CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 13Emotions and Moral BehaviorPosttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Differential associations of rumination and cognitive flexibility with guilt and shame following potentially morally injurious events

Open access
Cenkner, David P., Usman, Hajra, Zalta, Alyson K.·2023·Journal of Affective Disorders
DOI 10.1016/j.jad.2022.12.165
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND Guilt and shame are common moral emotions following potentially morally injurious events (PMIEs), which involve events that violate one's deeply held moral values. However, not all individuals will experience guilt and shame following PMIEs and the mechanisms by which PMIEs lead to guilt and shame are not well understood. This study set out to examine the role of event-related intrusive rumination, event-related deliberate rumination, cognitive flexibility, and their interactions, in predicting PMIE-related guilt and shame. METHODS A subsample of undergraduate participants exposed to an objective PMIE and endorsing a subjective PMIE (N = 323) completed self-report assessments. RESULTS Higher levels of event-related intrusive rumination and event-related deliberate rumination and lower levels of cognitive flexibility were associated with higher levels of PMIE-related shame. Only higher levels of event-related deliberate rumination were associated with greater PMIE-related guilt. Moreover, the predictors explained much greater variance in PMIE-related shame (R2Adj = 0.44) than PMIE-related guilt (R2Adj = 0.05). There was no significant interaction between event-related rumination and cognitive flexibility in predicting PMIE-related guilt or shame. LIMITATIONS This study was cross-sectional, the sample was mostly female, and all data was collected via self-report. Longitudinal studies are needed to explore these potential mechanistic processes. CONCLUSIONS Our findings suggest that differential pathways may affect whether individuals experience guilt or shame following PMIEs. Rumination and cognitive flexibility may be valuable clinical targets for interventions aimed at addressing PMIE-related shame.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jad.2022.12.165

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • MI-related distress involves maladaptive self-referential processing, including rumination, rigid moral judgments, experiential avoidance, and recursive self-evaluation.

    “At the cognitive–affective level, MI-related distress has been proposed to involve maladaptive self-referential processing, including rumination, rigid moral judgments, experiential avoidance, and recursive self-evaluation (15, 16, 48, 49).”

    From The therapeutic role of self-transcendence in moral injury recovery: theory, mechanisms, and clinical implications (2026) · cites this paper as [48]

    The Introduction and Discussion (page numbers unavailable) link PMIE-related rumination and lower cognitive flexibility to guilt and shame, supporting the rumination and rigid-judgment aspects of the claim. The passages do not address experiential avoidance or identify recursive self-evaluation as a distinct process. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • In civilian research, event-related rumination and reduced cognitive flexibility are linked with heightened shame.

    “Parallel civilian research links event-related rumination and reduced cognitive flexibility with heightened shame, providing independent support for this proposed mechanism (48).”

    From The therapeutic role of self-transcendence in moral injury recovery: theory, mechanisms, and clinical implications (2026) · cites this paper as [48]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [19]19. Martin, L. L., & Tesser, A. (1996). Clarifying our thoughts (Vol. 9).
  2. [37]37. Tangney, J. P., & Dearing, R. (2002). Shame and Guilt. The Guilford Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Cenkner, D. P., Usman, H., & Zalta, A. K.
Affiliations
University of California, Irvine (US)
Corresponding author
Zalta, Alyson K.
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Affective Disorders
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-03
Volume
325
Pages
135-140
ISSN
0165-0327 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.jad.2022.12.165
OpenAlex
W4313561394
Semantic Scholar
cd6e6d3423fae55237ec45dc8c3a3d254a81a7f3
Cited by
13
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1
FWCI
3.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Affective Disorders (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Emotions and Moral Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
rumination, cognitive flexibility, guilt, shame, potentially morally injurious events, intrusive rumination, deliberate rumination, moral emotions, moral injury
MeSH terms
Cognition, Cross-Sectional Studies, Emotions, Female, Guilt, Humans, Male, Shame

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review