A. T. Panter

Introducing the GASP Scale: A New Measure of Guilt and Shame Proneness

Although scholars agree that moral emotions are critical for deterring unethical and antisocial behavior, there is disagreement about how 2 prototypical moral emotions--guilt and shame--should be defined, differentiated, and measured. We addressed these issues by developing a new assessment--the Guilt and Shame Proneness scale (GASP)--that measures individual differences in the propensity to experience guilt and shame across a range of personal transgressions. The GASP contains 2 guilt subscales that assess negative behavior-evaluations and repair action tendencies following private transgressions and 2 shame subscales that assess negative self-evaluations (NSEs) and withdrawal action tendencies following publically exposed transgressions. Both guilt subscales were highly correlated with one another and negatively correlated with unethical decision making. Although both shame subscales were associated with relatively poor psychological functioning (e.g., neuroticism, personal distress, low self-esteem), they were only weakly correlated with one another, and their relationships with unethical decision making diverged. Whereas shame-NSE constrained unethical decision making, shame-withdraw did not. Our findings suggest that differentiating the tendency to make NSEs following publically exposed transgressions from the tendency to hide or withdraw from public view is critically important for understanding and measuring dispositional shame proneness. The GASPs ability to distinguish these 2 classes of responses represents an important advantage of the scale over existing assessments. Although further validation research is required, the present studies are promising in that they suggest the GASP has the potential to be an important measurement tool for detecting individuals susceptible to corruption and unethical behavior.

Moral Character in the Workplace

Using two 3-month diary studies and a large cross-sectional survey, we identified distinguishing features of adults with low versus high levels of moral character. Adults with high levels of moral character tend to: consider the needs and interests of others and how their actions affect other people (e.g., they have high levels of Honesty-Humility, empathic concern, guilt proneness); regulate their behavior effectively, specifically with reference to behaviors that have positive short-term consequences but negative long-term consequences (e.g., they have high levels of Conscientiousness, self-control, consideration of future consequences); and value being moral (e.g., they have high levels of moral identity-internalization). Cognitive moral development, Emotionality, and social value orientation were found to be relatively undiagnostic of moral character. Studies 1 and 2 revealed that employees with low moral character committed harmful work behaviors more frequently and helpful work behaviors less frequently than did employees with high moral character, according to their own admissions and coworkers observations. Study 3 revealed that adults with low moral character committed more delinquent behavior and had more lenient attitudes toward unethical negotiation tactics than did adults with high moral character. By showing that individual differences have consistent, meaningful effects on employees behaviors, after controlling for demographic variables (e.g., gender, age, income) and basic attributes of the work setting (e.g., enforcement of an ethics code), our results contest situationist perspectives that deemphasize the importance of personality. Moral people can be identified by self-reports in surveys, and these self-reports predict consequential behaviors months after the initial assessment.

Shame Proneness and Guilt Proneness: Toward the Further Understanding of Reactions to Public and Private Transgressions

In Study 1, participants completed five extant shame and guilt proneness inventories based on different theoretical conceptions of the difference between shame and guilt. Factor analyses revealed that despite very different theoretical distinctions, the shame proneness subscales loaded on one factor, and the guilt proneness subscales loaded on one factor. In Study 2, we altered scale items so that hypothetical transgressions were committed in either public or private, and likelihood response options were either typical of a “shame-prone response” (negative self-evaluation; avoidance behavior) or a “guilt-prone response” (negative behavior evaluation; approach behavior). Our findings indicate that shame and guilt proneness can be measured both by responses to transgressions (e.g., negative self-evaluation and avoidance responses vs. negative behavior evaluation and approach responses) and the situational context in which the transgression occurs (e.g., public vs. private). We provide recommendations regarding optimal measurement of shame and guilt proneness.

Guilt Proneness and Moral Character

Guilt proneness is a personality trait indicative of a predisposition to experience negative feelings about personal wrongdoing, even when the wrongdoing is private. It is characterized by the anticipation of feeling bad about committing transgressions rather than by guilty feelings in a particular moment or generalized guilty feelings that occur without an eliciting event. Our research has revealed that guilt proneness is an important character trait because knowing a person’s level of guilt proneness helps us to predict the likelihood that person will behave unethically. Web-based studies of adults across the United States have shown that people who score high on measures of guilt proneness (compared to low scorers) make fewer unethical business decisions, commit fewer delinquent behaviors, and behave more honestly when making economic decisions. In the workplace, guilt-prone employees are less likely to engage in counterproductive behaviors that harm their organization.

