Research by Mearns (1989) found high scores on the GESS were positively related to measures of self-satisfaction and self-esteem. The GESS has strong temporal stability (test-retest reliability = .83; Fibel & Hale, 1978), and acceptable internal consistency (alpha = .90 for females and .91 for males; Fibel & Hale, 1978). Internal consistency for the current total sample (alpha = .90) was consistent with previous findings.

The Anger Expression Scale (AX; Spielberger, 1988) was administered to explore preferred style of expressing anger. The AX scale has revealed underlying dimensions labeled Anger/In (AX-I; 8 items), Anger/Out (AX-O; 8 items), and Anger/Control (AX-C; 8 items). Based on these measures a tendency to suppress anger or direct it inward (AX-I), to express it outwardly (AX-O) usually in negative ways like cursing, yelling or throwing things, or to control anger (AX-C) in socially acceptable ways, such as being

patient or calm, was reported. Respondents were instructed to report ". . . how often you generally react or behave in the manner described (when you) feel angry or furious" by rating themselves along a 4-point scale (1 = almost never; 4 = almost always). Although AX-O and AX-C have been found to be significantly and inversely correlated (-.59; Deffenbacher, 1992), Spielberger (1988) concluded that AX-I appeared to be a construct which was empirically independent (orthogonal) from AX-O and AXC. The internal c onsistencies of the AX-I, AX-O, and AX-C have been found to be satisfactory, ranging from .73 to .84 (Spielberger, 1988). With the current total sample, internal reliabilities were .62 for AX-I, .79 for AX-C, and .74 for AX-O.

Procedure

Students enrolled in introductory psychology, who were required to participate in various studies for course credit, were asked to complete a set of standardized personality measures, including the TOSCA, GESS, and AX. These measures were presented in random order to control for order effects. In addition, students completed a set of demographic items (age, gender, and ethnic identity). Participants were tested in groups of 25-30 by female graduate research associates. After each testing session, the associate explained the purpose and nature of the study. It took participants approximately 60-70 minutes to complete all sets of measures.

RESULTS

Gender Comparisons on Self-reported Variables

The t test for independent samples was computed comparing males and females to ascertain gender differences in moral affect. There were significant differences for both shame, t(263) = -3.60, p <.001, and guilt, t(263) = -2.08, p < .04. Females reported significantly more shame (M = 43.22, SD = 8.00) than males did (M = 39.52, SD = 7.80). In addition, females reported significantly more guilt (M = 51.95, SD = 6.85) than males did (M = 50.14, SD = 6.56). Additional analyses were conducted to determine whether these gender differences existed in general expectancy for success and each of the three anger scales (i.e., AX-I, AX-C, AX-O). Significant differences were found on two of the three anger scales. Females reported fewer experiences of anger control (AX-C; M = 20.4, SD = 4.7) than males did (M = 21.9, SD = 4.9), t(263) = 2.38, p <.02. Females also reported fewer experiences of inward anger (AX-I; M = 17.7, SD 3.9) than males did (M = 18.7, SD = 3.6), t(263) = 2.02, p < .05. Significant differences were al so found for

expectancy for success, with males reporting a greater expectancy for success (M = 85.7, SD = 9.3) than females did (M = 82.2, SD = 8.7), t(263) = 3.03, p < .005. Since significant gender differences were obtained in moral affect, anger, and expectancy for success variables in the present study and other research (Lutwak & Ferrari, 1996), subsequent analyses were computed separately for males and females.

Correlations Between Moral Affect, Positive Expectations and Expressions of Anger

Previous research (Tangney & Fischer, 1995) as well as the present study indicated shame and guilt to be positively correlated (r = .54, p < .001). Based on the recommendation of Gramzow and Tangney (1992) to analyze shame and guilt independently, partial correlations were conducted to remove shame from guilt, and vice versa (see Tables 1 and 2). The residual factors were used in subsequent analyses to explore correlations between "guilt-free" shame (shame-proneness) and "shame-free" guilt (guilt-proneness) separately for males and females. Subsequent partial correlations indicated that shame-proneness and guiltproneness were negatively related for males (r = - .57, p < .001) and females (r = -.47, p < .001).

