When Feeling Bad Leads to Feeling Good: Guilt-Proneness and Affective Organizational Commitment

Francis J. Flynn and Rebecca L. Schaumberg Stanford University

The authors posit that higher levels of guilt-proneness are associated with higher levels of affective organizational commitment. To explain this counterintuitive link, the authors suggest that a dispositional tendency to feel guilt motivates individuals to exert greater effort on their work-related tasks that, in turn, strengthens their affinity for the organization. The authors tested this idea using a laboratory study and field data from 2 samples of working adults. Individuals who are more guilt-prone reported higher levels of organizational attachment compared with less guilt-prone individuals. Furthermore, mediation analyses indicate that the link between guilt-proneness and affective commitment is driven by greater task effort. The authors discuss the implications of these findings for understanding the affective drivers of commitment in organizations.

Keywords: guilt-proneness, personality, motivation, commitment, justification

Researchers in organizational behavior have identified multiple more attached to their friends, we propose that guilt-prone indi- components of organizational commitment, but none has received viduals are also more attached to their employers—showing pride as much attention as affective commitment (Allen & Meyer, 1996; in organizational membership and identifying strongly with the Matthieu & Zajac, 1990; Meyer & Allen, 1991; Mowday, Porter, institution. & Steers, 1982). According to Allen and Meyer (1996), affective Why would the tendency to experience guilt lead employees to organizational commitment can be defined as an employee’s emo- feel more attached to their organizations? The answer may lie in tional attachment to, or identification with, an employer. But one of the unique qualities of guilt-proneness—its functional ac- where do these feelings of emotional attachment originate? Not tion orientation (Tangney, 1990). Although employees will inev- surprisingly, a strong body of evidence suggests that dispositional itably make mistakes in the performance of their duties, they may affectivity partly explains affective organizational commitment respond to such mistakes in different ways. Those who are pre- (e.g., Cropanzano, James, & Konovsky, 1993). Whereas positive disposed to experience guilt (rather than to shame or embarrass- affectivity tends to be associated with higher levels of affective ment) in response to a personal failure feel a sense of urgency commitment, negative affectivity tends to be associated with lower about taking constructive action (Harder & Lewis, 1987). They are levels. In short, the tendency to feel positive emotions corresponds highly motivated to make amends and will expend high levels of with positive feelings of attachment to the firm. effort toward this goal (Baumeister et al., 1995; Hargreaves, 1994). We do not doubt the apparent link between positive affect and affective commitment. Rather, in the present research, we chal- Such strong motivation to take corrective action implies that lenge the negative link between negative affect and affective higher levels of guilt-proneness will correspond to higher levels of commitment. Although negative affectivity is composed of multi- individual task effort. Put differently, those employees who are ple emotions, not all negative emotions are the same (Ekman, relatively more guilt-prone may work harder than their less guilt- 1992). Indeed, some forms of negative affectivity could actually prone colleagues. strengthen an employee’s sense of affective commitment. In par- If guilt-proneness is associated with an increased level of task ticular, we suggest that individuals who are prone to experience effort, then this may provide a pathway for guilt-proneness to guilt—a dysphoric emotion that follows a failure to fulfill expec- influence affective organizational commitment. A key finding in tations—will have more positive feelings toward their employer. both social and organizational psychology is that affective com- Guilt-prone people are generally more supportive in interpersonal mitment often results from the prior expenditure of effort and other relationships, offering comfort and aid to close others in need resources (Festinger, 1964; O’Reilly & Caldwell, 1980; Staw, (Baumeister, Stillwell, & Heatherton, 1995). But, aside from being 1984). According to Salancik (1977), feelings of commitment are driven by the voluntary sacrifices that people make in pursuit of a goal, such as the individual task effort that employees put forth on behalf of their employers. Guilt-prone individuals are inclined to This article was published Online First July 4, 2011. exert more effort toward the completion of their tasks. Thus, they Francis J. Flynn and Rebecca L. Schaumberg, Graduate School of may subsequently be inclined to express more positive attitudes Business, Stanford University. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Francis J. about their employer because they must reconcile their prior in- Flynn, Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, 655 Knight Way, vestments (i.e., hard work, time spent, stress endured) with their Stanford, CA 94305. E-mail: [email protected] current attitudes (Staw, 1974).

