Introducing the GASP scale: a new measure of guilt and shame proneness.

By T. Cohen, S. Wolf, Abigail Panter, C. Insko. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2011

647 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Who Is Willing to Sacrifice Ethical Values for Money and Social Status? (2014, background): “In Study 3, we found that women implicitly associated business with immorality more than men did.”
Gender Differences in Work-Family Guilt in Parents of Young Children (2017, neutral): “001 (Guilt and Shame Proneness Scale; Cohen et al. 2011); attachment anxiety, r= .22, p= .”
Predicting Counterproductive Work Behavior from Guilt Proneness (2012, methodology): “These results support our decision to treat CWB as an aggregated set of behaviors.4 As in prior research with the GASP (Cohen et al. 2011), the guilt proneness scale had a unidimensional structure and all four items loaded highly on the factor (ks [ |.62|, ps \ .001); v2(estimated parameters = 28,…”
Short Horizons and Tempting Situations: Lack of Continuity to Our Future Selves Leads to Unethical Decision Making and Behavior (2012, methodology): “Because our focus was on endorsement of unethical behavior, we limited our analyses to the four subscales determined to be inappropriate by both our sample and prior research with the SINS II (Cohen, 2010; Cohen et al., 2011 Lewicki et al., 2007).”
Guilt Proneness and Moral Character (2012, methodology): “We examined whether negotiators low in guilt proneness were more unethical than negotiators high in guilt proneness in a study with 56 MBA students (Cohen et al., 2011, Study 3).”