For both males and females, shame-proneness was not significantly related to general expectancies for success. However, a significant positive relationship appeared between shame-proneness and suppressed anger (inward anger) for both males (r = .22, p < .01) and females (r = .21, p < .01). Guilt-proneness was negatively related to outward expressions of anger in males (r = -.28, p < .01) and in females (r = - .23, p < .01), and positively related to anger control for both males (r = .26, p < .01) and females (r = .25, p < .01). Fisher t tests indicated no significant difference in the magnitude of these coefficients between males and females. In addition, general expectations for future success was found to be negatively correlated with guilt-proneness in females (r = -.15, p < .05), but not in males.

Stepwise Multiple Regression for Moral Affect

In addition to partial correlations, separate multiple regressions were performed to predict the unique variance of shame-proneness and guilt-proneness from general expectancies for success and styles of anger expression, separately for males and females (Tables 3 and 4, respectively). A stepwise multiple regression method was chosen for these analyses to account and control for the multicollinearity of measures (e.g., anger expression subscales) in this study. As Howell (1992) indicates, stepwise regression begins with the

predictor variable that has the highest semipartial correlation with the criterion. Using this process, additional predictor variables were added to the model until the addition of further variables ceased to significantly improve the model. For males and females, a stepwise multiple regression model revealed that inward anger was the sole significant predictor of shame-proneness, F(1, 89) = 4.89, p < .02, and F(1, 172) 8.23, p < .004, respectively by gender. Among males, no predictors wer e found for guilt-proneness. For young females, stepwise multiple regressions indicated that anger control was the best positive predictor of guilt-proneness, F(1, 172) = 5.11, p < .02, while outward anger, F(1, 172) = 8.21, p < .001, and expectations for success, F(1, 172) = 7.15, p < .00 1, were negative predictors of guilt-proneness.

DISCUSSION

The present study supported research and theory regarding expectations for success, anger expression, and moral affect with late adolescents and young adults (Mearns, 1989; Spielberger, 1988; Morrison, 1989; Tangney & Fischer, 1995). Young females compared to males reported significantly greater levels of shame and guilt. Among females, however, anger expressed inward was associated with shame-proneness, while increased inward anger and a decline in anger control were associated with shame-proneness among males. Although multiple regression analyses indicated that inward anger was the only predictor of shameproneness in males and females, speculation might suggest that shame-prone adolescent males lose control of their anger and "bottle-up" these unmanageable feelings by directing them inward.

Partial correlations also indicated fewer outward expressions and greater control of anger to be associated with guilt-proneness for both males and females. These findings supported clinical theory and social psychology research indicating that guilt is a "healthier" affect which promotes a sense of personal responsibility and sensitivity to others (Tangney, 1991; Tangney & Fischer, 1995; Tangney et al., 1992), and extends those claims to late adolescent/young adult males and females. Although late adolescent males and females prone to shame affects may be likely to suppress their anger, turning it inward, young adults prone to guilt experiences are likely to control their anger and be less likely to act out aggressive/hostile feelings.

Consistent with previous research (Lutwak & Ferrari, 1996), the present study also indicated that moral affects may involve different processes during late adolescence. Multiple regression analyses presented a

differential relationship between guilt-proneness and patterns of anger expression for young males and females. Partial correlations involving anger and guilt among males and females support previous research (Tangney, 1991) in that greater levels of prosocial behavior and empathic concern among guilt-prone individuals may be facilitated by controlling and limiting anger expressions (Chodorow, 1978; Zahn-Waxier, Cole & Barrett, 1991). Multiple regression findings from this study may also build upon previous research by suggesting that anger and guilt may be dynamically related among adolescent females. Among males, regression analyses indicated that none of the anger variables significantly predicted guilt-proneness. For young females, however, controlled anger was a significant positive predictor whil e outward expressions of anger negatively predicted guilt-proneness. It has been suggested that females are socialized to be more interpersonally sensitive and empathic (Gilligan, 1982; Chodorow, 1978). It is possible then that anger, which is a negative emotion that may offend or cause harm to others, may be considered more taboo or unacceptable among females. Although it is not possible to draw cause and effect relations from the data in this study, it may be that feelings of tension and remorse (i.e., guilt) among females may work to control and diminish anger expressions.