124 GUILT-PRONENESS AND AFFECTIVE COMMITMENT 125

In summary, we propose that a predisposition to feel guilt is Brockner, Davy, & Carter, 1985). People who score high on positively related to an employee’s emotional attachment to an measures of guilt-proneness are more likely to take reparative organization. Underlying this hypothesized relationship between steps that atone for their past failures and shortcomings (Fredrick- guilt-proneness and affective commitment is a process by which son, Tugade, Waugh, & Larkin, 2003). For example, Covert, guilt-prone employees put forth higher levels of individual task Tangney, Maddux, and Heleno (2003) found a strong connection effort and rationalize this effort in ways that produce positive between guilt-proneness and the desire to take initiative in resolv- feelings of attachment. To test this model, we conducted a labo- ing a personal conflict by providing apologies, promising improve- ratory study and collected field data from two samples of working ments, and enacting a meaningful reconciliation. A similar con- adults. Drawing on these data, our primary aim was to call atten- nection between guilt-proneness and individual effort might tion to guilt-proneness as an important determinant of individual appear in the workplace. If an employee is prone to experience employee outcomes. In addition, we hope to refocus researchers’ guilt, then that employee may work harder to avoid and repair attention on some of the less intuitive sources (e.g., negative negative outcomes such as irritating a customer, missing a dead- personality traits) of affective organizational commitment. That is, line, or producing low-quality work. Given that individuals who the tendency to feel bad about their errors (i.e., feel guilty) could, tend to feel guilty are highly averse to disappointing others (Hor- in some cases, lead employees to feel good about their employers. ney, 1937; Lewis, 1971; Tangney & Dearing, 2002; Tangney, Wagner, Hill-Barlow, Marschall, & Gramzow, 1996), they may Guilt-Proneness feel more motivated to exhibit high levels of task effort in order to fulfill their assigned roles than do their less guilt-prone colleagues. With few exceptions, everyone feels guilt following a failure to This leads us to put forth the following hypothesis: fulfill expectations, but the tendency to experience guilt varies widely across individuals (Lewis, 1971). Research by Tangney and Hypothesis 1: Guilt-proneness will be positively related to her colleagues (e.g., Niedenthal, Tangney, & Gavanski, 1994; individual work effort. Tangney, 1990; Tangney, Wagner, Fletcher, & Gramzow, 1992) has successfully identified guilt-proneness—the degree to which Insufficient Justification an individual tends to feel guilt—as a stable personality trait, one that can be reliably measured and used to predict critical attitudes A key finding in both social and organizational psychology is and behaviors, such as hostility, counterfactual thinking, and re- that affective forms of commitment can often result from the prior cidivism (for a summary, see Tangney & Dearing, 2002). As a expenditure of effort and other resources (Bem, 1972; Festinger, dispositional construct, guilt-proneness captures two dimensions 1964; Staw, 1984). The harder one must work, or the more of affective experience: intensity and frequency. People who are hardship one must endure, to be part of a group, the greater the highly guilt-prone experience stronger feelings of guilt in a spe- affinity one subsequently shows for the group (e.g., Aronson & cific situation (intensity), and they respond to negative outcomes Mills, 1959). This direct link between effort and affective com- with guilt-filled reactions across a wider variety of situations mitment has been explained by multiple theories, including Salan- (frequency). cik and Pfeffer’s (1978) social information processing model, Given that guilt is a negative emotion, it would seem intuitive Festinger’s (1964) theory of cognitive dissonance, and Bem’s that guilt-proneness should correlate negatively with affective (1972) theory of self-perception. Each theoretical perspective has commitment. Indeed, Cropanzano and colleagues (1993) found unique tenets, but they all make one common prediction—that that the Negative Affectivity subscale of the Positive and Neg- people often construct and make sense of reality by observing and ative Affectivity Schedule (PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Telle- interpreting their own behaviors. gen, 1988) was negatively and significantly correlated with a Individuals are motivated to see their actions as acceptable and standard measure of affective organizational commitment. legitimate, so they often adjust their attitudes in ways that legiti- However, it is worth noting that the PANAS is a global assess- mize past behavior (Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959; Salancik, 1977). ment of positive and negative mood states. The emotions that We suggest that the positive relationship between guilt-proneness are broadly categorized as “negative” are actually quite diverse. and affective commitment arises from a similar justification pro- For example, fear, anger, and disappointment are all distinct cess, such that guilt-prone employees make sense of their extra basic emotions (see Ekman, 1992) that are collapsed into this task effort by bolstering their affinity for the firm. In the same way composite negative affectivity measure. Although a proneness that the absence of external justifications for one’s behavior leads to experience these emotions may each have clear negative group members to become more committed to a group after a associations with affective commitment, we propose that a trying initiation (Aronson & Mills, 1959), and students to become proneness to experience guilt may not. Rather, in the sections more fond of classes for which they worked hard but performed that follow, we explain how some unique qualities of being poorly (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978), we suggest that insufficient guilt-prone can actually predict positive attitudes toward the external justifications for individual work effort enhances guilt- firm. prone employees’ levels of affective organizational commitment. That is, guilt-prone employees will experience higher levels of Guilt-Proneness and Individual Work Effort affective commitment to their organization because they have worked harder than their less guilt-prone colleagues. This theoriz- We suggest that the dispositional tendency to feel guilt can ing about the relationship between guilt-proneness, work effort, positively influence employee motivation, particularly the effort and affective commitment leads us to put forth the following set of put forth in attempting to complete one’s assigned tasks (cf. hypotheses: 126 FLYNN AND SCHAUMBERG

