Religious Orientation, Guilt, Confession, and Forgiveness Katheryn Rhoads Meek

Home , Forgiveness

Digital Commons @ George Fox University Faculty Publications - Grad School of Clinical Graduate School of Clinical Psychology Psychology

1995 Religious Orientation, Guilt, Confession, and Forgiveness Katheryn Rhoads Meek

Jeanne S. Albright

Mark R. McMinn George Fox University, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/gscp_fac Part of the Psychology Commons

Recommended Citation Meek, Katheryn Rhoads; Albright, Jeanne S.; and McMinn, Mark R., "Religious Orientation, Guilt, Confession, and Forgiveness" (1995). Faculty Publications - Grad School of Clinical Psychology. Paper 176. http://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/gscp_fac/176

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School of Clinical Psychology at Digital Commons @ George Fox University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications - Grad School of Clinical Psychology by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ George Fox University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Religious Orientation, Guilt, Confession, and Forgiveness

KATHERYN RHOADS MEEK and JEANNE S. ALBRIGHT Loyola University of Chicago MARK R. McMINN Wheaton College

Religious orientation and psychological func- 1970; Richards, Smith, & Davis, 1989). tioning were investigated in an analog The most consistent finding of “good religion” study with 83 participants. After completing has to do with Allport and Ross’s (1967) work on the Religious Orientation Scale (Allport & religious orientation, in which they make a distinc- Ross, 1967), participants read a continuous tion between intrinsically and extrinsically religious narrative with three scenarios in which they individuals. This differentiation has proven useful in first committed a dishonest act, and then felt a number of studies. Several studies propose that compelled to confess what they had done. intrinsics enjoy a healthier religious experience than The final scenario contained a manipulation extrinsics (Bergin, 1991; Bergin, Masters, & Richards, of grace or no-grace, in which half of the 1987; Donahue, 1985; Watson, Morris, Foster, & participants were forgiven for their act and Hood, 1986; Watson, Hood, & Morris, 1985; Watson, half were not. Following each scenario, par- Morris, & Hood, 1988) as they tend to “find their ticipants were tested for feelings of guilt and master motive in religion” (Allport & Ross, 1967, p. related behavioral and emotional respons- 434), as compared to extrinsics who appear to eval- es. Intrinsically religious participants were uate their religious beliefs in light of their other more prone to guilt, more likely to confess needs—security, social contacts, self-justification, etc. their wrongdoing, and more likely to for- Though guilt has been theoretically linked to give themselves than extrinsically religious psychological disturbance, the relationships among subjects. Guilt was found to have a médiat- religion, guilt, and disturbance have been debated ing effect between intrinsic religiousness and vigorously. Guilt has sometimes been perceived as a some, but not all, outcome variables. The maladaptive and self-defeating emotion accompany- potentially beneficial consequences of guilt ing religious faith (Ellis, I960), and sometimes as an are discussed. emotion that reflects empathy for others and leads to useful reparative actions (Mowrer & n 1980 Bergin (1980b) suggested that some Veszelovszky, 1980; Tangney, 1991). This distinction aspects of religious beliefs may contribute to was highlighted in the 1980 debate among Allen mental health, and that psychologists need to Bergin (1980a, 1980b), Albert Ellis (1980), and Gary I Walls (1980) in theJournal of Consulting and Clint- empirically evaluate these facets of religion (Bergin, 1980a). Several studies suggest there is in cal Psychology. In his description of theistic values, fact what can appropriately be termed “good reli- Bergin (1980a) included taking responsibility and gion” that does not distract from mental health, and providing restitution for one’s actions, and accepting perhaps contributes to it (Allport & Ross, 1967;“guilt, suffering, and contrition as keys to change” Bergin, 1983, 1991; Bergin, Masters, & Richards, (p. 100). Ellis (1980) responded that while one 1987; Bergin, Stinchfield, Gaskin, Masters, & Sulli- should take responsibility for harmful and immoral van, 1988; Lindenthal, Myers, Pepper, & Stern, acts, feelings of guilt should be minimized. Ellis defined guilt as “self-damnation in addition to denouncing one’s acts” (p. 636). Elsewhere, Ellis has Requests for reprints may be sent to Katheryn Rhoads Meek, MA, Department of Psychology, Wheaton College, Wheaton, described the guilt resulting from the concept of sin IL 60187. as “the direct and indirect cause of virtually all neu-