Gender differences also emerged between future expectations of success and moral affects. Interestingly, females reported significantly lower general expectations for future success than males. This might suggest that late adolescent females are not as confident as late adolescent males are in their abilities to achieve and be successful. Separate multiple regression analyses indicated that shame-proneness was not related to future expectations for success, though shame-proneness has been related to a number of negative cognitive-behavioral experiences, such as self-derogation (Tangney, 1991) and depression (Harder & Zalma, 1990) as well as pathological narcissism (Morrison, 1989). In contrast, expectations for future success negatively predicted guilt-proneness only among late adolescent females. Although speculative, it would appear that thoughts related to industry, achievement and constructive behavior may somehow work to alleviate or quell guilt feelings among late adolescent females. Equally possible, though, is that females who have lower expectations of success may also be prone to feelings of guilt. Among late adolescent females, tension and anxiety or guilt feelings may work to diminish industrious/constructive ideation. Given both possibilities, future research might not only attempt to replicate these findings, but address the interrelationship of moral affects, achievement-related thoughts and the actual behavior of late adolescent females.

In summary, while expressions of hostility and anger appear to be related to moral affects for both genders in late adolescence, and future success expectancy to be relevant only for young females, these variables seem to have special significance in the guilt and shame experiences of young females and males.

Advertisement
Table 1

Partial Correlations for Moral Affects, Expectations for Success, and Anger Expression Styles for Males (n = 91)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(1) Shame-proneness

[.65]

(2) Guilt-proneness

-.57 (***)

[.72]

(3) General Expectation For Future Success .17 -.18 [.91]

(4) Anger Out

-.11

-.28 (**)

-.08

[.68]

(5) Anger In

.22 (**)

-.04

-.03

-.19 (*)

[.57]

(6) Anger Control

-.19 (**)

.26 (**)

-.01

-.54 (***)

.02

(6)

(1) Shame-proneness

(2) Guilt-proneness

(3) General Expectation For Future Success

(4) Anger Out

(5) Anger In

(6) Anger Control

[.80]

Note. Partial correlations removed shame from guilt, and vice versa, to produce "shame-proneness" and "guilt-proneness." Value in brackets is coefficient alpha.

(*)p < .05

(**)p < .01

(***)p < .001 Table 2

Partial Correlations for Moral Affects, Expectations for Success, and Anger Expression Styles for Females (n=174)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(1) Shame-proneness (2) Guilt-proneness (3) General Expectation For Future Success

[.64] -.47 (***) [.72]

-.03

-.15 (*)

[.90]

(4) Anger Out (5) Anger In (6) Anger Control

-.10 .21 (**) -.09

-.23 (**) -.08 .25 (**)

-.02 -.l4 (*) .01

[.64] .25 (**) -.27 (***)

(5)

(6)

(1) Shame-proneness (2) Guilt-proneness (3) General Expectation For Future Success (4) Anger Out (5) Anger In (6) Anger Control [.77] .16 (**) [.78]

Note. Partial correlations removed shame from guilt, and vice versa, to produce "shame-proneness" and "guilt-proneness." Value in brackets is coefficient alpha.

(*)p<.05

(**)p<.01

(***)p<.001 Table 3

Stepwise Regression Analysis of Variables Predicting Shame and Guilt for Males (n = 91)

Variable

SE B

Beta

Predictors of Shame Anger In 0.230 0.103 0.230 (**)

Note. Multiple R = .23 for shame

(**)p<.01 Table 4

Stepwise Regression Analysis of Variables Predicting Shame and Guilt for Females (n = 174).

Variable

SE B

Beta

Predictors of Shame Anger In Predictors of Guilt Anger Out Anger Control Expectations for Success -0.261 0.299 -0.020 0.076 0.080 0.008 -0.284 (***) 0.310 (***) -0.156 (*) 0.205 0.071 0.214 (**)

Note. Multiple R = .21 for shame and .34 for guilt

(*)p<.05, (**)p<.01, (***)p<.001

REFERENCES

Barnett, M. A., McMinimy, V., Flouer, G., & Masbad, I. (1987). Adolescents' evaluations of peers' motives for helping. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16, 579-586.

Biringen, Z., Robinson, J. L., & Emde, R. N. (1994). Stylistic differences and maternal sensitivity during the

second year of life: Gender based relations in the dyadic balance of control. Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 64, 78-90.

