Guilt and pride are heartfelt, but not equally so MELIKE M. FOURIE, a HENRI G. L. RAUCH, b BARAK E. MORGAN, c GEORGE F. R. ELLIS, d ESME ` R. JORDAAN, e and KEVIN G. F. THOMAS a a ACSENT Laboratory, Department of Psychology, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch, South Africa b MRC/UCT Research Unit for Exercise Science and Sports Medicine, Department of Human Biology, University of Cape Town, Newlands, South Africa c MRC/UCT Medical Imaging Research Unit, Division of Biomedical Engineering, Department of Human Biology, University of Cape Town, Observatory, South Africa d Department of Mathematics and Applied Mathematics, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch, South Africa e Biostatistics Unit, Medical Research Council, Tygerberg, South Africa Abstract We examined the cardiovascular physiology of guilt and pride to elucidate physiological substrates underpinning the behavioral motivations of these moral emotions. Although both emotions motivate prosocial behavior, guilt typically inhibits ongoing behavior, whereas pride reinforces current behavior. To succeed in eliciting real emotions, we used a novel social interaction task. We found dissociable sympathetic activation during guilt and pride; specifically, Guilt participants experienced prolonged cardiac sympathetic arousal as measured by preejection period (PEP), whereas Pride participants experienced transient non-cardiac somatic arousal and a shift to low frequency (LF) power in the cardiac spectrogram. This dissociation supports their distinctive motivational functions. Higher self-reported Behav- ioral Inhibition System (BIS) sensitivity was furthermore uniquely associated with guilt, supporting its function as a punishment cue. Descriptors: Moral emotions, Motivation, Sympathetic arousal, Heart rate variability, Behavioral inhibition Investigating the physiology of discrete emotions serves several important functions, including uncovering emotion-specific physiological activity (Levenson, 2003), and investigating the relation between affect and specific health outcomes (e.g., Lerner, Dahl, Hariri, & Taylor, 2007; Steptoe & Brydon, 2009). Notably, such investigations also help inform psycholog- ical theories of emotion with regard to their motivational and behavioral functions (Amodio, Devine, & Harmon-Jones, 2007; Cacioppo & Gardner, 1999; Izard & Ackerman, 2000). Com- pared to investigations into the basic emotions (e.g., Rainville, Bechara, Naqvi, & Damasio, 2006), however, the psychophys- iological exploration of moral emotions has received little atten- tion to date. The dearth of such literature may be attributed largely to inherent methodological challenges associated with the successful elicitation, as well as the measurement, of moral emotions (Lewis, 2000; Tangney, 1996). Moral emotions are internal affective states that are linked to the wellbeing of other individuals or society as a whole (Tangney, Struewig, & Mashek, 2007). As early as 1884, William James argued that not only basic emotions, but also the moral emo- tions, are associated with physiological arousal. He maintained that we experience ‘‘bodily modifications’’ unlocking ‘‘shames and indignations and fears’’ that are brought about by our sen- sitivities to another’s perception of the self (James, 1884, p. 195). As ultra-social organisms who stand or fall by our social rep- utation, moral emotions motivate us to perform socially valued acts while affectively prohibiting socially disruptive ones (Keltner & Buswell, 1997; Tangney et al., 2007). We therefore expect them to wield large physiological responses, corresponding with their strong motivational roles (Williams & DeSteno, 2008). Guilt and pride are moral self-conscious emotions integral to preserving social bonds. Guilt is an intense, gnawing feeling of moral discomfort experienced when one’s behavior violates a personal or societal standard (Baumeister, Stillwell, & Heather- ton, 1994). Because guilt is also associated with empathy toward the victim, it can motivate reparative actions (Hoffman, 1998). Conversely, pride is a positive emotion that accompanies both our trivial and life-changing accomplishments (Tracy & Robins, 2004). It therefore provides the psychological motivation or re- inforcement for future pride-eliciting behaviors (Williams & DeSteno, 2008). The authentic rather than hubristic form of pride is considered adaptive in that it promotes continued achievement-oriented as well as prosocial behaviors (Tracy & Robins, 2007). Both guilt and pride therefore motivate prosocial or socially adaptive behavior, despite being associated with quite different phenomenological experiences. Emotions initiate both motor responses and complex goal- directed behavior in order to confer an adaptive advantage upon This research was supported by the National Research Foundation (NRF), the Oppenheimer Memorial Trust, the AW Mellon Foundation, and the University of Cape Town. We thank Dan Stein and Wayne Derman for editorial comments. Address correspondence to: Melike Fourie, Department of Psycho- logy, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch, South Africa, 7701. E-mail: marethem@gmail.com Psychophysiology, ]]] (2010), 1–12. Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Printed in the USA. Copyright r 2010 Society for Psychophysiological Research DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2010.01157.x 1