190 MEEK, ALBRIGHT a n d McMINN 191 rotic disturbance” (Ellis, I960, p. 192). gious orientation, experiences of guilt and forgive- An interesting finding reported by Richards ness, and self-reported well-being. We hypothesized (1991) is that intrinsically religious participants score that intrinsically religious participants will be more higher on a guilt-proneness scale than extrinsic par-likely than extrinsically religious participants to feel ticipants. However, despite being more prone toguilt and to have more reparative responses to their guilt feelings, intrinsics do not report more depres-transgressions. sion or less existential well-being than other partici- Method pants. Similarly, Tangney and her colleagues have reported several studies suggesting that guilt-prone- Participants ness, unlike shame-proneness, is unrelated to psy- Participants in the study were 64 women and 44 chological maladjustment (Burggraf & Tangney, men recruited at Loyola University of Chicago. Of 1990; Gramzow & Tangney, 1992; Tangney, 1991; the 108 participants, 53 were recruited from a cam- Tangney, Wagner, Burggraf, Gramzow, & Fletcher, pus chapter of InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, and 1991; Tangney, Wagner, & Gramzow, 1992). 55 from undergraduate psychology classes. The Thus, guilt, for the intrinsically religious, is notInterVarsity students participated on a voluntary always a negative phenomenon. For example, whenbasis and the undergraduate students received class Israel’s King David committed adultery and murder, credit for their participation. he felt deep remorse: Manipulation Wash away all my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin. For I know my transgressions, and my sin is always before Participants were informed that the study was me. Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what isdesigned to assess dating and work attitudes of col- evil in your sight, so that you are proved right when youlege populations. After completing an informed con- speak and justified when you judge. (Psalm 51: 2-4) sent form, participants were given a packet of ques- David’s sorrowful remorse led him to marvel at tionnaires and hypothetical scenarios in the God’s grace rather than fall into a state of excessive following order: a measure of religious orientation, a self-deprecation. He later concluded: “Cleanse me narrative description of a hypothetical scenario, a set with hyssop, and I will be clean; wash me, and I of Likert-scale items on which participants rated will be whiter than snow” (Psalm 51:7). their likely response to scenario, a second hypothet- Christian authors have used these biblical exam- ical scenario, a second set of Likert-scale items, a pies to note a positive role for remorse or certainthird hypothetical scenario, and a third set of Likert- forms of guilt. Narramore (1984) distinguishes scale items. between constructive sorrow, a remorseful The three hypothetical scenarios developed for response leading to confession and reconciliation,this study comprise the experimental manipulation. and guilt, a self-focused response that damages All participants received identical scripts for the first one’s self-image. Richards (1991) exhorts counselors two scenarios, except that gender references were to make a similar distinction in their work with reli- matched with the gender of the participants. The giously devout students: first scenario was designed to induce feelings of guilt by creating a situation in which the person Thus, although religiously devout students may be more reads that he/she chose to lie to his/her boss by prone to guilt, counselors should not assume that this is dysfunctional for them. In their desire to help clients feel calling in sick in order to go on a date with a person better, practitioners have at times indiscriminately attempt- he/she has been interested in for 2 months. The sec- ed to neutralize clients’ guilt without giving sufficient con- ond scenario added information to the first, and was sidération to whether the guilt was an appropriate emo- designed to increase feelings of guilt by hypotheti- tional response to actual wrongdoings, (p. 194) cally placing the person at the scene of the date, a Such divergent conclusions, coupled withparty, in which he or she runs into a co-worker who Bergin’s (1980a) suggestion that psychologists con-is close to the boss. This co-worker informs the per- duct empirical investigations on the effects of reli- son that he/she has been working extra hours in gious beliefs, warrant further investigation concern-order to have this day off and naturally assumes that ing the effects of religious orientation and guilt onthe person has done the same. The scenario ends emotions and behaviors. The present study was with the person hypothetically waking up the day designed to explore the relationship between reli after and realizing that there is no alternative but to 192 RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION AND GUILT