Hypothesis 2: Guilt-proneness will be positively related to a measure of guilt-proneness. Twenty-three participants had pre- affective commitment. viously completed the measure for an unrelated study. For these participants, their previously collected responses were used, and Hypothesis 3: Work effort will be positively related to affec- they were not asked to complete the questionnaire again. No tive commitment. significant main effects of when participants completed the guilt- proneness measure were found in any of the analyses. Further- Hypothesis 4: Work effort will mediate the relationship be- more, whether participants completed the guilt-proneness measure tween guilt-proneness and affective commitment. at the end of the study or prior to it did not significantly moderate any of the results. Overview of Studies Independent variable. Guilt-proneness. The Test of Self-Conscious Affect (TOSCA) We conducted two studies to test our predictions. In the first was used to capture each individual’s predisposition toward guilt. study, we asked participants to perform tasks on behalf of an Developed by Tangney and her colleagues as a scenario-based ques- organization they were unfamiliar with prior to the study session tionnaire, the TOSCA offers a high level of predictive, discriminant, and then measured their level of effort and affective organizational and convergent validity (see Tangney, 1990). To distinguish between commitment. We expected that guilt-proneness would be posi- guilt and shame, the TOSCA includes specific items designed to tively related to participants’ affective commitment because it measure each affective response. In particular, the complete 16- would boost the amount of effort that participants exerted while scenario version of the TOSCA was used, which has shown the working on the firm’s behalf. In the second study, we collected strongest evidence of internal consistency and test–retest reliability data from two samples of working adults to assess whether these and has been used in both clinical psychiatric settings and social empirical relationships between guilt-proneness, task effort, and psychological research (e.g., Tracy & Robbins, 2006). affective organizational commitment emerged in the field as well The scenarios that comprise the TOSCA are rooted in everyday as the lab. experiences. Participants are asked to read each scenario and describe how they would respond if they were in the same situa- Study 1 tion. For example, one scenario simply reads, “You are driving down the road and you hit a small animal.” Participants are then Method presented with two items designed to assess their guilty and shameful reactions to the circumstances described in the scenario. Participants. The study consisted of 52 participants (33 The two items associated with this scenario are: “You would think women, 15 men, 4 unreported). Participants were current under- ‘I’m terrible’” (shame-prone) and “You’d feel bad you hadn’t been graduate students at a West Coast university. Participants received more alert driving down the road” (guilt-prone). $10 for participating in the study.1 For each scenario, the pair of reaction items that refer to guilt Measures and procedure. At the start of the study, partici- and shame were rated using a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (not pants were informed that they would be providing assistance to a likely) to 5 (very likely). To calculate an overall score for guilt- real organization. The experimenter explained that the lab had proneness, the guidelines provided by Tangney and Dearing partnered with a nonprofit organization called Save Together that (2002) were followed, which involved averaging the guilt-prone was interested in gathering feedback on its website (this was true). responses across all 16 scenarios (Cronbach’s ␣ϭ.79). Because Launched by the Corporation for Enterprise Development (CFED), guilt and shame tend to be correlated, Tangney and colleagues based in Washington, D.C., Save Together aims to match private advise controlling for shame-proneness in order to distinguish the donors with low-wage earners who are trying to raise funds for unique effects of guilt-proneness (see Tangney et al., 1992, 1996). small business ventures or educational training. The experimenter Therefore, the shame-prone responses were averaged to create an explained to participants that during the study session, they would explore and provide constructive comments about the look, feel, overall measure of shame-proneness (Cronbach’s ␣ϭ.77), which and content of the SaveTogether.org website. was included as a control variable in the analyses that used Following the introduction, the experimenter led participants to guilt-proneness as a predictor variable. a private computer carrel. On the screen was the Save Together Dependent variables. website opened on one tab and a feedback form opened on another. Work effort. To measure work effort, the amount of time (in The experimenter instructed participants to review the website and seconds) that participants spent reviewing the Save Together web- to answer questions on the feedback form. She further advised site and answering questions about it was recorded. While review- participants to switch back and forth between looking at the ing the website, participants answered four open-ended questions website and answering the questions. When participants completed about their perceptions of the Save Together organization and its the online feedback form, they were directed to a Web page that website. In particular, participants provided written responses to informed them that the task was finished. After participants completed the online feedback form, the ex- 1 Four participants failed to complete the follow-up questionnaire that perimenter closed the Internet browser window to ensure that contained the measures of affective organizational commitment. Due to a participants would not continue to look at the Save Together computer error, the time that one of these participants spent reviewing and website. Participants then completed a second questionnaire online answering questions about the website was not recorded. Finally, two that assessed their affective commitment to the organization (Save participants failed to complete the guilt-proneness measure. Therefore, Together). At the end of the study session, participants completed N ϭ 46 for models that include all variables. GUILT-PRONENESS AND AFFECTIVE COMMITMENT 127 these four questions: (a) “What were your favorite and least regressed the amount of time that participants spent reviewing and favorite aspects of the Save Together initiative? Please explain answering questions about the Save Together website (i.e., work why these aspects were your favorite/least favorite”; (b) “What is effort) on participants’ guilt-proneness and shame-proneness the best part of the Save Together website? That is, what is the scores. As can be seen in Model 4 (see Table 2), this analysis website currently doing well to attract and retain potential do- revealed a significant positive relationship between participants’ nors?”; (c) “What aspects of the Save Together website could be guilt-proneness and the amount of time they spent reviewing and improved? That is, what is the website currently not doing (or answering questions about the website (␤ϭ.42), t(46) ϭ 2.50, doing poorly) to attract and retain potential donors?”; (d) “Please p ϭ .016. Of note, shame-proneness was unrelated to work effort describe in detail what you would do to improve the Save Together (␤ϭϪ.25), t(46) ϭϪ1.47, p ϭ .15, which suggests that the website so that it will attract more people and encourage more positive relationship between guilt-proneness and work effort is people to donate? Please also include 3 specific suggestions for due to guilt-proneness specifically and not a general proneness improvement.” toward any self-conscious emotion. Affective organizational commitment. Nine items intended Guilt-proneness and affective commitment. To test our to measure participants’ affective organizational commitment were second hypothesis that guilt-proneness and affective organiza- generated. Two of the items asked participants about their general tional commitment are positively related, we regressed affective feelings of attachment to the Save Together organization, and commitment on participants’ guilt-proneness and shame-proneness seven of the items asked participants about their willingness to be scores. As predicted, the results show a significant positive rela- connected to the initiative. In particular, participants indicated the tionship between guilt-proneness and affective commitment (␤ϭ extent to which they (a) felt personally committed to and (b) .39), t(43) ϭ 2.11, p ϭ .041 (see Model 1 in Table 2), whereas no personally attached to Save Together. They were also asked to significant effect of shame-proneness on affective commitment what extent they would be willing to (c) visit the Save Together appeared (␤ϭϪ.05), t(43) ϭϪ.26, p ϭ .80. That is, higher levels website again, (d) talk to a friend about the Save Together initia- of guilt-proneness were associated with higher levels of affective tive, (e) tell a family member about the Save Together initiative, commitment, whereas higher levels of shame-proneness were not. (f) talk to a stranger about the Save Together initiative, (g) look up the Save Together initiative on a social networking site, (h) include Work effort and affective commitment. To test our third a link to the Save Together website on a personal website or hypothesis that work effort and affective organizational commit- facebook page, and (i) volunteer at a Save Together event. Partic- ment would be positively related, we regressed participants’ levels ipants responded to each item on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 of affective organizational commitment on the amount of time they (not at all) to 5 (extremely). Participants’ responses to the nine spent reviewing and answering questions about the website. Re- items were averaged to create an overall measure of affective sults showed a positive and significant relationship between the organizational commitment (Cronbach’s ␣ϭ.86). amount of time that participants spent reviewing and answering Familiarity check. To ensure the organization that partici- questions about the organization’s website and their level of af- pants evaluated was unfamiliar to them, participants were asked to fective commitment toward the organization (␤ϭ.36), t(47) ϭ indicate their degree of familiarity with Save Together (whether 2.62, p ϭ .012 (see Model 2, Table 2). they knew of the organization prior to the study session). Partic- The mediating effect of work effort. Finally, we tested our ipants indicated their familiarity with the organization on a 5-point fourth hypothesis—that an individual’s level of work effort medi- scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely). All participants ates the relationship between guilt-proneness and affective com- indicated they had no familiarity with the organization (M ϭ 1.00, mitment using the bootstrapping method for testing indirect effects SD ϭ 0.00). (see Preacher & Hayes, 2004; Shrout & Bolger, 2002). In support of our mediational account, the coefficient for the indirect effect of Results guilt-proneness on affective commitment through work effort was .17, and the 95% bias-corrected confidence interval ranged from Means, standard deviations, and correlations among variables .03 to .39 (1,000 bootstrap resamples). Because the confidence are included in Table 1. interval excluded zero, we can conclude that the relationship Guilt-proneness and work effort. To test our first hypoth- between guilt-proneness and affective commitment is mediated by esis that guilt-proneness and work effort are positively related, we work effort.

