Definition and measurement of guilt: Implications for clinical research and practice

Abstract

Research on the relation of guilt to psychopathology is highly inconsistent. Some studies suggest that guilt contributes to psychopathology; others suggest that guilt serves a protective role. This review of 23 theory-based definitions of guilt and 25 measures of guilt suggests that a lack of conceptual clarity may be to blame. Measures of guilt do not correspond well to the definitions from which they derive. Many definitions and measures reflect the intrusion of extraneous constructs that could confound guilt research. Furthermore, definitions and measures of guilt change with developmental level. Nevertheless, two broad conceptualizations of guilt emerge. Central to both is a focus on one's action or inactions involving real or imagined moral transgressions. Distinguishing the two conceptualizations is whether or not guilt is inherently adaptive construct, generating remorse, augmenting a sense of responsibility, and motivating reparation. Recommendations for the definition and measurement of guilt are discussed.

Fig. 1

Frequency with which guilt codes were characteristic of theoretical definitions of guilt and the corresponding measures of guilt.