.call the boss and confess the untruth 4. How likely are you to call back and tell Participants were randomly assigned to one of the truth? - - two conditions for the third scenario. Half the partie 5. How likely is it that you would do this ipants were given a “grace” scenario in which they again in the future? , ,hypothetically call their boss to confess, apologize 6. How likely are you to feel good about offer various forms of compensation, and ask for getting the day off? - - forgiveness. In this “grace” scenario the boss is read After reading the second scenario, participants ily understanding and forgiving, demanding noresponded to a similar set of questions, rated on the compensation except a promise to come to him orsame Likert-scale format as the first set of questions: her in the future first if a similar situation should 1. How likely are you to feel guilty about arise. The other half of the participants were given a calling in sick? no-grace” scenario in which they call their boss “and 2. How likely are you to call your boss and - - offer the same confession as the first group. Howev confess the truth? , er, in this scenario the boss is harsh, overtly angry 3. How likely are you to repeat this action in and unforgiving. The “no-grace” scenario ends with the future? the boss telling the worker that if he or she (the 4. How likely are you to feel good about ) ) boss) weren’t so short staffed, he or she (the worker getting the day off? .would definitely be fired After the final scenario, participants responded to - - After reading and completing the packet, par the following questions on a Likert scale where 1 is -ticipants were debriefed and thanked for their par “to a very small extent” and 10 is “to a very great ticipation. extent”: 1. To what extent do you feel better about Instruments calling? , The Religious Orientation Scale (Allport & Ross 2. To what extent do you feel happy about was used to measure intrinsic and extrinsic 1967) calling? religiousness. Those scoring above the median on 3. To what extent are you prone to repeating the intrinsic scale and below the median on the this action? - extrinsic scale were classified as intrinsic. Those scor 4. To what extent do you feel good about ing above the median on the extrinsic scale and the date? - below the median on the intrinsic scale were classi 5. To what extent do you feel good about ?were 27) getting an extra day off = מ( fied as Extrinsic. Some participants dropped from the analysis because they either 6. To what extent do you feel guilty? scored above the median on both the intrinsic and 7. To what extent do you feel forgiven? - - extrinsic scales (what Allport and Ross called proreli 8. To what extent do you forgive yourself? giousness) or because they scored below the median 9. To what extent do you feel that telling the on both scales (nonreligious), leaving 42 intrinsically truth is enough for you to go back to . .religious and 41 extrinsically religious participants work with a clean conscience? - - Likert-type scales were used after each hypothet 10. To what extent to you feel that God has - ical scenario to assess whether intrinsics and extrin forgiven you? - sics differ in perceptions of guilt, grace, and forgive ness, and likelihood of committing and repeating Analysis the wrongful act. Participants indicated their First, three 2x3 split-plot Analyses of Variance , ,response to each statement on 10-point Likert scales ( a n o v a s) were computed to investigate the effects of where 1 is “not at all likely” and 10 is “extremely religious orientation on self-reported emotions and likely.” After the first scenario, they answered the predicted behaviors. Religious orientation was the :following questions between-subjects and level of information (scenario scenario 3) was the repeated-measures־־How likely are you to feel guilty about1. 1-scenario 2 ?calling in sick factor. To control for the increased probability of ?How likely are to to have called in sick2. Type I error resulting from multiple hypothesis tests, How likely are you to have talked to your 3. we selected a conservative alpha level of .01. Sec- boss earlier and tried to get the day off? ond, to assess likelihood of confession, another MEEK, ALBRIGHT a n d McMINN 193

Table 1 Mean Ratings and Standard Deviations on Likert-Scale Items by Religious Orientation Following Each of the Three Scenarios

Scenario 1 Scenarie 2 Scenario 3 Items I E I E I E Guilt M 9.41 7.66 9.81 8.66 7.38 6.83 SD 1.08 2.60 0.55 1.65 3.07 2.68 n 42 41 42 41 42 41 Likelihood of committing similar act in the future M 2.07 3.59 1.55 2.73 1.64 2.83 SD 1.7 6 2.39 1.33 1.88 1.53 2.31 n 42 41 42 41 42 41 Feeling good about getting day off M 2.81 4.37 1.95 3.17 2.02 3.63 SD 2.93 3.05 2.01 2.48 1.99 2.67 n 42 41 42 41 42 41 Likelihood of confessing action M 6.19 3.02 7.52 5.32 SD 3.03 2.25 2.56 2.56 n 42 41 42 41

Note. “I” indicates intrinsic religious orientation, Έ ” indicates extrinsic orientation. Scores range from 1 to 10 with higher scores reflecting higher degrees of guilt, likelihood of confessing and repeating wrongful act, and likelihood of feeling good about the day off.