Table 1 Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations From Study 1

Variable M SD 1234

1. Guilt-proneness 3.84 0.50 — — ءءShame-proneness 2.83 0.51 .58 .2 — 20. ءAffective commitment 2.35 0.67 .36 .3 — ءWork effort 923 349 .28† Ϫ.01 .36 .4

Note. N ϭ 52 (pairwise deletion). Work effort is measured in seconds. .p Ͻ .01 ءء .p Ͻ .05 ء .p Ͻ .10 † 128 FLYNN AND SCHAUMBERG

Table 2 Results of Regression Analysis Predicting Affective Commitment and Work Effort From Study 1

Affective commitment Work effort

Predictor variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

†29. ءWork effort .36 Shame-proneness Ϫ.05 .02 Ϫ.25 ء42. 26. ءGuilt-proneness .39 FR2 FR2 FR2 FR2 08. †3.12 14. ء3.51 11. ء6.87 09. †3.16

Note. N ϭ 52 (listwise deletion). R2 refers to adjusted R2. .p Ͻ .05 ء .p Ͻ .10 †

Discussion organizational commitment. Therefore, for the second sample, the decision was made to draw from a broader and more diverse Study 1 showed that participants who are more prone to expe- population of working adults. In particular, a national sample of rience guilt showed higher levels of affective commitment to an 111 working adults were surveyed who were employed either full organization that was unfamiliar to them prior to the study session. time (n ϭ 92) or part time (n ϭ 19) in a wide range of occupational The time spent working on a task for the organization accounted sectors such as engineering, education, healthcare, and legal ser- for the observed relationship between guilt-proneness and affec- vices. In their respective fields, these employees held varying tive organizational commitment. These findings support an insuf- levels of rank (e.g., entry level, senior management). Women ficient justification account. That is, higher levels of guilt- comprised 60% of the final sample, and 71% of the participants proneness propels people to work harder on their tasks; to help were White. justify their extra effort, more guilt-prone people develop stronger Materials and procedure. feelings of attachment to the focal organization. Sample 1. A web-based questionnaire was developed, and Whereas the findings from Study 1 apply to individuals working two employees were invited to pretest it (one in Marketing and the for an unfamiliar organization in a highly controlled environment, other in Human Resources). The employees provided detailed they do not answer the question of whether the same relationship feedback about the complexity, wording, and ordering of each can be found in the field. That is, does guilt-proneness predict the question, which was used to clarify and streamline the study effort that employees exert for, and the affective commitment they questionnaire. Respondents were assured in advance that their feel toward, their employers? To address this question, we collected data from two samples of working adults. responses would be confidential; that is, no other employees, including the managers, would have access to our survey data. Each employee was contacted by e-mail and invited to participate Study 2 in the study (if necessary, two reminder e-mails were subsequently sent approximately 5 and 10 days after the first e-mail was orig- Method inally sent). In exchange for their participation, employees were Responses were gathered from two separate samples that com- offered a chance to win a prize (one of three 16GB iPhones). plemented each other. The first sample included employees from a Winners were selected at random, and their prizes were awarded single financial services firm, whereas the second included a after the data collection process was completed. One hundred national pool of working adults, representing a large number of seventy employees (out of 299) completed the online questionnaire occupations, organizations, and industries. for an overall response rate of 57%. Of the employees who Sample descriptions. responded, 163 returned completed surveys. Measures included in Sample 1 (Regional Bank). The first sample of participants the questionnaire were designed to assess guilt-proneness, work came from a medium-sized privately held bank located in Northern effort, and affective organizational commitment. California. The company manages over $2 billion in assets and Sample 2. A second web-based questionnaire was developed serves tens of thousands of customers. Our sample of bank em- for the national sample of working adults. Employees from a ployees is drawn from the Operations Division. Participants database that is maintained by a major business school’s behav- worked in a range of positions, including administrative staff, bank ioral research laboratory were recruited to comprise this sample. tellers, and technical support. The Vice President of Human Re- The database includes contact information for individuals who sources provided us with employee names and e-mail addresses. have expressed interest in completing online studies in exchange The employees were contacted individually and invited to partic- for financial compensation. The behavioral research laboratory ipate in the present research. Women comprised 68% of the final sent out an e-mail to all of the participants in the database that met sample. Forty-eight percent of the participants were White. the qualifications for our survey—working adults in the United Sample 2 (National sample of working adults). A unique States. Participants who were interested in completing the survey characteristic of a firm, its industry, or geographic location could logged in to the study using their participant account. After the account for a positive link between guilt-proneness and affective maximum number of participants had signed up, no other partic- GUILT-PRONENESS AND AFFECTIVE COMMITMENT 129 ipants were able to complete the survey. Because of this method of create an overall measure of nonguilt-based negative affectivity recruitment, we have no response rate data for this sample. After (Cronbach’s ␣ϭ.89).2 participants signed up for the study, they received a link to an Positive inequity. To capture employees’ sense of positive online survey. Participants were assured that their responses were inequity, the global equity measure created by Sprecher (1986) anonymous. As compensation, participants received a $10 gift card was adapted. Specifically, participants were asked to respond to to a major online