Distinguishing Neurotic from Prosocial "Guilt": Evidence for the Conceptual
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Distinguishing Neurotic from Prosocial “Guilt”: Evidence for the Conceptual Distinctiveness of Checklist and Scenario Measures by Stefanie M. Tignor B.A. in Psychology, Binghamton University M.A. in Psychology, Northeastern University A dissertation submitted to The Faculty of the College of Science of Northeastern University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy July 28, 2016 Dissertation directed by C. Randall Colvin Associate Professor of Psychology ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First, thank you to my advisor, Randy Colvin, for your ever-impressive expertise, guidance, and support. From my first day to my last you’ve made the Personality Lab feel like home, and I deeply appreciate all that you have taught me. Thanks for always being willing to chat about research or life, and thanks for always cheering me on. To Judy Hall, thank you for all of your support and mentorship over these past few years. Your immense knowledge of psychology and skills as a researcher are an inspiration to me. And of course, thank you for helping me fall in love with meta-analysis. To Nancy Kim, thank you for your insightful and helpful comments on this dissertation, in meetings and via email. It has been much improved thanks to your guidance, and I have greatly appreciated your help throughout the process. Thanks to the many research assistants who helped with this project: Emily Burke, David Kramer, Megan Pinaire, Christina Tebbe, Ronnie Lo, Simone Grant, Alexa Lambros, Fae Kayarian, Kristen Laws, Catherine Martin, Heather Offermann, and Sangjukta Sen Roy. Thank you to my research “brother” and “sister” Sun Park and Krista Hill; your welcoming nature and willingness to help a lost first-year will never be forgotten. Thanks to Adam Brown, Jin Goh, and Paul Condon for all of the very necessary coffee breaks. Thanks to my stellar classmates Tim Shepard, Tom Morrison, Nhi Ngo, and Quan Lei – we made it! And a very special thank you to the amazing Kristin Szuhany. I don’t even want to imagine what graduate school would have looked like without you by my side, hot sauce in hand. Thank you to my mother, father, nana, and popi for your seemingly limitless love, as well as to my wonderfully supportive parents in-law Sherry, Marko, and JA. A special thank you to Chrissy Fisher for all of the neighborly visits, emergency cups of tea, and perfectly distracting YouTube videos; they were always just the thing. And to my husband, Jesse Lyons: thank you ! ii! for listening to me talk about this for five years straight and at least pretending to still be interested. Thank you for your love, patience, encouragement, and serenades. Thank you for making me a better person every day. Here’s to the Future. Finally, thanks to my favorite officemate, Agent Cooper. You definitely made finishing this more difficult than it had to be, but I love you. ! iii! ABSTRACT OF DISSERTATION Despite decades of empirical research, conclusions regarding the adaptiveness of dispositional guilt remain mixed. While some researchers proclaim guilt to be maladaptive and indicative of neuroticism or even psychopathology, others declare it to be adaptive, promoting positive interpersonal functioning and prosocial behavior. These discrepancies are likely exacerbated by the diverse collection of measures employed to assess dispositional (i.e., “trait” or “proneness to”) guilt. Such measures vary widely in format, from simple lists of experienced feelings (i.e., “checklist measures”) to detailed hypothetical scenarios (i.e., “scenario measures”). The current research examines whether these two classes of measures, despite sharing a name, capture two conceptually distinct constructs. More specifically, across four studies I investigate the possibility that checklist measures of dispositional guilt capture a neurotic, dysphoric form of this trait, while scenario measures capture an empathetic, prosocial form. Study 1 is a meta-analysis in which dispositional guilt and shame’s differential associations to prosocial orientation—one aspect of adaptive interpersonal functioning—are examined. Results revealed an overall positive effect of dispositional guilt on prosocial orientation, and a marginally significant negative effect of shame on prosocial orientation. Importantly, in the case of guilt (but not in the case of shame) this main effect was significantly moderated by test format. Only scenario measures of dispositional guilt were significantly and positively associated with prosocial orientation; checklist measures exhibited no significant relationship. Study 2a sought to replicate and extend these meta-analytic findings in the field using a daily diary design. Participants completed self-reports