split-plota n o v a was computed with religious orien- When self-reported guilt was used as the tation as one factor and level of information (see-dependent variable (see Table 1), we found that nario 1-scenario 2) as the repeated-measures factor. intrinsics reported higher levels of guilt than extrin- Third, to assess the effects of the scenarios, additional sics, F (1,81) = 13-3, p < •001. There was also a 2x2 Analyses of Variance( a n o v a s) were performed main effect for level of information,F (2,80) = 29.2, with religious orientation (intrinsic-extrinsic) as onep < .001, as all participants increased their guilt rat- factor and case outcome (grace-no grace) as the ings after the second scenario (talking to co- other. Again, a conservative alpha level of .01 was worker), t (82) = 4.1, p < .001, and decreased their used to control for the inflated likelihood of Type guilt I ratings after the third scenario (calling to con- error that comes with multiple hypothesis tests. fess act), t (81) = 6.5, p < .001. Fourth, we used correlations and multiple regression When likelihood of committing a similar act in to determine if guilt plays a mediating role in the the future was the dependent variable (see Table 1), relationship between intrinsic religiousness and vari-we found a significant main effect for religious orien- ous outcome measures. tation, F (1,81) = 17.0, p < .001, with intrinsics reporting less likelihood of repeating the behavior than Results extrinsics (intrinsics also reported less likelihood of Several interesting main effects emerged when calling in sick in the first place,t (80) = 3.4,p < .005. the 2 x3 split-plota n o v a s were used to evaluate self- There was also a main effect for level of information, reported emotions and predicted behavior for intrin-F (2,80) = 5.8, p < .005, as all participants reported sically- and extrinsically-religious participants. Nodecreasing their likelihood of calling in sick in the significant interaction effects were observed. future after reading the second scenario. 194 RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION AND GUILT

T able 2 Means and Standard Deviations for Final-Scenario Forgiveness Items in Which Significant Differences Were Observed Between Intrinsic and Extrinsic Participants

Items Intrinsics Extrinsics

Likelihood of forgiving self** M 6.98 5.15 SD 2.50 2.35 n 42 41 Likelihood of feeling forgiven by God*** M 9.38 7.12 SD 1.04 3.00 n 42 41

** p < .01 *** p < .001

When using participants’ likely feelings about selves as more likely to confess to their boss after getting the day off as a dependent variable (see the first and second scenarios than extrinsics, F Table 1), we found a main effect for religious orien- (1,81) = 26.7, p < .001. All participants, regardless of tation, F (1,81) = 9.8,p < .005, with extrinsics report- religious orientation, reported themselves as more ing themselves likely to feel better about having the likely to confess their wrong after the second see- day off than intrinsics. Again, there was also a main nario than after the first, F (1,81) = 55.0,p < .001. No effect for level of information, F (2,80) = p 8.8, < significant interactions were found. .001, with participants reporting themselves likely to In order to assess reported likelihood of confes- feel worse about getting the day off after talking to sion, forgiveness, and the emotional consequences of the co-worker (Scenario 2). the scenarios, several additional 2x2 Analyses of Thus, as participants received more informationVariance ( a n o v a s) were performed with religious ori- they reported themselves likely to experience entation (intrinsic-extrinsic) as one factor and case greater feelings of guilt until they were told they outcome (grace-no grace) as the other. Several differ- confessed their misdeed, at which point the guilt enees between intrinsics and extrinsics were noted. decreased. Similarly, participants reported less likeli- Following the last scenario, intrinsics expressed a ־ (hood of repeating the offense, and less probabilitygreater likelihood of forgiving themselves, F (1,79 of feeling satisfaction with getting the day off after 11.7, p < .005, and were more inclined than extrin- reading the information in Scenario 2. Intrinsics sics to report the likelihood of feeling forgiven by reported more likelihood of guilt, less likelihood of God, F (1,79) = 23.1, p < .001 (see Table 2). No repeating the offense, and less probable satisfaction main effects for case outcome and no significant with getting the day off than extrinsics. interactions between religious orientation and out- We were also interested in knowing if partici- come of the scenario were found. pants would report themselves as likely to confess Differences were also observed on the reported their action after the first and second scenarios (see feelings after calling the boss in Scenario 3· Those in Table 1). This could not be assessed after the third the grace condition reported that they would likely scenario because confessing was given as part offeel better that they had called than those in the no- the scenario. A 2x2 a n o v a was computed for per- grace condition, F (1,79) = 79.0,p < .001. In addi- ceived likelihood of confession (as the dependenttion, intrinsics reported feeling better about calling variable) with religious orientation as one factor andthan extrinsics, F (1,79) = 15.7,p < .001. Extrinsics level of information (Scenario 1-Scenario 2) as the reported being more likely to feel good about the repeated-measures factor. Intrinsics reported them date than intrinsics, F (1,79) = 36.8,p < .001. There MEEK, ALBRIGHT a n d McMINN 195

