Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 6, 2026

Applying an eMASS Customization Program as a Research Tool to Evaluate Consumer Benefits
Published on: September 27, 2019
Two promising shame and guilt scales: a construct validity comparison
1Department of Psychology, Tufts University, Medford, MA 02155.
Abstract:
This study compared the validity of two promising measures of shame and guilt proneness: revisions of the Harder Personal Feelings Questionnaire (PFQ2; Harder & Lewis, 1987) and the Hoblitzelle Adapted Shame and Guilt Scale (ASGS; Hoblitzelle, 1982). Internal consistency, test-retest stability, factor structure, and construct validity with convergent and discriminant personality dimensions were examined for both scales. In addition to the shame and guilt measures, 63 (37 male, 26 female) mostly freshman college students completed a randomly ordered battery of personality scales theoretically relevant to shame and guilt proneness. Results support the reliability and shame/guilt factor structure of each scale. ASGS Shame correlations appeared marginally more valid with 11 external construct variables than PFQ2 Shame, whereas PFQ2 Guilt was clearly more valid than its corresponding ASGS subscale. New, potentially improved scales were constructed from the factor analyses and from item analyses. However, the resulting scales did not show improved validity.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
Reliability and Validity
Self-Discrepancy Theory
Self-Report Tests of Personality
Strategies of Self-Presentation III: Self-Monitoring
Self-Discrepancy and Its Effects
Sources of Self-Esteem III: Social Comparison

