Content area
Full Text
This article expands on a model that conceptualizes guilt as a multidimensional construct with affective and cognitive dimensions. In the model, guilt magnitude is a function of the magnitudes of five variables posited as primary components of guilt: distress and four interrelated beliefs about one's role in a negative event. Originally proposed to account for guilt that emerges in the context of traumatically stressful events, the model may also help account for guilt that occurs in response to common-guilt evoking events. Eight contextual variables that promote distress and activate guilt cognitions are identified, drawing attention to social or situational factors that contribute to guilt. The contextual variables are used to explain why trauma-- related guilt is common and usually more chronic and severe than commonplace guilt. Initial evidence for the model is summarized and directions for future research discussed.
Although guilt is a common emotional experience, the construct of guilt has until recently received relatively limited attention from researchers in abnormal and personality-social psychology (Baumeister, Stillwell, & Heatherton, 1994; Tangney & Fischer, 1995). Moreover, theoretical discussions about guilt are notably brief or absent in most psychology textbooks (e.g., Carlson & Hatfield, 1992; Davison & Neale, 1998; Mischel, 1986; Myers, 1996). Although there is no consensus about what factors are necessary and sufficient causes or determinants of guilt (e.g., Baumeister et al., 1994; Buss & Durkee,1957; Mosher, 1968; Weiner, Graham, & Chandler, 1982), there has been little effort to test competing conceptualizations of guilt. Furthermore, only a few studies have manipulated variables thought to account for differences in the intensity with which guilt will be experienced (e.g., McGraw, 1987). Some research has examined personality variables that affect tendencies or proneness to experience guilt (see Baumeister et al., 1994), but there has been no investigation of factors that make some events more strongly guilt-evoking than others. For example, most guilt research has concentrated on individual differences in guilt proneness (e.g., Kugler & Jones, 1992; Tangney, 1990) rather than on situational or contextual factors that influence the occurrence and strength of guilt.
An additional impediment to a thorough understanding of guilt is the lack of a clear understanding or agreement about the nature of the relationship between so called "pathological" or chronic guilt and mild transitory guilt...