Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/2440/140673
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorBohdan, Edwin-
dc.date.issued2023-
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2440/140673-
dc.descriptionThis item is only available electronically.en
dc.description.abstractRegret is a complex, negative, self-conscious emotion, comprising of both an affective and cognitive component. Regret has been associated with the experience of negative emotions including shame, guilt, and self-punishment which may elicit distress, and result in poor mental health. Self-forgiveness has been proposed as an effective intervention to reduce those distressing emotions. Action regrets, which arise from one's act of commission, are the focus of this study. The study evaluated the validity of a novel 34-item self-report questionnaire measuring the emotional responses to an action regret across four factors: shame, moral judgement, self-punishment, and repair. N= 200 adults participated in an online survey, recalling details of their regret, and completed five self-report questionnaires. Correlational analyses revealed good to excellent construct validity of three factors, while repair was acceptable. Multiple regressions revealed that shame and self-punishment reliably predicted distress scores, while moral-judgement and repair, predicted self-forgiveness scores. The lower reliability of ERAR-repair and implications toward multicollinearity are discussed. The findings support the understanding that negative self-evaluations can lead to distress and self-punishing behaviour. Conversely, a moral and cognitive evaluation of one's behaviour may alleviate distress and encourage the restorative process of self-forgiveness. Keywords: regret, action-regret, shame, guilt, self-punishment, self-forgiveness, moral emotionsen
dc.subjectHonours; Psychologyen
dc.titleEmotional Responses to an Action Regret: Validation of a Four-Factor Scaleen
dc.typeThesisen
dc.contributor.schoolSchool of Psychology-
dc.provenanceThis electronic version is made publicly available by the University of Adelaide in accordance with its open access policy for student theses. Copyright in this thesis remains with the author. This thesis may incorporate third party material which has been used by the author pursuant to Fair Dealing exceptions. If you are the author of this thesis and do not wish it to be made publicly available, or you are the owner of any included third party copyright material you wish to be removed from this electronic version, please complete the take down form located at: http://www.adelaide.edu.au/legals-
dc.description.dissertationThesis (B.PsychSc(Hons)) -- University of Adelaide, School of Psychology, 2023-
Appears in Collections:School of Psychology

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
BohdanE_2023_Hons.pdf1.43 MBAdobe PDFView/Open


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.