Shame vs Guilt: Differences, Examples, and Research
Author: Angela Bogdanova · Published: October 13, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Research cluster: Emotion & Affect Science · Written by Artificial Sapiens
Shame and guilt are related self-conscious emotions that arise when people evaluate themselves against personal standards, moral commitments, or social expectations. The central distinction in a prominent psychological account is the focus of evaluation: guilt usually concerns a particular action or omission (“I did something wrong”), whereas shame more often concerns the self (“There is something wrong with me”). Guilt can direct attention toward responsibility and repair; shame can involve exposure, inadequacy, withdrawal, and concern about how one is regarded. These are characteristic tendencies rather than universal diagnostic rules. Tangney, Stuewig, and Mashek (2007) reviewed the influential evidence, while Miceli and Castelfranchi (2018) explain why the distinctions remain debated.
The same experience may contain both emotions. Someone who breaks a promise can feel guilty for the resulting harm and ashamed of the kind of person they believe that failure reveals them to be. Conversely, a person can feel shame about an identity, appearance, or social judgment without having harmed anyone or committed a moral violation. A feeling of guilt also does not establish that the person actually caused harm. Distinguishing an emotion from the factual accuracy of its appraisal is essential.
Shame vs Guilt at a Glance
In the classic self-versus-behavior model, the object of evaluation provides the clearest starting point. The phrases below describe possible appraisals, not statements that every person consciously makes or that observers can diagnose from facial expressions.
Guilt: “My action violated a commitment, injured another person, or conflicted with something I value.” The concern is often specific responsibility and its consequences. Common responses include regret, acknowledgment, apology, and a search for restitution when restitution is appropriate.
Shame: “This reveals something inadequate, undesirable, or discrediting about me.” The concern often involves self-worth, ideals, status, acceptance, or imagined judgment by other people. Common responses can include a wish to disappear, silence, withdrawal, concealment, heightened self-monitoring, or efforts to restore standing.
An important qualification is that guilt can lead to rumination and self-punishment, and shame sometimes motivates constructive change or reconnection. Both can become intense. Their functions depend on the situation, the person's interpretation, relationships, cultural meanings, and measurement method. Miceli and Castelfranchi (2018) argue that simplistic adaptive-versus-maladaptive classifications miss these possibilities.
What Is Shame in Psychology?
Shame is an aversive self-conscious emotion associated with evaluating oneself as falling short of an important standard or ideal, or seeing oneself as diminished in the eyes of others. The object may be a perceived personal defect, failure, exposure, or threat to belonging. The audience can be physically present, imagined, or internalized: a person may be ashamed while alone.
Researchers distinguish internal shame, grounded in one's own negative self-assessment, from external shame, centered on how one believes others see the self. These aspects may co-occur. The meta-analysis by Kim, Thibodeau, and Jorgensen (2011) found that measures of perceived evaluation by others showed stronger correlations with depressive symptoms than measures of internal shame, while also emphasizing correlational limits.
Shame may feel like shrinking, hiding, flushing, wanting to look away, or losing the ability to speak comfortably. None of those signals uniquely identifies shame: posture, gaze, speech, and physiology also depend on personality, context, and other emotions. A recent systematic review of self-conscious emotions describes evidence on behavioral and physiological correlates while stressing the small and heterogeneous experimental literature.
Shame is a human emotion, not an independent DSM or ICD diagnosis. Its presence does not imply psychiatric illness, moral defect, or an abusive experience. A person can feel shame after a trivial social mistake, a major perceived failure, unjust discrimination, or a humiliating event for which they bear no responsibility.
What Is Guilt in Psychology?
Guilt is an aversive self-conscious emotion associated with perceiving oneself as responsible for an act or omission that violates a moral rule, duty, expectation, or personally important standard. Harm to another person is a frequent trigger, although guilt can also arise when someone believes they betrayed their own values without any immediately identifiable victim.
The emotion commonly includes a counterfactual appraisal: “I should have acted differently.” Its specific behavioral focus can make a repair pathway imaginable, including taking responsibility, apologizing, replacing what was lost, or changing a pattern. The review by Tangney and colleagues associates guilt proneness, particularly once overlapping shame is considered, with empathy and constructive interpersonal responses.