T able 3 Correlations of Selected Variables With Intrinsic Religiousness, Guilt, and Intrinsic Religious- ness After Partialling Out Variance Associated With Guilt

Intrinsic Religiousness after Intrinsic partialling Dependent Variable Religiousness Guilt out guilt

TIME 1 Feel good about -.353** -.445** getting day off c \ * 1 1 1 J\ ¿־k) H \ l 00 Likelihood of -.4 1 4 ” -.415** \ doing this again in the future

ΉΜΕ 2 0 5 0.- 47** •־Feel good about 3-. *25 5 getting day off

* p< . 05 ** p < .01 was no interaction between religious orientation andmediated the effects of intrinsic religiousness. How- case outcome for feelings about the date. ever, guilt partially mediated the relationship Finally, we were interested in knowing if guilt between intrinsic religiousness and the likelihood of mediates the relationship between intrinsic religious- repeating the offense, reported after scenario 1 ness and the self-reported dependent variables (like- (Guilt: t = 2.6, p < .05; Intrinsicness:t = 2.6, p < lihood of confessing, feelings of enjoying the date,.05—see Table 3). and so on). We used a method of identifying mediating variables adapted from that described by Discussion Baron and Kenny (1986). First, we determined This study supports Richards’ (1991) somewhat which Likert-scale dependent variables were signifi- surprising report that intrinsically religious individu- cantly correlated with intrinsic religiousness. Second, als are more prone to guilt than extrinsically reli- we determined if there was a significant correlation gious individuals. A reflexive interpretation of between self-reported guilt and intrinsic religious- Richards’ findings and these data might be that ness. If both these correlations were significant, we intrinsically religious people are more guilt-prone entered guilt and intrinsic religiousness (in that and therefore more likely to disturb themselves with order) into a hierarchical multiple regression equa- self-condemning thoughts and beliefs (Ellis, I960, tion attempting to predict scores on the dependent1971, 1983, 1992a, 1992b). However, these results variable. If guilt had a significant correlation with the suggest that guilt may play a partially instrumental dependent variable and intrinsic religiousness did role for the intrinsically religious. This is consistent not (after partialling out the variance due to guilt),with Tangney’s (1991) findings that guilt-proneness then guilt was taken to have a mediating effect on is often related to empathy for others and reparative the outcome variable. Using this method, we found actions. Tangney and others (e.g., Wicker, Payne, & guilt to have a significant mediating effect on Morgan, 1983) have noted that guilt and shame are respondents’ feeling good about getting the day offdistinct emotions despite their commonalities. after scenarios 1 (Guilt:t = 3-3, p < •005; Intrinsic- The present study provides evidence that guilt ness: t = 1.7, n s) and 2 (Guilt: t = 4.1, p < .001; among intrinsically religious individuals is not neces- Intrinsicness:t = 0.5, n s ). There were no other sarily destructive. Intrinsically religious participants, dependent variables for which guilt completely with their heightened guilt response, were more 196 RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION AND GUILT likely to forgive themselves and feel forgiven by responses was not measured in this study. It is pos- God, and reported feeling better about calling the sible that the intrinsically and extrinsically religious boss in Scenario 3. Despite their heightened guilt- responded in socially desirable directions based on proneness, intrinsically religious individuals havetheir understanding of the roles of guilt and confes- consistently been found to experience greater emo-sion. In future studies a measure of social desirabili- tional health than their externally religious counter-ty of response style should be included. Third, the parts (Donahue, 1985; Richards, 1991). sampling method was not ideal. In order to get suf- One possible explanation is that stronger internalficient diversity in the sample, two groups were beliefs in self-forgiveness and forgiveness from God used. Those participants from the campus chapter of following confession help