 23. The Self‑Conscious and Social Emotions  507
misbehaviors (e.g., drug use, petty crimes), 
and to report lower dyadic adjustment and 
social support (Tracy, Cheng, et al., 2009). 
Not surprisingly, the facets are located in 
different quadrants of the interpersonal cir -
cumplex (i.e., the independent dimensions 
of agency and communion; Kiesler, 1983); 
although both are linked to high agency, 
individuals high in communion are prone 
to authentic pride, whereas those high in 
hubristic pride are low in communal traits 
(Cheng, Tracy, & Henrich, 2010). This dis -
tinction also plays out in goal striving. Both 
facets are positively related to an approach 
orientation, evidenced by high scores on 
measures of the behavioral activation system 
and low scores on the behavioral inhibition 
system, yet individuals high in dispositional 
authentic pride vigorously engage in their 
life goals and are able to put failures in per -
spective, whereas those high in dispositional 
hubristic pride tend to set unrealistic goals 
for fame and success, and self-  servingly in -
terpret any positive event as indicative of 
their own greatness (Carver, Sinclair, & 
Johnson, 2010).
Shame and  Guilt
When former Senator Bob Kerrey publicly 
acknowledged that he had ordered soldiers 
to murder innocent civilians during the Viet -
nam War, he told a reporter, “It’s far more 
than guilt. It’s the shame. You can never, can 
never get away from it. It darkens your day” 
(Vistica, 2001). Kerrey chose his words care -
fully, emphasizing a distinction between two 
seemingly similar self-  conscious emotions. 
Despite the traditional view that guilt and 
shame “are one and the same affect” (Tom -
kins, 1963, p. 133), a large body of research 
is more consistent with Kerrey’s conceptual -
ization. Shame is an acutely painful emotion 
that is typically accompanied by a sense of 
smallness, worthlessness, and powerless -
ness. Shamed people tend to feel exposed, 
and to want to hide or escape in response. 
Guilt, in contrast, tends to be a less pain -
ful experience, largely because the object 
of condemnation is a specific behavior the 
individual committed rather than his or her 
entire self-  concept. Guilt is typically accom -
panied by feelings of tension, remorse, and 
regret, which can preoccupy the individual and motivate reparation or apology (Tang -
ney & Tracy, 2012).
Supporting this distinction, guilt has been 
linked to numerous prosocial reparative be -
haviors, whereas shame has been linked to 
hiding and social withdrawal, as well as a 
range of more problematic psychological 
and social consequences (Baumeister, Still -
well, & Heatherton, 1994; Randles & Tracy, 
2013; Tangney & Dearing, 2002). Yet there 
are few antecedent events that uniquely elic -
it either shame or guilt (Keltner & Buswell, 
1996), suggesting that it is not the event per 
se that determines which emotion is expe -
rienced, but rather how that event is ap -
praised. Individuals tend to experience guilt 
when they focus on negative aspects of their 
behavior—  the “ thing  done or undone”—but 
shame when they focus on negative aspects 
of themselves—  the self who did or did not 
do it (H. B. Lewis, 1971, p. 30; M. Lewis, 
2000; Tangney & Dearing, 2002). For ex -
ample, individuals who blame poor perfor -
mance on ability (e.g., “I’m dumb”) tend 
to respond with shame, whereas those who 
blame effort (e.g., “I didn’t study for the 
exam”) tend to respond with guilt (Brown 
& Weiner, 1984; Russell & McAuley, 1986; 
Tracy & Robins, 2006).
Together, these studies suggest that guilt 
may be an adaptive response to failures or 
transgressions that can be avoided in the 
future; experiencing an emotion that moti -
vates apology and reparation is a functional 
way to cope with unstable or controllable 
negative events. In contrast, shame may be 
an equally adaptive response to failures that 
cannot be prevented; in such cases, with -
drawal and avoidance may be the best ap -
proach. Consistent with this account, prone -
ness to guilt is linked to prosocial tendencies 
such as empathy and perspective taking, 
whereas shame focuses individuals’ atten -
tion inward, preventing empathy or care for 
others (Leith & Baumeister, 1998; Stuewig, 
Tangney, Heigel, Harty, & McCloskey, 
2010). Shame-prone individuals instead 
demonstrate bouts of anger and aggression; 
although these outward-  directed emotions 
seem antithetical to shame’s self-  blaming 
focus, individuals may regulate painful 
shame feelings by externalizing blame and 
directing their negative self-  oriented feelings 
outward (Tangney, Wagner, Fletcher, & 