Evaluating the Circumplexity of Interpersonal Traits and the Manifestation of Interpersonal Traits in Interpersonal Trust

Two studies assessed the goodness of fit of ideal, quasi-, and noncircumplex models of interpersonal traits. Study 1 (N = 132) represents a secondary data analysis using J.S. Wigginss (1979) original Interpersonal Adjectives Scales (IAS) and reported by J.S. Wiggins, J.H. Steiger, and L. Gaelick (1981). Study 2 (N = 401) represents a primary data analysis using Wigginss revised IAS (J.S. Wiggins, P. Trapnell, & N. Phillips, 1988). Results of both studies indicated that a quasi-circumplex model provided a better fit to the correlational data than did either ideal or noncircumplex models. Also, in Study 2, results for a subsample (n = 113) indicated that an ideal circumplex model yielded a significant positive path coefficient from Nurturance to interpersonal trust (J.K. Rempel, J.G. Holmes, & M.P. Zanna, 1985) but not from Dominance to interpersonal trust, whereas a quasi-circumplex model yielded significant positive paths from both Dominance and Nurturance to interpersonal trust.

Does Personal Intelligence Exist? Evidence From a New Ability-Based Measure

Personal intelligence has been defined as the ability to reason about personality and personality-relevant information and to use that information to guide ones actions and more generally, ones life. We constructed an initial version of an ability-based measure to test whether personal intelligence can be measured and whether it exists as a unitary intelligence. In 3 studies (N = 241, 308, and 385), we administered this Test of Personal Intelligence (TOPI), composed of 4 sections, to undergraduates along with criterion measures. Results suggested that a personal intelligence can be measured, that it might exist as a unified area of mental abilities, and that it represents psychological qualities that have intriguing predictive aspects.

Mental Models at Work Cognitive Causes and Consequences of Conflict in Organizations

This research investigated the reciprocal relationship between mental models of conflict and various forms of dysfunctional social relations in organizations, including experiences of task and relationship conflicts, interpersonal hostility, workplace ostracism, and abusive supervision. We conceptualize individual differences in conflict construals as reflecting variation in people’s belief structures about conflict and explore how different elements in people’s associative networks—in particular, their beliefs about their best and worst strategy in conflict—relate to their personality, shape their experiences of workplace conflict, and influence others’ behavioral intentions toward them. Five studies using a variety of methods (including cross-sectional surveys, a 12-week longitudinal diary study, and an experiment) show that the best strategy beliefs relate in theoretically meaningful ways to individuals’ personality, shape social interactions and relationships significantly more than the worst strategy beliefs, and are updated over time as a result of individuals’ ongoing experiences of conflict.

The growing significance of hot intelligences

Comments on the original article, Intelligence: New findings and theoretical developments, by R. E. Nisbett, J. Aronson, C. Blair, W. Dickens, J. Flynn, D. F. Halpern, and E. Turkheimer (see record 2011-30298-001). The present authors note that Nisbett et als review focuses on intelligences that have been topics of research through the 20th century. Since then, however, attention to a new group of intelligences that the present authors refer to as hot intelligences has been growing (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2004). Although Nisbett et al (2012) mentioned potential newcomers to the group of intelligences, such as practical intelligence, the present authors feel that future reviews should consider the burgeoning research in new conceptions of intelligence. Here the authors express a rationale for including a consideration of these newly described intelligences.

Employees High in Personal Intelligence Differ From Their Colleagues in Workplace Perceptions and Behavior

ABSTRACT Personal intelligence (PI) involves the ability to recognize, reason, and use information about personality to understand oneself and other people. Employees in two studies (Ns = 394, 482) completed the Test of Personal Intelligence (TOPI; e.g., Mayer, Panter, & Caruso, 2017a) and assessments of workplace perception and behavior. Higher PI was associated with higher perceived workplace support and lower counterproductive work behavior. These relationships continued to hold after controlling for other key variables. The results indicate the TOPI, although still in research trials, shows promise as a screening device for selecting employees and targeting individuals for training.

Personal Intelligence and Competencies

Personal intelligence concerns the ability to reason about personality and personality-related information; it includes both self-knowledge and knowledge about the personalities of other people. Personal intelligence encompasses a wide range of areas of reasoning from perceiving cues to personality to planning ones life. There are individual differences in such reasoning, and some people are much better at such reasoning than others. The article examines the nature of intelligences, personality, and personal intelligence. The skills involved are examined as well as how they are measured and the relation of the intelligence to life criteria.