protect intrinsics fromInterVarsity Christian Fellowship were perhaps dis- internalizing negative feelings. Extrinsics are less tinct from the general psychology students in ways protected by beliefs of forgiveness and, therefore, other than religious orientation. Researchers who may be more likely to convert their guilt feelings to are able to start with a larger research pool may emotions of depression, anxiety, hostility, and so on.offer more precise findings and interpretations in For the intrinsically religious, feeling forgiven is future studies. Fourth, the measurement of guilt was more related to doing the right thing and less relat- dependent on self-reported responses to Likert-scale ed to the response of others. items. Using an instrument with known reliability Intrinsic religiousness appears to inhibit certainand validity would enhance the generalizability of behaviors and emotions. Intrinsics reported them- the study. One instrument that shows initial promise selves as less likely than extrinsics to have commit- is the Self-Conscious Affect and Attribution Invento- ted the dishonest act, less likely to repeat it in the ry (Tangney, 1990). Finally, it seems likely that guilt future, and less likely to have experienced enjoy-is a multifaceted emotion that will require further ment of the date and the day off. Responses on distinction in the future. Mosher (1966) suggested a most of these variables appear to be due to factors distinction between sex guilt, hostile guilt, and other than, or in addition to, the guilt they reportedmorality-conscience guilt many years ago, but clari- likely to experience. However, guilt played a medi- fying research has not followed his initial report. ating role in causing intrinsics to feel worse about The main contribution of this study is that it adds hypothetically getting the day off. to the growing evidence that some forms of religious- Guilt and religious orientation are also associatedness and guilt are adaptive. Clinicians who discour- with confession. Across all scenarios, intrinsics were age guilt in their clients might be wise to consider the more likely than extrinsics to confess their misdeed. positive behaviors that are associated with guilt This suggests that intrinsics’ confessions may be (McMinn, 1984). Richards (1991) wisely concludes: more related to internal factors, and less influenced Before intervening, counselors need to carefully assess by external events. For the intrinsically religious, itwhether guilt manifested by clients is realistic and poten- may be that violating internal standards leads to a tially functional or irrational and dysfunctional, (p. 194) desire for confession. The emotional and physical benefits of confession (Pennebaker, Hughes, & REFERENCES O’Heeron, 1987) then reinforce the process. It Allport, G. W., & Ross, J. M. (1967). Personal religious ori- should be noted that violating these internal stan- entation and prejudice.Journal of Personality and Social dards also appears to lead to greater feelings of guilt Psychology, 5, 432-443· for the intrinsically religious. However, we see noBaron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-media- evidence here that increased guilt brings about an tor variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.Journal increased likelihood of confession. Rather, guilt is of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182. associated with other factors that lead to confession. Bergin, A. E. (1980a). Psychotherapy and religious values. There are several limitations to this study. First, it Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 48, 95-105. is an analog study where participants described Bergin, A. E. (1980b). Religious and humanistic values: A potential reactions to a hypothetical situation. It reply is to Ellis and Walls.Journal of Consulting and Clinical difficult to know if, in an identical “real life” situa- Psychology, 48, 642-645. tion, they would respond as they reported in thisBergin, A. E. (1983). Religiosity and mental health: A critical study. Additional non-analog studies on this topicréévaluation and meta-analysis.Professional Psychology, are necessary. Second, the social desirability of 14, 170-184. MEEK, ALBRIGHT a n d McMINN 197