Burggraf S. A. (1995, April). Coping Styles related to shame- and guilt-proneness. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, Boston, MA.

Chodorow, N. (1978). The reproduction of mothering. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Deffenbacher, J. L. (1992). Trait anger: theory, findings, and implications. In C. D. Spielberger & J. N. Butcher (Eds.), Advances in personality assessment (pp. 177-201). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Fibel, B., & Hale, D. (1978). The Generalized Expectancy for Success Scale--a new measure. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 924-931.

Gilbert, P. (1997). The evolution of social interactions. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 70, 113-147.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Goodenough, F. (1931). Anger in young children. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Gramzow, R., & Tangney, J. P. (1992). Proneness to shame and the narcissistic personality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 369-376.

Harder, D. W., & Zalma, A. (1990). Two promising shame and guilt scales: A construct validity comparison. Journal of Personality Assessment, 55, 729-745.

Howell, D. (1992). Statistical methods for psychology (3rd ed.). California: Duxbury Press.

Kohut, H. (1971). The analysis of the self. New York: International Universities Press.

Lewis, H. B. (1971). Shame and guilt in neurosis. New York: International Universities Press.

Lutwak, N., & Ferrari, J. (1996). Moral affect and cognitive processes: Differentiating shame from guilt among men and women. Personality and Individual Differences, 21, 1-6.

Lutwak, N., Ferrari, J., & Cheek, J. M. (1998). Shame, guilt, and identity in men and women: The role of identity orientation and processing style in moral affects. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 10271036.

Mearns, J. (1989). Measuring self-acceptance: expectancy for success vs. self-esteem. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 45, 390-397.

Miller, S. (1985). The shame experience. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Mollon, R. (1984). Shame in relation to narcissistic disturbance. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 57, 207-214.

Morrison, A. P. (1989). Shame: the underside of narcissism. Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press.

Rayner, T. Z., Singer, J. A., & O'Connor, L. E. (1995, April). Attributional style, proneness to shame and guilt, and depression in adolescents in recovery from substance abuse. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, Boston, MA.

Spielberger, C. D. (1988). State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Tangney, J. P. (1990). Assessing individual differences in proneness to shame and guilt: Development of the Self-Conscious Affect and Attribution Inventory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 102-111.

Tangney, J. P. (1991). Moral affect: The good, the bad and the ugly. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 598-607.

Tangney. J. P. (1994). The mixed legacy of the superego: Adaptive and maladaptive aspects of shame and guilt. In J. M. Mashing & R. F. Bornstein (Eds.), Empirical perspectives on object relation theory (pp. 2-28). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Tangney, J. P. & Fischer, K. W. (1995). Self-conscious emotions: Shame, guilt, embarrassment and pride. New York: Guilford Press.

Tangney, J. P., Wagner, P., Fletcher, C., & Gramzow, R. (1992). Shamed into anger? The relation of shame and guilt to anger and self-reported aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 669-675.

Tangney, J. P., Wagner, P. E., & Gramzow, R. (1989). The Test of Self Conscious Affect. Fairfax, VA: George Mason University.

Tangney, J. P., Wagner, P. E., Hill-Barlow, D., Marshall, D. E., & Gramzow, R. (1996). Relation of shame and guilt to constructive versus destructive responses in anger across the lifespan. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 797-809.

Wicker, F. W., Payne, G. C., & Morgan, R. D. (1983). Participant descriptions of guilt and shame. Motivation and Emotion, 7, 25-39.

Zahn-Waxler, C., Cole, P., & Barrett, K. C. (1991). Guilt and empathy: Sex differences and implications for the development of depression. In K. Dodge & J. Garber (Eds.), Emotional regulation and dysregulation (pp. 243-277). New York: Cambridge University Press

Jacqueline B. Panish, Baruch College, City University of New York.

Brian E. Razzino, Department of Psychology, DePaul University, Chicago, IIlinois.

Joseph R. Ferrari, Department of Psychology, DePaul University, Chicago, Illinois.

Reprint requests to Nita Lutwak, Department of Psychology, Baruch College, City University of New York, 1 Baruch Way, Box B-8215, New York, New York 10010. Electronic mail may be sent to Nitalut@aol.com.

COPYRIGHT COPYRIGHT 2002 Gale Group

2001

Libra

Publishers,

Inc.