The Shame and Guilt Distinction: Addressing the (Mal)Adaptive Nature of Guilt

Theoretical and measurement differences contribute to the conflation of shame and guilt, leading to confusion regarding discrepant research findings. Previous research has consistently established the maladaptive nature of shame, yet controversy exists regarding the nature of guilt across contexts involving everyday situations and traumatic events. The current research addressed this debate by examining the interrelationships between trauma-related shame and trauma-related guilt, with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depression symptoms using a measure (Event-Related Brief Shame and Guilt Scale [ERB-SGS]) that clearly distinguishes between shame and guilt after trauma. Participants (n = 758) who endorsed a past experience of an interpersonal or noninterpersonal traumatic event were recruited via MTurk to complete an online survey. Results from analyses of variance and t test analyses indicated that levels of ERB shame and ERB guilt varied depending on trauma type, both within and across specific trauma groups. Bivariate correlations revealed that ERB shame and ERB guilt were strongly related to both PTSD and depression symptoms. Given the degree of association between ERB shame and ERB guilt, with values ranging between r = .52 and r = .69, semipartial correlations from the multiple regression analyses were used to examine the influence of this shared variance. ERB shame consistently accounted for unique variance in PTSD and depression symptoms across broad and specific trauma groups. However, the pattern for ERB guilt varied according to group membership and outcome variable. The current findings extend research in the field by providing insight to the (mal)adaptive nature of guilt in the context of trauma, with implications for research and treatment.