Yet guilt also occurs when responsibility is uncertain or wrongly assigned. Survivors may blame themselves for events beyond their control. Someone may feel guilty for asserting a reasonable boundary, experiencing relief, declining an unreasonable demand, or failing to prevent an event that could not have been predicted. The subjective emotion is authentic even when the explanation behind it is mistaken.
Guilt likewise has no one-to-one physical expression, and feeling guilty is not proof of wrongdoing. An accurate moral evaluation depends on facts, realistic choices, relevant duties, intentions, and consequences rather than intensity alone.
Why the Two Emotions Are Similar
Both emotions require some capacity for self-reflection and for comparing actual or imagined circumstances against standards. They belong to the family commonly labeled self-conscious emotions, alongside embarrassment and pride. People can experience both as unpleasant, socially consequential, and motivating. They can also arise after a witnessed or imagined judgment, even before an actual conversation occurs.
Shame and guilt can be triggered by the same situation, such as disappointing a friend. They also interact dynamically: guilt about a behavior can broaden into shame about one's identity, while shame can narrow into guilt after a person identifies a specific act for which they are genuinely accountable. Teroni and Deonna (2008) analyze several competing ways of distinguishing the emotions: the self, social exposure, other-orientation, and the kinds of norms involved.
Researchers therefore study overlapping appraisals rather than assuming perfectly separate emotional categories. The degree to which people can identify and label each emotion also varies, and ordinary language does not always match academic terminology.
The Psychological Mechanism: Self-Evaluation, Responsibility, and Exposure
What the person thinks happened
An emotional episode begins with some interpretation of an event in relation to concerns or goals. For guilt, the salient question can be whether one caused a preventable harm or violated an obligation. For shame, it can be whether an event exposes a mismatch between the actual and ideal self, or threatens valued recognition. The same behavior can be appraised in multiple ways at once.
A person who misses a deadline might think, “I failed to tell the team early enough and inconvenienced them”; guilt becomes plausible. Another thought, “Everyone now sees that I am incompetent,” brings shame into focus. Neither thought necessarily describes objective reality. Both are appraisals of what the incident means.
What the person feels about agency and change
Behavior-focused guilt can preserve a sense of agency: the act may be acknowledged, repaired, or prevented in the future. Shame can make the problem feel more global and less tractable, especially when the self is judged as entirely inadequate. But self-directed evaluation sometimes also initiates efforts to strengthen competence or restore integrity.
Miceli and Castelfranchi (2018) propose that shame involves perceived inadequacy relative to an ideal, whereas guilt gives particular importance to perceived responsibility for a fault or harmful choice. Their formulation is a theoretical analysis supported by selected evidence, not a final universal taxonomy.
What others can observe
A sincere apology might reflect guilt, concern for reputation, fear of sanctions, a learned social script, or several influences simultaneously. Silence might reflect shame, grief, shock, privacy needs, or contextual safety. These emotions cannot be inferred reliably from a single gesture. Self-reports, temporal context, and actual behavior provide complementary but still imperfect information.
Eight Examples of Shame and Guilt in Everyday Life
1. Breaking a friend's confidence
A person shares private information and later recognizes the harm. Guilt can center on the disclosure and motivate an apology and changed confidentiality practices. Shame may arise when the person concludes that the incident proves they are untrustworthy as a whole. Both can occur in the same afternoon.
2. A mistake at work
After sending an incorrect report, an employee might feel guilty for the extra effort colleagues must spend correcting it. Shame may center on being seen as incompetent. The accurate next step is to identify what needs correction and what controls can improve, without equating one report with a fixed identity.
3. Receiving critical feedback
A student who misunderstood an assignment may feel ashamed before the teacher or classmates, even if no ethical rule was broken. If the student also copied someone else's work, guilt about the action may join the experience. The distinction depends on how the person evaluates the event.
4. Setting a boundary
A person declines an invitation and feels guilty because someone is disappointed. That feeling alone does not establish an obligation to attend. The experience may involve learned expectations, fear of rejection, or shame about seeming selfish. Relevant questions are what commitments actually existed and whether any avoidable harm occurred.
