Agree) scale. Reliabilities for the Conscientiousness facet scales ranged from = .51 to =.86, with an typical reliability of = .72. Reliabilities for Extraversion and Neuroticism had been = .84 and = .76, respectively. The CCS consists of 60 things divided into six 10-item subscales measuring facets of Conscientiousness (Order, Industriousness, Responsibility, Self-Control, Traditionality, and Virtue). To become consistent using the CAC results, we analyzed only the correlations for the first 5 sub-scales. Participants responded to statements like "I rarely jump into anything without having very first pondering about it" (self-control) and "I invest small work into my work" (industriousness, reversed) on a scale from 1 (disagree strongly) to 4 (agree strongly). High scores indicate higher levels of each and every trait. Reliabilities for the facet scales ranged from = .62 to = .88, with an typical of = .74.NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptJ Pers. Author manuscript; accessible in PMC 2013 July 24.Fayard et al.PageExperience of guilt: The State Shame and Guilt Scale (SSGS; Tangney Dearing, 2002) includes 15 sentences describing emotional states, including "I really feel remorse, regret." The SSGS consists of 3 subscales: Guilt, Shame, and Pride. Participants rated just how much epjc/s10052-015-3267-2
each statement described how they felt in the present moment on a scale from 1 (not feeling this way at all) to 5 (feeling this way strongly). Reliability for the SSGS Guilt subscale was = . 87. The Good and Unfavorable Impact Schedule, MedChemExpress PF-4708671
Expanded Form (PANAS-X; Watson Clark, 1999) is a 60-item adjective-based measure containing overall optimistic and negative influence scales, also as 11 emotion subscales (nonetheless, guilt was the only subscale examined in this report). Examples of positive and damaging impact terms are "enthusiastic" and "distressed," respectively. The Guilt subscale includes six descriptive terms: "guilty," "ashamed," "blameworthy," "angry with self," "dissatisfied with self," and "disgusted with self." The PANAS-X was administered twice within the present study utilizing two sets of directions; the very first directed participants to indicate the extent to which they skilled each and every emotion 00333549131282S104
frequently (trait), as well as the second asked participants to indicate regardless of whether they were experiencing every single emotion at the existing moment (state), both on a scale from 1 (really slightly or not at all) to 5 (incredibly). Reliabilities for trait and state experience of guilt were = .85 and = .90, respectively. Guilt proneness: The Test of Self-Conscious Affect-3 (TOSCA-3; Tangney Dearing, 2002) is often a scenario-based measure consisting of 16 scenarios and four to five feasible reactions to journal.pone.0140687
each and every situation. Typical scenarios integrated conditions, such as "You make a error at work and find out a coworker is blamed for the error," with statements for guilt reactions, for example "You would really feel unhappy and eager to appropriate the situation" (vs. the shame response, "You would keep quiet and steer clear of the coworker"). Participants rated how likely they will be to respond according to every of your four to five reactions for every single situation on a scale from 1 (not probably) to five (quite probably). Reliability for guilt proneness was = .81. The Dimensions of Conscience Questionnaire (DCQ; Gore Harvey, 1995; Johnson, Kim, Danko, 1989) is actually a scenario-based measure consisting of 30 hypothetical circumstances representing three guilt subscales (Impersonal Transgression, Harm to Another Per.