retailer. Again, measures included in the ques- the following question: tionnaire were designed to assess guilt-proneness, work effort, and affective organizational commitment. Sometimes things get out of balance at work, and people feel they are Independent variable. putting more into their job than they are getting out of their job, or they feel they are getting more out of their job than they are putting Guilt-proneness. The same measure of guilt-proneness (The into their job. Consider all the times at work when your inputs (i.e., Test of Self-Conscious Affect) was used as in the previous study what you put into your job) and your outcomes (i.e., what you get out (Sample 1’s Cronbach’s ␣ϭ.79, Sample 2’s Cronbach’s ␣ϭ.86). of your job) have been unbalanced. When your inputs and outcomes The same measure of shame-proneness was used as in Study 1 become unbalanced, are you generally putting in more than you get (Sample 1’s Cronbach’s ␣ϭ.77, Sample 2’s Cronbach’s ␣ϭ.83). out? Are you generally getting more out of your job than you put in? Once again, this measure was included as a control variable in each Or, are your inputs and outcomes generally balanced? of the analyses in which guilt-proneness was used as a predictor variable. Participants indicated their sense of positive inequity using a Dependent variables. 7-point scale ranging from 1 ( I am much more likely to be putting Work effort. Individual work effort was assessed using the more into my job than I am getting out of my job) to 7 (I am much Work Intensity Scale developed by Brown and Leigh (1996). This more likely to be getting more from my job than I put into my job). measure includes the following five items: (a) “When there’s a job Conscientiousness. Conscientiousness was assessed with the to be done, I devote all my energy to getting it done”; (b) “When 2-item measure drawn from the 10-item Big Five Inventory (TIPI) I work, I do so with intensity”; (c) “I work at my full capacity in created by Gosling, Rentfrow, and Swann (2003). Participants all of my job duties”; (d) “I strive as hard as I can to be successful rated the extent to which they are (a) dependable, self-disciplined, in my work”; and (e) “When I work, I really exert myself to the and (b) disorganized, careless (reverse scored) on a 5-point scale fullest.” Participants indicated their response to each item on a ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Consis- 7-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly tent with evidence reported in previous research (e.g., Gosling et agree). Responses to the five items were averaged to create an al., 2003), the correlation between the two items was .49. Tenure. In each of the analyses (for both samples), employee overall measure of work effort (Sample 1’s Cronbach’s ␣ϭ.92, tenure (measured in terms of years employed at their current firm) Sample 2’s Cronbach’s ␣ϭ.91). was included as a control variable. Affective commitment. Affective commitment was assessed Employment status. In Sample 2, whether participants were using items drawn from the Organizational Commitment Scale full-time or part-time workers in their organizations were con- developed by Allen and Meyer (1996). Specifically, the four items trolled for using a dummy variable (0 ϭ full time;1ϭ part time). that loaded most heavily on the affective commitment factor were All participants in Sample 1 were full-time employees. used (see Allen & Meyer, 1990, p. 6): (a) “I feel like ‘part of the family’ at my organization”; (b) “This organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me”; (c) “I do not feel ‘emotionally Results attached’ to this organization” (reverse scored); and (d) “I feel a strong sense of belonging to my organization.” Participants re- Means, standard deviations, and correlations among variables sponded to each of these items on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 are reported in Table 3 (Sample 1) and Table 4 (Sample 2). (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Responses to the four Guilt-proneness and work effort. To test our first hypoth- items were averaged to create an overall measure of affective esis that guilt-proneness would be positively related to work effort, organizational commitment (Sample 1’s ␣ϭ.85, and Sample 2’s we conducted a hierarchical linear regression with the control variables entered on the first step and our measure of guilt- ␣ϭ.93). proneness entered on the second step. In support of our hypothesis, Control variables. In testing the hypotheses, several poten- the results (see Model 4 in Table 5 and in Table 6) indicate that tial alternative accounts of ther proposed relationships between guilt-proneness was positively related to work effort among par- guilt-proneness, work effort, and affective organizational commit- ticipants from both Sample 1 (␤ϭ.30), t(159) ϭ 3.75, p Ͻ .001, ment were addressed. Greater latitude was available to lengthen and Sample 2 (␤ϭ.37), t(93) ϭ 3.57, p ϭ .001. No significant the survey for the participants in Sample 2. Thus, for these par- relationship between shame-proneness and work effort emerged in ticipants, employees’ work-status (i.e., full time or part time), Sample 1 (␤ϭϪ.10, ns) or Sample 2 (␤ϭ.00), t(93) ϭ 0.03, p ϭ negative affectivity, positive inequity, and conscientiousness were .98. Consistent with our hypothesis, employees with a strong controlled for. These measures are described in further detail proclivity toward feeling guilt (not shame) had a tendency to work below. harder on their tasks relative to employees who were relatively less Negative affectivity. Negative affectivity was assessed with guilt-prone. the set of negative affect items used in the PANAS (Watson et al., 1988). Participants reported the extent to which they generally feel a variety of negative emotions such as anger. After omitting the 2 We also conducted our analyses using the full 10-item scale, and the “guilty” item, the other nine negative affect items were averaged to results remain materially unchanged. 130 FLYNN AND SCHAUMBERG

Table 3 Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations From Study 2 (Sample 1)

Variable M SD 12345

1. Guilt-proneness 4.23 0.48 — — ءءShame-proneness 2.61 0.66 .35 .2 3. Affective commitment 5.23 1.31 .13 Ϫ.07 — — ءء24. 02. ءءWork effort 6.22 0.91 .26 .4 5. Tenure 7.06 7.21 .04 Ϫ.07 Ϫ.01 Ϫ.11 —