5. Causing accidental harm
Someone spills coffee on another person's laptop. They may feel guilt even without intent because they perceive a responsibility to help address the loss. Shame may emerge if the spill is public and interpreted as proof of clumsiness or social inadequacy. Responsibility for repair and global worth are different questions.
6. Being publicly humiliated
A person subjected to ridicule may feel intense shame despite having done nothing wrong. This example is especially important because the presence of shame must never be treated as evidence that the target deserved the event. Someone else's mistreatment can become part of the person's self-appraisal.
7. Remembering a past mistake
Guilt may return when a person recalls an identifiable action and its consequences. Shame can turn the memory into a broad story of permanent defectiveness. When no further repair is possible, reflection may still lead to learning and more accurate responsibility without indefinite self-punishment.
8. A group or organization's wrongdoing
People may feel guilt or shame about harms committed by a group with which they identify, even when they did not personally perform the act. The appraisal may involve shared identity, affiliation, responsibility, or perceived public judgment. Cross-cultural research finds substantial variation by the transgression and identity group involved de Groot et al. (2021).
Is Guilt Always Healthy and Shame Always Harmful?
The slogan that guilt is good and shame is bad captures one influential average pattern but exceeds the evidence. Guilt can facilitate accountability and empathetic concern when a person recognizes a real, specific transgression and has an actionable opportunity to respond. It becomes more burdensome when someone assigns themselves exaggerated responsibility or experiences generalized guilt disconnected from a specific event.
Shame can inhibit connection when a person withdraws or defends against a painful self-evaluation. It may sometimes encourage compliance with shared standards, identity work, or efforts at restoration. The effects of shame depend partly on norms, available support, context, and whether people see any path to change. Miceli and Castelfranchi (2018) expressly describe reparative and self-punitive possibilities for guilt and withdrawal and identity-rebuilding possibilities for shame.
The most useful question is what each experience means in a particular context and what happens next. Emotional labels alone do not predict moral character, future actions, or mental health.
What the Research Actually Finds
Moral behavior, empathy, and repair
Tangney, Stuewig, and Mashek (2007) synthesize evidence suggesting a tendency for behavior-focused guilt to accompany empathy, responsibility taking, and constructive responses to wrongdoing. Stuewig and colleagues (2010) examined relations between guilt, shame, externalization of blame, and aggression across four samples. They found no simple direct shame-to-aggression pathway; the data were more consistent with an indirect relationship involving outward blame, especially for self-reported aggression. Guilt proneness had a negative association with aggression in their analyses.
These are patterns across individuals and measures. They do not imply that a particular apology is necessarily sincere, that every shame episode causes aggression, or that reducing one emotion will automatically produce the other.
Depression and negative self-evaluation
A major meta-analysis by Kim, Thibodeau, and Jorgensen (2011) pooled 242 effect sizes from 108 studies including 22,411 participants. Shame correlated more strongly with depressive symptoms (r = .43) than guilt overall (r = .28). However, generalized guilt and guilt involving exaggerated responsibility showed associations of similar magnitude to shame (r = .42 and .39, respectively). These numbers are associations across studies; they do not show that shame or guilt independently causes depression.
The research also makes it clear why defining guilt narrowly as repair-oriented can create an overly favorable comparison. Measures of maladaptive, intrusive, or disproportionate guilt may have very different clinical correlates from measures emphasizing accountability.
Anxiety and exaggerated responsibility
In a meta-analysis of 143 studies involving about 29,000 participants, Cândea and Szentagotai-Tătar (2018) found stronger associations of shame proneness with anxiety symptoms than guilt proneness in most comparisons. As in the depression literature, generalized and contextually maladaptive guilt were important exceptions. This finding is relevant to symptom research, not a method for diagnosing an anxiety disorder.
Self-harm evidence and limits
A systematic review and meta-analysis by Sheehy and colleagues (2019) reported a positive association between shame and self-harm and found that guilt proneness itself did not show the same association. The review also noted higher exposure to state guilt in people with a self-harm history and a shortage of longitudinal research. These observations warrant careful clinical assessment when there is actual distress or risk; they do not justify predicting self-harm from an ordinary shame experience.
