Introducing the GASP scale: a new measure of guilt and shame proneness.

Although scholars agree that moral emotions are critical for deterring unethical and antisocial behavior, there is disagreement about how 2 prototypical moral emotions--guilt and shame--should be defined, differentiated, and measured. We addressed these issues by developing a new assessment--the Guilt and Shame Proneness scale (GASP)--that measures individual differences in the propensity to experience guilt and shame across a range of personal transgressions. The GASP contains 2 guilt subscales that assess negative behavior-evaluations and repair action tendencies following private transgressions and 2 shame subscales that assess negative self-evaluations (NSEs) and withdrawal action tendencies following publically exposed transgressions. Both guilt subscales were highly correlated with one another and negatively correlated with unethical decision making. Although both shame subscales were associated with relatively poor psychological functioning (e.g., neuroticism, personal distress, low self-esteem), they were only weakly correlated with one another, and their relationships with unethical decision making diverged. Whereas shame-NSE constrained unethical decision making, shame-withdraw did not. Our findings suggest that differentiating the tendency to make NSEs following publically exposed transgressions from the tendency to hide or withdraw from public view is critically important for understanding and measuring dispositional shame proneness. The GASP's ability to distinguish these 2 classes of responses represents an important advantage of the scale over existing assessments. Although further validation research is required, the present studies are promising in that they suggest the GASP has the potential to be an important measurement tool for detecting individuals susceptible to corruption and unethical behavior.

Interindividual-intergroup discontinuity in the domain of correspondent outcomes: the roles of relativistic concern, perceived categorization, and the doctrine of mutual assured destruction.

Most prior research on the tendency for groups to be less cooperative than individuals (the interindividual-intergroup discontinuity effect) has used the Prisoner's Dilemma Game (PDG). Experiment 1 examined the discontinuity effect with 3 additional matrices: Chicken, Leader, and Battle of the Sexes (BOS). Unlike the PDG, these matrices are characterized by correspondence of outcomes. The discontinuity effect was significant for the PDG and Chicken matrices only. With the BOS and Leader matrices, both individuals and groups pursued outcome maximization through coordinated turn taking. Despite the lesser competitiveness, sets of interacting participants in the BOS and Leader conditions did perceive that they were 2 groups. Experiment 2 examined the discontinuity effect in 2 Chicken matrices with varying outcomes associated with mutual competition. Consistent with the doctrine of mutual assured destruction, the discontinuity effect was eliminated for the matrix in which mutual competition was associated with very low outcomes. Although concern for relative in-group standing gave rise to intergroup competition even in the domain of correspondent outcomes, such concern was constrained to the extent that it interfered with outcome maximization.

Reduction of interindividual-intergroup discontinuity: the role of leader accountability and proneness to guilt.

Two experiments contrasted interactions between group leaders with interactions between individuals in a mixed-motive setting. Consistent with the idea that being accountable to the in-group implies normative pressure to benefit the in-group, Experiment 1 found that accountable leaders were more competitive than individuals. Consistent with the idea that being unaccountable to the in-group implies normative pressure to be cooperative and that high guilt proneness provides motivation to be moral, Experiment 2 found that when guilt proneness was high, unaccountable leaders were less competitive than accountable leaders and did not differ significantly from individuals. In other words, the robust interindividual-intergroup discontinuity effect was eliminated when groups had unaccountable leaders who were high in guilt proneness.