Preprint Review Version 2 Preserved in Portico This version is not peer-reviewed

A Comparison of the Inherent Adaptivity Perspective and Functionalist Perspective on Guilt and Shame

Version 1 : Received: 25 July 2017 / Approved: 25 July 2017 / Online: 25 July 2017 (05:48:34 CEST)
Version 2 : Received: 20 September 2017 / Approved: 21 September 2017 / Online: 21 September 2017 (04:11:10 CEST)
Version 3 : Received: 6 December 2017 / Approved: 7 December 2017 / Online: 7 December 2017 (05:50:39 CET)

A peer-reviewed article of this Preprint also exists.

Dempsey, H.L. A Comparison of the Social-Adaptive Perspective and Functionalist Perspective on Guilt and Shame. Behav. Sci. 2017, 7, 83. Dempsey, H.L. A Comparison of the Social-Adaptive Perspective and Functionalist Perspective on Guilt and Shame. Behav. Sci. 2017, 7, 83.


Within the field of guilt and shame, two competing perspectives have been advanced. The first, the inherent adaptivity perspective, has been primarily advanced by Tangney and colleagues. This position advocates that guilt is an inherently adaptive emotion and shame is an inherently maladaptive emotion; thus, those interested in moral character development and psychopathology should work to increase an individual’s guilt-proneness and decrease an individual’s shame-proneness. The functionalist perspective, in contrast, has advocated that both guilt and shame can serve a person adaptively and maladaptively—depending on the situational appropriateness, duration, intensity, and so forth. This paper reviews the research conducted supporting both positions, critiques some issues with the most widely used guilt- and shame-proneness measure in the inherent adaptivity research (the TOSCA), and discusses the differences in results found when assessing guilt and shame at the state versus trait level. The conclusion drawn is that although there is broad support for the functionalist perspective across a wide variety of state and trait guilt/shame studies, the functionalist perspective does not yet have the wealth of data supporting it that has been generated by the inherent adaptivity perspective using the TOSCA. Thus, before a dominant perspective can be identified, researchers need to (1) do more research assessing how the inherent adaptivity perspective compares to the functionalist perspective at the state level, and (2) do more trait research within the functionalist perspective to compare functionalist-generated guilt- and shame-proneness measures with the TOSCA.


guilt; shame; emotion; functionalist perspective; TOSCA


Social Sciences, Psychology

Comments (0)

We encourage comments and feedback from a broad range of readers. See criteria for comments and our Diversity statement.

Leave a public comment
Send a private comment to the author(s)
* All users must log in before leaving a comment
Views 0
Downloads 0
Comments 0
Metrics 0

Notify me about updates to this article or when a peer-reviewed version is published.
We use cookies on our website to ensure you get the best experience.
Read more about our cookies here.