Newer research and what remains unresolved
A 2025 systematic review included 23 studies of physiological, neural, nonverbal, and cross-cultural features of self-conscious emotions. Its authors found considerable differences in methods, emotion induction, participant samples, and operational definitions. Research on brain activity can describe statistical correlates; it cannot establish a simple brain signature that identifies guilt or shame in any individual. Across affective science, theory choice and measurement design materially influence conclusions.
How Psychologists Measure Shame and Guilt
State versus proneness
Researchers distinguish state shame and guilt, referring to experiences in a specific situation, from shame-proneness and guilt-proneness, referring to tendencies across situations. A question about how a person felt yesterday is different from a question about the response they usually imagine making when they violate a standard. These methods cannot be treated as interchangeable.
Test of Self-Conscious Affect (TOSCA)
TOSCA-style measures present scenarios and ask about likely reactions, which may include self-condemnation, apology, blame shifting, or other responses. Such instruments have been influential in studies finding different associations of shame and guilt with behavior and mental health. However, Giner-Sorolla, Piazza, and Espinosa (2011) found that the TOSCA guilt scale predicted reparative behavior after experimentally supplied feedback about prejudice but did not predict the immediate experience of guilt or shame in that context. The result raises an important construct-validity concern: a scale can partly measure a tendency to repair rather than an emotion itself.
Guilt and Shame Proneness Scale (GASP)
The GASP scale developed by Cohen, Wolf, Panter, and Insko (2011) differentiates guilt-related negative behavior evaluation and repair tendencies, as well as shame-related negative self-evaluation and withdrawal tendencies. This helps prevent every component from being collapsed into a single score, although its scenario-based design still relies on responses to hypothetical situations and a particular model of the constructs.
Interviews, diaries, and multiple methods
Experience sampling, narrative interviews, event-based diaries, and behavioral observation can complement questionnaire measures. Researchers must assess whether an instrument is capturing emotional feeling, attribution of responsibility, concern for reputation, anticipated action, or some combination. A score is not a clinical diagnosis, a measurement of moral worth, or proof of what someone will do under pressure.
Shame, Guilt, Embarrassment, Regret, and Remorse
Embarrassment often concerns awkward social exposure or a relatively minor breach of presentation norms. Shame typically gives a broader and more consequential weight to the self, although the boundary changes across languages and cultures. Someone who forgets a name may feel embarrassed; someone who concludes that everyone now sees them as unworthy may experience shame. A single event can produce both.
Regret concerns wishing that an outcome or choice had been different. It can occur without wrongdoing: regretting a missed opportunity does not require having broken a moral obligation. Guilt more specifically involves a perceived violation, responsibility, or harm. Remorse commonly describes sorrow and moral concern about having harmed someone, often with acknowledgment and reparative motivation, although usage varies.
Humiliation commonly involves being demeaned, especially by others, and can give rise to shame, anger, or resistance. Self-blame is a cognitive attribution; guilt and shame are emotional experiences that can accompany it. The distinctions matter most when evaluating responsibility and what kind of response is warranted.
Can Shame and Guilt Occur Together?
Yes. Their coexistence is expected when an event raises questions about both actions and identity. A person may feel guilt for betraying a friend's trust and shame when imagining how the friend now views them. They may try to repair the harm while also avoiding contact, generating conflicting impulses.
One emotion can also change into the other as additional information becomes available. A generalized sense of disgrace may become more manageable when the person identifies the exact act they can correct. Conversely, repeated reminders of an error can lead some people toward global self-condemnation. These developments are possibilities, not established stages of a universal emotional sequence.
Do Shame and Guilt Differ Across Cultures and Gender?
Norms concerning honor, public evaluation, relational duty, autonomy, and moral responsibility influence the social meanings of both emotions. Cultural differences must be examined in concrete populations rather than explained through a blanket opposition between “individualist guilt” and “collectivist shame.” In an eight-country study including 1,358 respondents, de Groot and colleagues (2021) found that which person or identity group committed the transgression was often more important than a simple country-level classification, though individual and cultural values also contributed.
Gender averages likewise do not describe every individual. Else-Quest and colleagues (2012) meta-analyzed a large set of self-conscious-emotion ratings and reported small average gender differences in shame and guilt, with substantial contextual qualifications. Social expectations, sampling, and reporting styles need to be considered before interpreting group differences.