Note. N ϭ 163 (pairwise deletion). .p Ͻ .01 ءء

Guilt-proneness and affective commitment. Our second bootstrap resamples) and so did not include zero. Therefore, we hypothesis that guilt-proneness and affective commitment are pos- can conclude that work effort mediated the relationship between itively related was also supported. Results (see Model 1 in Table guilt-proneness and affective commitment for Sample 1. 5 and in Table 6) show a significant and positive relationship The same mediation pattern emerged in Sample 2. The indirect between guilt-proneness and affective commitment for both Sam- effect of guilt-proneness on affective commitment through work ple 1 (␤ϭ.17), t(159) ϭ 2.05, p ϭ .042, and Sample 2 (␤ϭ.23), effort was .30, and the 95% bias-corrected confidence interval t(93) ϭ 2.24, p ϭ .027. In contrast, shame-proneness showed no ranged from .06 to .69. Again, as this confidence interval did not significant association with affective commitment in either Sample include zero, we can conclude that work effort significantly me- 1(␤ϭϪ.13), t(159) ϭϪ1.53, p ϭ .13, or Sample 2 (␤ϭ.16), diated the relationship between guilt-proneness and affective or- t(93) ϭ 1.57, p ϭ 12. Once again, higher levels of guilt-proneness ganizational commitment for Sample 2. (but not shame-proneness) were associated with higher levels of affective commitment. Discussion Work effort and affective commitment. To test our third hypothesis that work effort would be positively related to affective Who is likely to develop a positive affinity for their organiza- organizational commitment, we regressed our measure of affective tion—someone who is prone to experience positive affect or organizational commitment on the control variables (entered on someone who is prone to experience negative affect? Intuition the first step) and on work effort (entered on the second step). suggests it is the former rather than the latter, and research appears Results (see Model 2 in Table 5 and in Table 6) from both Sample to confirm the intuition (e.g., Cropanzano et al., 1993). Neverthe- 1(␤ϭ.24), t(159) ϭ 3.08, p ϭ .002, and Sample 2 (␤ϭ.36), less, we propose that some components of negative affectivity, t(94) ϭ 3.81, p Ͻ.001, indicate that the more effort individuals namely, the personality construct of guilt-proneness, may relate exerted on their work-related tasks, the stronger their feeling of positively to employees’ sense of psychological attachment to the affective organizational commitment. firm. We suggest this relationship can be explained by psycholog- The mediating role of work effort on the guilt–affective ical justification—guilt-prone people tend to work harder than commitment link. We again used the bootstrapping method to those who are less guilt-prone, and they rationalize this extra task test our fourth hypothesis that work effort mediates the relation- effort by strengthening their feelings of commitment to their ship between guilt-proneness and affective commitment (see employer. Consistent with this view, we found evidence that Preacher & Hayes, 2004; Shrout & Bolger, 2002). In Sample 1, the individual work effort mediated the relationship between guilt- coefficient for the indirect effect of guilt-proneness on affective proneness and affective organizational commitment. commitment through perceived work effort was .17, and the 95% Theoretical implications. The positive association between bias-corrected confidence interval ranged from .004 to .40 (1,000 guilt-proneness and affective organizational commitment indicates

Table 4 Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations From Study 2 (Sample 2)

Variable M SD 123456789

1. Guilt-proneness 4.01 0.61 — — ءءShame-proneness 2.89 0.10 .40 .2 — 08. ءءAffective commitment 4.50 1.80 .26 .3 — ء24. †17. ءءWork effort 5.90 0.88 .44 .4 — †18. ءءTenure .17† .13 .27 .5 — 02. ءϪ.19 ءء31. ءPositive inequity 2.82 1.33 .02 Ϫ.20 .6 — Ϫ.01 12. ءءϪ.07 Ϫ.01 .32 ءConscientiousness 4.26 0.76 .24 .7 — ءءϪ.06 Ϫ.18† Ϫ.18† Ϫ.33 ءءϪ.26 ءءNegative affect 1.75 0.66 Ϫ.10 .26 .8 9. Employment status .17 0.38 .19† .07 Ϫ.05 .13 Ϫ.10 .02 .15 .06 —

Note. N ϭ 111 (pairwise deletion). .p Ͻ .01 ءء .p Ͻ .05 ء .p Ͻ .10 † GUILT-PRONENESS AND AFFECTIVE COMMITMENT 131

Table 5 Results of Regression Analysis Predicting Affective Commitment and Work Effort From Study 2 (Sample 1)

Affective commitment Work effort

Predictor variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5

Tenure Ϫ.03 .01 Ϫ.00 Ϫ.13† Ϫ.13† ء21. ءءWork effort .24 ءAffective commitment .20 Shame-proneness Ϫ.13 Ϫ.11 Ϫ.10 Ϫ.07 ءء27. ءء30. 11. ءءGuilt-proneness .17 FR2 FR2 FR2 FR2 FR2 11. ءء5.91 08. ءء5.42 05. ء2.99 04. ءء4.76 01. ء1.65

Note. N ϭ 163 (listwise deletion). R2 refers to adjusted R2. .p Ͻ .01 ءء .p Ͻ .05 ء .p Ͻ .10 † that guilt may be a critical motivational force in everyday organi- exception to this seeming rule, or whether it is one of many zational life, binding employees to their employers through an aversive psychological states that can bolster an employee’s com- investment of extra effort. Although guilt is often described as a mitment to the firm. If it turns out that guilt is indeed unique as a painful and aversive psychological state, several studies by clinical form of negative affect that can facilitate positive forms of com- and social psychologists highlight its useful functions (Baumeister, mitment, then researchers in organizational behavior will be curi- Stillwell, & Heatherton, 1994). For example, guilt-prone individ- ous to figure out what makes guilt so special. uals are likely to suppress anger and blame to maintain social Beyond the special qualities of guilt, researchers who study the harmony (Tangney et al., 1992). Furthermore, they tend to exhibit role of affective dispositions in the workplace may be interested in higher levels of helping—equivalent to those levels driven by whether other components of the general negative affectivity con- positive mood (see Basil, Ridgway, & Basil, 2008; Cunningham, struct are unique. For example, previous research suggests that Steinberg, & Grev, 1980). Building on this perspective, we suggest negative emotions serve to undermine social bonds (e.g., Brief & that the adaptive functions of guilt may also appear in the work- Weiss, 2002). Although this link would appear to hold across most place—promoting increased work effort and affective commit- forms of negative affectivity, certain exceptions may exist. For ment. example, fear has been shown to increase concern for relatedness More generally, the positive influence of guilt on important in the form of collective voice, presumably because people find employee outcomes challenges the view that negative personality both comfort and strength in numbers (Freeman & Medoff, 1984). traits and psychological states impair employee success in the Other exceptions to the implicit rule that negative personality traits workplace (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Brief & Weiss, 2002; Staw & and psychological states impair employee outcomes might also Barsade, 1993). To be clear, our findings do not contradict the exist and would be worth identifying in future studies. sentiment that happier employees tend to be more highly commit- Practical implications. In the present research, we link guilt- ted. Instead, they imply that this adage may be too narrow in focus. proneness to a critical employee outcome—affective organiza- Further research is needed to determine whether guilt is an isolated tional commitment. The effects of guilt-proneness are consistent