of dispositional guilt and shame via one checklist and one scenario measure, then reported and classified their daily behavior in two-hour increments for one week. A series of random coefficient models revealed scenario-assessed guilt ! iv! to significantly positively predict adaptive interpersonal behavior in everyday life, including: time spent socializing, time spent providing emotional support to others, time spent nurturing relationships, and time spent helping others. In contrast, checklist-assessed guilt was largely unrelated to adaptive interpersonal behavior. Neither checklist nor scenario measures of dispositional shame significantly predicted these behaviors. Taken together, the results of Study 1 and Study 2a provide strong evidence to suggest that checklist and scenario measures of trait guilt assess two distinct constructs, with the latter representing a prosocial variety. Given such findings, in Study 2b I sought to determine which, if any, of these measures is associated with affective experience in everyday life, and whether checklist-assessed guilt may be classified as “neurotic guilt.” As expected, results revealed checklist-assessed guilt to be predictive of daily feelings of negative affect, guilt, and shame. In contrast, scenario-assessed guilt displayed no significant relationships with affective experience. Rather, scenario-assessed guilt only exhibited a significant positive relationship with daily well- being. Once again, this division between test formats was not seen in the case of shame. These results go beyond simply suggesting that checklist and scenario measures of trait guilt capture different varieties of guilt; rather, they suggest that scenario measures of guilt capture something other than guilty affect entirely. Study 2c sought to more appropriately characterize the personality trait assessed via scenario measures of dispositional guilt using self-reports of personality, informant reports of personality, and coded in-lab behavior. Results of these multi-method analyses suggest scenario- assessed guilt may be better characterized as a trait measure of “reparative social concern,” as evidenced by its robust correlations with empathic concern, humanitarianism, agreeableness, and ! v! personal growth, among others. Future research directions are suggested, and an argument for the renaming of scenario-assessed guilt is presented. ! vi! TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements ii Abstract iv Table of Contents vii List of Tables x List of Figures xi Chapter 1: Introduction 1 I. Research Problem and Objectives 1 II. Theoretical Roots of Contemporary Distinctions Between Guilt and Shame 2 III. Dispositional Guilt and Shame 5 IV. Measurement Issues and Conceptual Concerns in the Study of Dispositional Guilt and Shame 6 V. Differing Perspectives on the Adaptiveness of Guilt and Shame 11 Chapter 2: Study 1 - The Interpersonal Adaptiveness of Checklist Versus Scenario Measures of Guilt and Shame: A Meta-analysis 13 I. Background 13 II. Method 14 III. Results 21 IV. Discussion 26 Chapter 3: Outline of Samples and Data Sources Featured in Studies 2a, 2b, and 2c 30 I. Overview of Hypotheses for Study 2a, 2b, and 2c 30 II. Sample A 35 III. Sample B 43 IV. Summary of Data Sources and Subsequent Studies 50 Chapter 4: Study 2a – Are Checklist- and Scenario-Assessed Guilt Differentially Associated with Daily Diary Reports of Adaptive Interpersonal Behavior? A Replication and Extension of Study 1 52 I. Background 52 II. Method 53 III. Results 55 IV. Discussion 62 Chapter 5: Study 2b – Is Scenario-Assessed “Guilt” Even Guilt? Testing both Measures’ Associations with Daily Affect and Well-being 64 I. Background 64 II. Method 70 ! vii! III. Results 72 IV. Discussion 77 Chapter 6: Study 2c – If not Guilt, then What? Further Characterizing and Distinguishing Checklist and Scenario “Guilt” Using Self-reports of Personality, Informant Reports of Personality, and Coded In-lab Behavior 80 I. Background 80 II. Method 82 III. Results 84 IV. Discussion 92 Chapter 7: General Discussion 96 I. Summary of Results 96 II. Implications 97 III. Limitations 98 IV. Suggestions for Future Research 100 References 103 Footnotes 116 Tables 118 Figures 134 Appendix A: Semi-partial Correlation Results from Study 1 Meta-analyses 135 Appendix B: Comprehensive List of Effect Sizes and Attributes for Studies Included in Zero-Order Correlation Guilt Meta-analysis 136 Appendix C: Comprehensive List of Effect Sizes and Attributes for Studies Included in Semi-Partial Correlation Guilt Meta-analysis 139 Appendix D: Comprehensive List of Effect Sizes and Attributes for Studies Included in Zero-Order Correlation Shame Meta-analysis 141 Appendix E: Comprehensive List of Effect Sizes and Attributes for Studies Included in Semi-Partial Correlation Shame Meta-analysis 144 Appendix F: References