The 2025 systematic review by Singh and Bhushan also highlights Western-dominated samples and inconsistent elicitation methods. Translation of emotion terms, local concepts of obligation, and social meaning are substantive parts of cross-cultural validity.
What About Children and Adolescents?
Self-conscious emotions develop alongside increasing self-awareness, perspective taking, understanding of standards, and social experience. Children gradually become more able to evaluate their actions and imagine how other people appraise them. Development is variable; a child's behavior should be understood in relation to language, maturity, temperament, and environment.
A longitudinal study of 446 families examined parent-related predictors of observed shame and guilt responses in six-year-olds. Its findings show the relevance of developmental and relational contexts without proving that any single parenting behavior determines a child's emotional style. Research in young samples needs age-appropriate observational methods rather than simply transferring adult questionnaires.
For practical purposes, feedback that specifies what happened, who was affected, and what repair is possible may give a child more usable information than global statements about identity. That suggestion follows the theoretical distinction; its effectiveness in any given setting depends on context and is not established by the comparison literature alone.
Shame and Guilt in Mental Health: What Can and Cannot Be Concluded
Shame and guilt are ordinary emotions. Persistent, disproportionate, intrusive, or disabling experiences can appear alongside depression, trauma-related conditions, anxiety symptoms, compulsive patterns, and other difficulties. However, guilt and shame themselves are neither diagnoses nor sufficient evidence of any mental disorder.
The research cited above documents correlations, not a single causal pathway. Clinical assessment asks about duration, intensity, impairment, context, actual responsibility, relevant history, and other symptoms. In trauma, a person may experience guilt or shame without having caused the traumatic event. In depression, guilt may become generalized or disconnected from realistic responsibility. These clinically specific intents belong in dedicated conditions-and-care articles, rather than being flattened into an emotion definition.
If these emotions interfere with sleep, work, relationships, or daily functioning, speaking with a qualified mental-health professional may help clarify beliefs, patterns, and appropriate support. Immediate safety concerns deserve timely local emergency or crisis support. The purpose of this encyclopedia article is accurate conceptual understanding, not individual diagnosis or treatment selection.
How to Make Sense of Your Own Experience
A useful first question is, “What exactly am I evaluating?” Identify whether attention is directed toward an observable act, a lost outcome, another person's response, a social identity, or your entire self. A second question is, “What was actually within my responsibility and control at the time?” These questions help separate the emotional signal from its appraisal.
Where a specific harm occurred and meaningful repair is possible, acknowledging the facts and taking proportionate responsibility may be appropriate. When the judgment is global—“I always ruin everything”—look for the particular event and what it can realistically establish. If the emotion follows mistreatment or public humiliation, responsibility may belong elsewhere entirely.
This is an interpretive approach informed by emotion theory, not a validated stand-alone intervention. A more accurate description of the event may aid reflection, but real difficulties sometimes require supportive conversation, sustained relationship repair, or professional care. The goal is to understand the emotion and respond to reality rather than treat one feeling as a final verdict on the self.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the main difference between shame and guilt?
In a major research tradition, shame focuses on negative evaluation of the self, while guilt focuses on a particular action or omission. This distinction is useful, but researchers continue to debate its boundaries and the conditions under which the emotions overlap.
Is “I am bad” shame and “I did something bad” guilt?
Those phrases summarize the self-versus-behavior distinction. They are illustrations, not a psychological test. People do not necessarily think in those exact words, and both appraisals can occur simultaneously.
Can I feel shame when I have done nothing wrong?
Yes. Shame can follow rejection, unfair criticism, discrimination, humiliation, or an imagined threat to social standing. Feeling ashamed does not prove wrongdoing.
Can guilt be irrational or misplaced?
Yes. Guilt reflects perceived responsibility, which can be mistaken, exaggerated, or based on hindsight. Determining actual responsibility requires examining evidence and realistic control.
Does guilt always produce an apology?
No. Guilt may motivate acknowledgment, apology, repair, rumination, concealment, or other responses. Opportunity, safety, personality, and circumstances affect what happens next.
Does shame always lead to hiding?
No. Withdrawal and concealment are common theoretical tendencies, but shame can also be followed by anger, reconnection, efforts to improve, or a search for support. Its effects are context-dependent.