Table 6 Results of Regression Analysis Predicting Affective Commitment and Work Effort From Study 2 (Sample 2)

Affective commitment Work effort

Predictor variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5

06. 11. †16. ء19. ءTenure .19 ءءϪ.18 Ϫ.26 ءء35. ءء33. ءءPositive inequity .30 ءء25. ءConscientiousness Ϫ.10 Ϫ.17† Ϫ.16† .22 12. 04. ءءϪ.26 ءϪ.22 ءNegative affect Ϫ.24 Employment status Ϫ.12 Ϫ.08 Ϫ.12 .02 .05 ءء28. ءءWork effort .36 ءءAffective commitment .29 Shame-proneness .16 .16 .00 Ϫ.04 ءء30. ءء37. 12. ءGuilt-proneness .23 FR2 FR2 FR2 FR2 FR2 28. ءء5.97 23. ءء5.27 31. ءء6.59 28. ءء7.31 26. ءء5.93

Note. N ϭ 111 (listwise deletion). R2 refers to adjusted R2. .p Ͻ .01 ءء .p Ͻ .05 ء .p Ͻ .10 † 132 FLYNN AND SCHAUMBERG across studies: The tendency to experience guilt is positively undermine commitment). Third, the consistent results drawn from related to individual task effort, which in turn is positively related our laboratory study directly allay some of these concerns. Nev- to feelings of attachment to the firm. On the basis of these results, ertheless, future field research could benefit from assessing guilt- we propose that the personality construct of guilt-proneness may proneness, work effort, and affective commitment through multi- be of interest to managers in organizations, although its potential ple means and independent perspectives. value seems uncertain. On one hand, if information about each One question for future research is whether another variable can prospective employee’s disposition toward guilt was available, account for the influence of guilt-proneness on affective commit- hiring managers might be in a better position to select employees ment. We included several control variables in the analyses of our who are harder working and more highly committed. Furthermore, field data that might play this role (e.g., conscientiousness, positive one might suspect that those employee outcomes associated with inequity), but other variables would be worth exploring in the higher levels of commitment (turnover, absenteeism, organiza- future. For example, guilt-prone individuals may be characterized tional citizenship behavior) could also be associated with higher as having a strong collective orientation (i.e., a high level of levels of guilt-proneness. collectivism and a high need for belongingness) that leads them to On the other hand, the benefits of guilt-proneness may be make personal sacrifices on behalf of group goals (which fuels accompanied by meaningful costs. For example, we find that their attachment to the collective). Along similar lines, perceived guilt-prone employees are more likely to exert higher levels of organizational support may either account for the present results or effort toward completing their assigned tasks, but perhaps these perhaps strengthen them if included as a moderator in our model. same employees go too far in putting forth individual task effort. One might worry that the most guilt-prone employees are also the Conclusion most likely to experience job burnout because their strong motivation to fulfill others’ expectations of their performance leads As a psychological determinant of individual behavior in orga- them to become overcommitted. Furthermore, although we found nizations, guilt-proneness remains underappreciated and under- that guilt-prone employees feel better about their employers, the studied. Such a lack of attention is understandable. It seems present research is silent on whether they feel better about their counterintuitive to suggest that a negative psychological trait can selves. Guilt-prone employees may work harder because they are play a key role in predicting positive employee outcomes. How- concerned about whether their contributions to the group or orga- ever, given a constructive action orientation, highly guilt-prone nization are sufficient. Such concerns may lead guilt-prone em- employees may be more willing than less guilt-prone colleagues to ployees to experience negative psychological effects, such as strive toward achieving their work goals, which in turn prompts stress, low self-esteem, and dejection. With this idea in mind, them to develop a strong sense of affective organizational com- managers in organizations might be cautious in interpreting these mitment. Indeed, we find evidence that people who are prone to results: Guilt-prone employees’ resilience and allegiance may experience guilt tend to be harder working and, as a result, more come at a steep price. highly committed to the firm. A clear practical implication that emerges from these results is for managers to reconsider their aversion to negative affectivity. References Our findings indicate that negative affectivity can have a bright Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of side, but the type of negative affectivity that is beneficial may be affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. highly specific. Previous research might have overlooked this Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1–18. potential benefit because the majority of studies in this area focus Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1996). Affective, continuence, and normative on broad personality constructs, such as negative affectivity and commitment to the organization: An examination of construct validity. neuroticism. Managers may be similarly inclined to think about Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49, 252–276. negative affectivity in broad terms, but this tendency may also lead Aronson, E., & Mills, J. (1959). The effect of severity of initiation on liking them to overlook some meaningful connections between particular for a group. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 59, 177–181. forms of negative affectivity and critical employee outcomes. Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big-Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, Going forward, managers should be more precise in judging the 1–26. impact of negative affectivity, lest they fail to harness the potential Basil, D. Z., Ridgway, N. M., & Basil, M. E. (2008). Guilt and giving: A benefits of guilt-proneness. process model of empathy and efficacy. Psychology and Marketing, 25, Limitations and directions for future research. Whereas 1–23. our findings generally support our predictions, the present studies Baumeister, R. F., Stillwell, A. M., & Heatherton, T. F. (1994). Guilt: An are marked by a few limitations that should be addressed in future interpersonal approach. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 243–267. research. One area of concern is the use of a single survey to Baumeister, R. F., Stillwell, A. M., & Heatherton, T. F. (1995). Personal capture our independent, mediating, and dependent variables in narratives about guilt: Role in action control and interpersonal relation- Study 2. In cases like this, common method bias can often distort ships. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17, 173–198. the interpretation of results (e.g., Doty & Glick, 1998). However, Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 1–62). New York, NY: such bias seems unlikely to serve as an alternative explanation for Academic Press. these findings for several reasons. First, there was little evidence of Brief, A. P., & Weiss, H. M. (2002). Organizational behavior: Affect in the multicollinearity in our data. Second, the intuitive link most re- workplace. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 279–307. spondents would make between their self-reported emotions and Brockner, J., Davy, J., & Carter, C. (1985). Layoffs, self-esteem, and their feelings of affective commitment would run counter to our survivor guilt: Motivational, affective, and attitudinal consequences. hypothesis (i.e., they would assume that negative affect would Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36, 229–244. GUILT-PRONENESS AND AFFECTIVE COMMITMENT 133

