Journal of Personality Assessment

ISSN: 0022-3891 (Print) 1532-7752 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hjpa20

Personality Correlates of the Mosher Guilt Scales Paul R. Abramson , Donald L. Mosher , Linda M. Abramson & Bernard Wotchowski To cite this article: Paul R. Abramson , Donald L. Mosher , Linda M. Abramson & Bernard Wotchowski (1977) Personality Correlates of the Mosher Guilt Scales, Journal of Personality Assessment, 41:4, 375-382, DOI: 10.1207/s15327752jpa4104_7 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4104_7

Published online: 10 Jun 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 8

View related articles

Citing articles: 7 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hjpa20 Download by: [University of Birmingham]

Date: 05 November 2015, At: 13:35

Journal of Personality Assessment, 1977,41, 4

Personality Correlates of the Mosher Guilt Scales PAUL R. ABRAMSON DONALD L. MOSHER University of Connecticut University of California Los Angeles LINDA M. ABRAMSON University of Connecticut and BERNARD WOYCHOWSKI New School for Social Research Examined the relationship between sex guilt, hostility guilt, and moralityconscience guilt, and more traditional concepts in personality, to extend the construct validational work of the Mosher Guilt Scales. This was achieved by correlating the scores of the three guilt subscales with the 15 manifest needs of the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule. The results indicate that while there was some overlap between the guilt scores and the manifest needs, the association was usually a function of theoretically consistent relationships rather than duality of constructs. These findings, and the literature review of the Mosher Guilt Scales, are interpreted as supporting the continued use of the three guilt subscales as well as suggesting that guilt is a personality variable of considerable theoretical significance.

Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 13:35 05 November 2015

Summary:

Mosher (1961,1966a) has operational- morality-conscience guilt) and control for ized a personality disposition of guilt so cia1 desirability were developed which he defines as a generalized expect- (Mosher, 1966a, 1968) from a sentence ancy for self-monitored punishment for completion measure of guilt. Investigaviolating or anticipating the violation of tions of the psychometric stability of internalized standards of sociallv acce~t- these scales have satisfied most measureable behavior. This dispositiondpresim- ment criteria. While a series of studies ably develops in the course of an indi- (Abramson & Mosher, 1975; Galbraith, vidual's socialization to parental and 1964; Lamb, 1963; Mosher, 1961, 1965, societal standards of control and is a 1966b; Mosher & Mosher, 1967; Persons, function of his past history of reinforce- 1970; Ruma & Mosher, 1967) have estabment with regard to attaining or violating lished the construct validity antd the standards of satisfactory conduct. Guilt convergent and discriminant validity of may manifest itself in resisting tempta- the Mosher Guilt Scales,the most convinction, inhibition of the expression of ing evidence of their utihty comes from certain behaviors, or the disruption of the predictive validity investigations. In cognitive processes in situations where less numerous studies the Mosher scales have conforming behavior may be more sali- accounted for a substantial portion of the ent. The confession of wrong-doing, self- variance of behavior which was of conpunishment, or attempts to make atone- ceptual significance to the concept of ment would also suggest the presence of guilt. guilt. Forced-choice and true-false guilt Sex Guilt scales which include three subcategories Predictions consistent with the theoof guilt (sex guilt, hostility guilt, and retical notions underlying the construct This research was supported in part by a of sex guilt have been obtained in s wide National Science Foundation Grant GJ-9 from variety of situations. Abramson (1976), the University of Connecticut Computer Center and a National Institute of Mental Health Abramson and Mosher (1975) and predoctoral research fellowship (1 F 0 1 Mosher and Cross (1971) have demonstraMH58564-01)to the first author. The authors express thanks t o Dan Flaherty for his assist- ted that subjects higher in sex guilt report ance in data preparation. limiting their sexual participation t,o the

Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 13:35 05 November 2015

Mosher Guilt Scales less intimate forms of sexual expression. Mosher (1973), Mosher and Abramson (1977) and Mosher and Greenberg (1969) have indicated that there is a significant, though not consistent, relationship between guilt over sex and responses to explicitly sexual stimuli. Other studies have also suggested that sex guilt correlates negatively with free associative responses (Galbraith, 1968; Galbraith, Hahn, & Liberman, 1968; Galbraith & Mosher, 1968; Schill, 1972), that it is related to free ass.ociative latencies (Galbraith & Sturke, 1974; Kerr & Galbraith, 1975), and that sexually aroused high-sex-guilt males show poorer recall for associations given to a list of doubleentendre and neutral words than do low-sex-guilt males (Galbraith & Mosher, 1970). ~Grthermore,subjects who choose and spend more time reading erotic literature are lower in sex guilt (Schill & Chapin, 1972); sexually stimulated, guilty subjects show less appreciation for high-sexrelevant humor (Schwartz, 1972) and greater appreciation for general humor (Lamb, 1968); the perception of one's parents' sex guilt is related to the sexual behavior and arousal of college students (Abramson, Michalak, & Alling, Note 1); high-sex-guilt women find sexual stimuli less arousing (Ray & Walker, 1973); sexually guilty individuals prefer G and PG movies (Langston, 1973); sex guilt interacts with moral reasoning in affecting the sexual experience of heterosexual couples (D'Augelli, 1972; DYAugelli& Cross, 1975); sex guilt is related to the content of masturbatory (Abramson & Mosher, Note 2) and sexual (Duffy, Note 3) fantasies; subjects higher in sex guilt recall less birth control information (Schwartz, 1973) and that sexual stimuli act as a more positive reinforcer for low-sex-guilt subjects than for high-sexguilt subjects (Griffitt, Note 4).

are less likely to be conditioned to hostile p r b s in a Taffel-type operant condjtioning task than subjects low-on hostility guilt (Mosher, 1966), delinquents have significantly lower hostility guilt scores than matched nondelinquent controls (Ruma, 1967), hostility guilt was related to the aggressive behavior displayed by delinquent boys in a laboratory aggression situation (Mosher, Mortimer, & Grebel, 1968), among subjects aroused to aggression, those low in hostility guilt decreased in diastolic blood pressure after the indirect expression of aggression, while those high in gLult increased slightly on this measure (Gambaro, 1967), hostility guilt significantly differentiated first offenders from recidivist male inmates (these being lower in guilt) (Mosher & Mosher, 1967), interview-derived ratings of guilt for delinquents were significantly related to hostility guilt (Ruma & Mosher, 1967), homosexual insertors in a federal reformatory had lower hostility guilt scores than homosexual insertees (Oliver & Mosher, 1968), and subjects higher in hostility guilt endorse more guilty adjectives after having acted in a hostile manner (Cogan, 1969). The research in this area has also indicated that subjects higher in hostility guilt estimated their victims' discomfort as being greater and claimed to be more convincing in their verbal attack when the experimental condition required subjects to cognitively justify their aggressing (Perry, 1965), males who are high in hostility guilt report a greater increase in feelings of guilt following aggression (Okel & Mosher, 1968), low hostility guilt subjects exhibited a significantly greater mean diastolic blood pressure decrease during the post aggresgion stage of a laboratory tlxperiment (Gambaro & Rabin, 1969), female subjects high in hostility guilt were less likely to use the hostile alternative in making up sentences to a list of homonyms with hostile and HostiliQ Guilt neutral meanings (Shill & Schneider, The research employing the hostility 1970) and high hostility milt subjects are guilt subscale has also tended to support less likely to express aggression (in an the construct validity of the Mosher guilt evaluative questionnaire) against the scales. It has been demonstrated that frustrator than low guilt subjects (Schill, subjects who score high on hostility guilt 1972).

Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 13:35 05 November 2015

P. R. ABRAMSON, D. L. MOSHER, L. M. ABRAMSON, & B.WOYCMOWSK1 377 Morality anscience Guilt While there have been only a few studies which have used the morality conscience guilt scale, the findings essentially parallel those obtained with the other two subscales. As is typical of the investigations in this area Ruma and Mosher (1967) found morality conscience guilt to be significantly related to moraljudgement and to ratings of guilt over transgression which were based upon a structured interview concerning the delinquent act leading to the incarceration of delinquent boys. Taken together, the research on sex guilt, hostility guilt, and morality conscience guilt provides evidence for the construct validity of the Mosher measures of guilt. The high reliability coefficients (Ray & Walker, 1973), the convergent and discriminant reliability of the three subscales (Mosher, 1966a, 1968), and the fact that dissimulation does not occur using the standard instructional format (Dubeck, Schuck, & Cymbalisty, 1971) again establish the Mosher scales as psychometrically sound measures of guilt. Yet, whereas guilt has figured prominently in a number of major personality theories (Freud, 1927; Piaget, 1948), the specific concept of guilt has not been included in any comprehensive approach to operationalizing personality (Cattell, 1950; Eysenck, 1947; Murray, 1938) nor has it been included in any of the widely used global personality tests (MMPI, EPPS, CPI). This is surprising in view of the literature cited herein which attests to the feasibility of operationalizing the construct of guilt as a personality variable. Presumably, guilt was not included as a trait in its own right because it was subsumed under more global personality dimensions. The present research was designed to extend the construct validational work of the Mosher Guilt Scales by examining the relationship between sex guilt, hostility guilt and morality conscience guilt and more traditional concepts in personality. Furthermore, the results will be examined in order to determine the independence (or convergence) of guilt relative to other