Which emotion is more strongly linked with depression?
Meta-analytic evidence finds stronger average correlations between shame and depressive symptoms than between guilt considered broadly, but maladaptive forms of guilt can have associations of similar size. Correlation does not establish cause or diagnosis.
Is shame the same as embarrassment?
They overlap but are often distinguished by their appraisal: embarrassment usually concerns awkward exposure or social presentation, whereas shame can involve broader self-evaluation. Language and culture influence the distinction.
Can guilt or shame be measured with a quiz?
Questionnaires such as TOSCA and GASP can assess selected tendencies or anticipated reactions. They have construct-validity limits and cannot diagnose a disorder or establish someone's moral character.
How can someone tell whether guilt is appropriate?
Examine what happened, the commitments involved, foreseeable consequences, the information available at the time, and realistic control. Emotional intensity is independent of factual responsibility; complex situations may call for an outside perspective.
Conclusion
The central scientific difference between shame and guilt concerns how people evaluate an event in relation to themselves: shame frequently involves threatened self-worth or social standing, while guilt frequently involves perceived responsibility for a particular action. Their overlap, cultural meanings, motivational possibilities, and measurement problems matter as much as the memorable one-sentence contrast. Research most consistently supports examining the exact appraisal, what follows behaviorally, and the person's actual circumstances rather than treating either emotion as a fixed verdict.
For further scientific context, see Shame: Psychology, Self-Evaluation, and Withdrawal.
Related Articles
References
Cândea, D.-M., & Szentagotai-Tătar, A. (2018). Shame-proneness, guilt-proneness and anxiety symptoms: A meta-analysis. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 58, 78–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2018.07.005
Cohen, T. R., Wolf, S. T., Panter, A. T., & Insko, C. A. (2011). Introducing the GASP scale: A new measure of guilt and shame proneness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(5), 947–966. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022641
de Groot, M., Schaafsma, J., Castelain, T., Malinowska, K., Mann, L., Ohtsubo, Y., Wulandari, M. T. A., Bataineh, R. F., Fry, D. P., Goudbeek, M., & Suryani, A. (2021). Group-based shame, guilt, and regret across cultures. European Journal of Social Psychology, 51(7), 1198–1212. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2808
Else-Quest, N. M., Higgins, A., Allison, C., & Morton, L. C. (2012). Gender differences in self-conscious emotional experience: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138(5), 947–981. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027930
Giner-Sorolla, R., Piazza, J., & Espinosa, P. (2011). What do the TOSCA guilt and shame scales really measure: Affect or action? Personality and Individual Differences, 51(4), 445–450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.04.010
Kim, S., Thibodeau, R., & Jorgensen, R. S. (2011). Shame, guilt, and depressive symptoms: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 137(1), 68–96. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021466
Miceli, M., & Castelfranchi, C. (2018). Reconsidering the differences between shame and guilt. Europe's Journal of Psychology, 14(3), 710–733. https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v14i3.1564
Parisette-Sparks, A., Bufferd, S. J., & Klein, D. N. (2017). Parental predictors of children's shame and guilt at age 6 in a multimethod, longitudinal study. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 46(5), 721–731. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2015.1063430
Sheehy, K., Noureen, A., Khaliq, A., Dhingra, K., Husain, N., Pontin, E. E., Cawley, R., & Taylor, P. J. (2019). An examination of the relationship between shame, guilt and self-harm: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 73, 101779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2019.101779
Singh, D., & Bhushan, B. (2025). Understanding shame, guilt, embarrassment and pride: A systematic review of self-conscious emotions. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, 1678930. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1678930
Stuewig, J., Tangney, J. P., Heigel, C., Harty, L., & McCloskey, L. (2010). Shaming, blaming, and maiming: Functional links among the moral emotions, externalization of blame, and aggression. Journal of Research in Personality, 44(1), 91–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.12.005
Tangney, J. P., Stuewig, J., & Mashek, D. J. (2007). Moral emotions and moral behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 345–372. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070145
Teroni, F., & Deonna, J. A. (2008). Differentiating shame from guilt. Consciousness and Cognition, 17(3), 725–740. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2008.02.002