Brown, S. P., & Leigh, T. W. (1996). A new look at psychological climate Niedenthal, P. M., Tangney, J. P., & Gavanski, I. (1994). If only I weren” and its relationships to job involvement, effort, and performance. Jour- versus if only I hadn’t: Distinguishing shame and guilt in counterfactual nal of Applied Psychology, 81, 358–368. thinking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 585–595. Covert, M. V., Tangney, J. P., Maddux, J. E., & Heleno, N. M. (2003). O’Reilly, C. A., & Caldwell, D. F. (1980). Job choice: The impact of Shame-proneness, guilt-proneness and interpersonal problem solving: A intrinsic and extrinsic factors on subsequent satisfaction and commit- social cognitive analysis. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 22, ment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 559–565. 1–12. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for Cropanzano, R., James, K., & Konovsky, M. A. (1993). Dispositional estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Re- affectivity as a predictor of work attitudes and job performance. Journal search Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 717–731. of Organizational Behavior, 14, 595–606. Salancik, G. R. (1977). Commitment and the control of organizational Cunningham, M. R., Steinberg, J., & Grev, R. (1980). Wanting to and behavior and belief. In B. M. Staw & G. R. Salancik (Eds.), New having to help: Separate motivations for positive mood and guilt- directions in organizational behavior (pp. 1–95). Chicago, IL: St. Clair induced helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, Press. 181–192. Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing Doty, D. H., & Glick, W. H. (1998). Common method bias: Does common approah to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quar- method variance really bias results? Organizational Research Methods, terly, 23, 224–253. 1, 374–406. Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and non- Ekman, P. (1992). An arugment for basic emotions. Cognition & Emotion, experimental studies: New procedures and recommedations. Psycholog- 6, 169–200. ical Methods, 7, 422–445. Festinger, L. (1964). Conflict, decision, and dissonance. Stanford, CA: Sprecher, S. (1986). The relation between inequity and emotions in close Stanford University Press. relationships. Social Psychology Quarterly, 49, 309–321. Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced Staw, B. M. (1974). Attitudinal and behavioral consequences of changing compliance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58, 203–210. a major organizational reward: A natural field experiment. Journal of Fredrickson, B. L., Tugade, M. M., Waugh, C. E., & Larkin, G. R. (2003). Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 742–751. What good are positive emotions in crisis? A prospective study on Staw, B. M. (1984). Organizational behavior: A review and reformulation resilience and emotions following the terrorist attacks on the United of the field’s outcome variables. Annual Review of Psychology, 35, States on September 11, 2001. Journal of Personality and Social Psy- 627–666. chology, 84, 367–376. Staw, B., & Barsade, S. (1993). Affect and managerial performance: A test Freeman, R. B., & Medoff, J. L. (1984). What do unions do? New York, of the sadder-but-wiser vs. happier-and-smarter hypotheses. Administra- NY: Basic Books. tive Science Quarterly, 38, 304–331. Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B. (2003). A very brief Tangney, J. P. (1990). Assessing individual differences in proneness to measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in shame and guilt: Development of the Self-Conscious Affect and Attri- Personality, 37, 504–528. bution Inventory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, Harder, D. W., & Lewis, S. J. (1987). The assessment of shame and guilt. 102–111. In J. N. Butcher & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Advances in personality Tangney, J. P., & Dearing, R. L. (2002). Shame and guilt. New York, NY: assessment (Vol. 6, pp. 89–114). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Guilford Press. Associates. Tangney, J. P., Wagner, P., Fletcher, C., & Gramzow, R. (1992). Shamed Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times: Teachers’ into anger? The relation of shame and guilt to anger and self-reported work and culture in the postmodern age. New York, NY: Teachers aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 669–675. College Press. Tanguey, J. E., Wagner, P. E., Hill-Barlow, D., Marschall, D. E., & Horney, K. (1937). The neurotic personality of our time. New York, NY: Gramzow, R. (1996). Relation of shame and guilt to constructive versus W. W. Norton and Company. destructive responses to anger across the lifespan. Journal of Personality Lewis, H. B. (1971). Shame and guilt in neurosis. New York, NY: and Social Psychology, 70, 797–809. International Universities Press. Tracy, J. L., & Robbins, R. W. (2006). Appraisal antecedents of shame and Matthieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the guilt: Support for a theoretical model. Personality and Social Psychol- antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commit- ogy Bulletin, 32, 1339–1351. ment. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 171–194. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and vali- Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization dation of the brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070. 1, 61–90. Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1982). Employee- Received June 17, 2010 organizational linkages: The psychology of commitment, absenteeism, Revision received April 27, 2011 and turnover. New York, NY: Academic Press. Accepted May 3, 2011 Ⅲ