Bergin, A. E. (1991). Values and religious issues in psy- Richards, P. S. (1991)· Religious devoutness in college stu- chotherapy and mental health.American Psychologist, 46, dents: Relations with emotional adjustment and psychologi- 394-403. cal separation from parents.Journal of Counseling Psychol- ogy, 38, 189-196. Bergin, A. E., Masters, K. S., & Richards, P. S. (1987). Reli- giousness and mental health reconsidered: A study of an Richards, P. S., Smith, S. A., & Davis, L. F. (1989). Healthy intrinsically religious sample.Journal of Counseling Psy- and unhealthy forms of religiousness manifested by psychology, 34, 197-204. chotherapy clients: An empirical investigation.Journal of Bergin, A. E., Stinchfield, R. D., Gaskin, T. A., Masters, K. Research in Personality, 23, 506-524. S., & Sullivan, C. E. (1988). Religious lifestyle and mental Tangney, J. P. (1990). Assessing individual differences in ־health: An exploratory study.Journal of Counseling Psy proneness to shame and guilt: Development of the self- chology, 35, 91-98. conscious affect and attribution inventory.Journal of Per- Burggraf, S. A., & Tangney, J. P. (1990, June).Shame-prone- sonality and Social Psychology, 59, 102-111. ness, guilt-proneness, and attributional style related to children’s depression. Poster presented at the annual meeting Tangney, J. P. (1991). Moral affect: The good, the bad, and of the American Psychological Society, Dallas. the ugly. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 598-607. Donahue, M. J. (1985). Intrinsic and extrinsic religiousness: Review and meta-analysis.Journal of Personality and Tangney, J. P., Wagner, P. E., Burggraf, S. A., Gramzow, R., Social Psychology, 48, 400-419. & Fletcher, C. (1991, June).Children’sshame-proneness, but Ellis, A. (I960). There is no place for the concept of sin in not guilt-proneness, is related to emotional and behavioral psychotherapy.Journal of Counseling Psychology, 7, 188-192. maladjustment. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Society, Washington, DC. Ellis, A. (1971). The case against religion: A psychothera- pist’s view. New York: Institute for Rational Living. Tangney, J. P., Wagner, P. E., & Gramzow, R. (1992). Prone- ness to shame, proneness to guilt, and psychopathology. Ellis, A. (1980). Psychotherapy and atheistic values: A Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103, 469-478. response to A. E. Bergin’s “Psychotherapy and religious values.”Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 48, Walls, G. B. (1980). Values and psychotherapy: A comment 635-639. on “Psychotherapy and religious values.”Journal of Con- Ellis, A. (1983). The case against religiosity. New York: suiting and Clinical Psychology, 48, 640-641. Institute for Rational-Emotive Therapy. Watson, P. J., Hood, R. W., & Morris, R. J. (1985). Dimen- Ellis, A. (1992a). My current views on rational-emotive ther-sions of religiosity and empathy.Journal of Psychology and apy(r e t) and religiousness.Journal of Rational-Emotive & Christianity, 4, 73-85. Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 10, 37-40. Watson, P. J., Morris, R. J., Foster, J. E., & Hood, R. W. Ellis, A. (1992b). Do I really hold that religiousness is irra- (1986). Religiosity and social desirability.Journal for the tional and equivalent to emotional disturbance?American Scientific Study of Religion, 25, 215-232. Psychologist, 47, 428-429. Watson, P. J., Morris, R. J., & Hood, R. W., Jr. (1988). Sin and Gramzow, R., & Tangney, J. P. (1992). Proneness to shame and the narcissistic personality.Personality and Social Psy- self-functioning, part 1: Grace, guilt, and self-consciousness. chology Bulletin, 18, 369-376. Journal o f Psychology and Theology, 16, 254-269· Lindenthal, J. J., Myers, J. Κ., Pepper, M., & Stern, M. S. Wicker, F. W., Payne, G. C., & Morgan, R. D. (1983). Partid- (1970). Mental status and religious behavior.Journal fo r the pant descriptions of guilt and shame.Motivation and Emo- Scientific Study of Religion, 9, 143-149· tion, 7, 25-38. McMinn, M. R. (1984). Religious values and client-therapist matching in psychotherapy.Journal o f Psychology and The- AUTHORS ology, 12, 24-33· Mosher, D. L. (1966). The development and multitrait-multi- MEEK, KATHERYN RHOADS, Address: Department of Psy- method matrix analysis of three measures of three aspects chology, Wheaton College, Wheaton, IL 60187.Degree: MA, of guilt.Journal of Consulting Psychology, 30, 25-29. Wheaton College, Clinical Psychology. Currently enrolled in the PsyD program at Wheaton College. Mowrer, O. H., & Veszelovszky, A. V. (1980). There may indeed be a “right way”: Response to James D. Smrtic.Psy- ALBRIGHT, JEANNE S., Address: Department of Psychol- chotherapy: Theory, Research, and Practice, 1 7, 440-447. ogy, Loyola University of Chicago, Chicago, Title: IL 60126. Assistant Professor of Psychology.Degree: PhD, Northwest- Narramore, S. B. (1984).No condemnation. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. em University. Pennebaker, J. W., Hughes, C. F., & O’Heeron, R. C. (1987). McMINN, MARK R., Address: Department of Psychology, The psychophysiology of confession: Linking inhibitory Wheaton College, Wheaton, IL 60187.Title: Professor of and psychosomatic processes.Journal of Personality and Psychology. Degree: PhD, Vanderbilt University.Specializa- Social Psychology, 52, 781-793· tions: Ethics, assessment, cognitive therapy.