personality variables. To accomplish this objective, the three guilt subscales were correlated with the 15 manifest needs which comprise the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS) (Edwards, 1959). While it was predicted that the guilt scales would correlate significantly with variables of theoretical relevance to guilt (e.g., sex guilt with heterosexuality, hostility guilt with aggression), it was also predicted that each guilt scale would demonstrate sufficient discriminant validity so as not to be considered an adjunct of a "broader'' personality concept. Method Subjects The subjects were 108 male and 41 female undergraduates from the University of Connecticut who volunteered as part of an introductory psychology requirement. Bocedure The subjects, who were separated by one seat on either side, were tested as a group in a large auditorium roorn. The forced-choiced Mosher Guilt Scales (Mosher, 1966, 1968) and the EPPS were administered in random order by three male and three female experimenters. Results Scores from the three Mosher Guilt subscales (sex guilt, morality-conscience guilt, and hostiPity guilt) were correlated, using the Pearson product-moment procedure, with the 15 manifest needs (achievement, deference, order, exhibition, autonomy, affiliation, intraception, succorance, dominance, abasement, nurturance, change, endurance, heterosexuality, and aggression) of the EPPS separately for males (N = 108) and females (N = 41). The results, ?which appear in Table1, indicate that for female subjects, sex guilt was negatively correlated with heterosexuality (r = -.a, p< .01) and autonomy (r = -.39, p < .01), and positively correlated with endurance (r = .31, p < .05); morality-conscience guilt was negatively correlated with autonomy (r = -.34, p < .05) and heterosexuality (r = -.40, p < .Ol)t, and

Mosher Guilt Scales

378 Table 1

Pearson Product-Moment Correlations Between the Three Measures of Guilt and the~anifestNeeds Associated with the Edwards Personal Preference Inventory Sex Guilt

Morality-Conscience

Hostility Guilt

EPPS Male

Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 13:35 05 November 2015

Achievement

Female

Male

Female

Male

.o 1

Female

-.07

-.08

-.I5

Deference

.18

.13

-.09

-.06

Order

.o 1

.03

-.14

-.09

.07

Exhibition

.02

-.I5

-.I4

-.18

.07

Autonomy

-.09

-.25**

-.34*

.oo

.02

.04 -.09

Affiliation

.25**

.22*

.31*

.27**

.2 1

Intraception

.13

.16

.22

.24*

.O1

Succorance

.oo

-.02

.02

.oo

-.11

-.06

-.I4

-.25

Dominance

-.02

-.11

Abasement

.08

.44***

.52***

.32***

.4l**

Nurturance

.16

.27**

.44**

.35***

.34*

.02

.24

Change

-.I4

-.20*

Endurance

-.22*

-.12

.08

.o1

-.I6

Heterosexuahty

-.29**

-.22*

-AO**

-.20*

-.29

.02

-.I1

-.14

-.43***

-.32*

Aggression

-.14

Note: N = 108 for males and 41 for females. * < .O5. ** < .01. *** < .001. positively correlated with abasement (r = .52, p < .001), nurturance (r = .44, p < .01) and affiliation (r = .3 1, p < .05); and hostility guilt was negatively correlated with aggression (r = -.32, p < .05) and positively correlated with abasement (r = .41, p < .01) and nurturance (r = .34, p < .05). The results indicate that for male subjects, sex guilt was negatively correlated with heterosexuality (r = -.29, p

Personality correlates of the Mosher Guilt Scales.

Journal of Personality Assessment ISSN: 0022-3891 (Print) 1532-7752 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hjpa20 Personality Cor...
716KB Sizes 0 Downloads 0 Views