Guilty, But Not Ashamed:“True” Self-Conceptions Influence Affective Responses to Personal Shortcomings Matthew Vess, 1 Rebecca J. Schlegel, 2 Joshua A. Hicks, 2 and Jamie Arndt 3 1 Montana State University 2 Texas A&M University 3 University of Missouri Abstract The current research examined how true self-conceptions (who a person believes he or she truly is) influence negative self-relevant emotions in response to shortcomings. In Study 1 (N = 83), an Internet sample of adults completed a measure of authenticity, reflected on a shortcoming or positive life event, and completed state shame and guilt measures. In Study 2 (N = 49), undergraduates focused on true versus other determined self-attributes, received negative performance feedback, and completed state shame and guilt measures. In Study 3 (N = 138), undergraduates focused on self-determined versus other determined self-aspects, reflected on a shortcoming or neutral event, and completed state shame, guilt, and self-esteem measures. In Study 4 (N = 75), undergraduates thought about true self-attributes, an achievement, or an ordinary event; received positive or negative performance feedback; and completed state shame and guilt measures. In Study 1, differences in true self-expression positively predicted shame-free guilt (but not guilt-free shame) following reminders of a shortcoming. Studies 2–4 found that experimental activation of true self-conceptions increased shame-free guilt and generally decreased guilt-free shame in response to negative evaluative experiences.The findings offer novel insights into true self-conceptions by revealing their impact on negative self-conscious emotions. It is an undeniable fact of life that, despite our very best efforts, we sometimes fall short of the standards that we strive to meet. Students fall short of their academic goals. Dieters succumb to the temptation of “forbidden” sweets. Even exceptionally tal- ented athletes like Lebron James and Tiger Woods do not always live up to their competitive (and moral) expectations. These types of experiences have the obvious potential to trigger self-evaluative processes that can elicit a wide range of negative consequences. Yet, while some people respond to negative evaluative events in a potentially dysfunctional fashion (e.g., aggression; Baumeister, Smart, & Boden, 1996), other people appear to be relatively unaffected by their short- comings and display little to no defensiveness. What accounts for such divergent reactions? A number of factors likely play a role, but an emerging literature suggests that the activation and expression of one’s “true” self-concept may be especially important (e.g., Kernis, 2003). In the current research, we examined whether or not true self-conceptions influence the affective reactions that people have to personal shortcomings. We focused on the distinction between shame and guilt, and drew upon research indicating that “shame-free guilt” (guilt controlling for shame) and “guilt-free shame” (shame con- trolling for guilt) are differentially related to important psy- chological outcomes (e.g., depression; Orth, Berking, & Burkhardt, 2006). We hypothesized that true self-conceptions would promote greater shame-free guilt and less guilt-free shame in response to personal shortcomings. True Self-Conceptions and Security in the Face of Self-Evaluative Threat References to the “true self ” abound. They can be found in the everyday expressions of both Eastern and Western cultures (Lakoff & Johnson, 1999), in classic psychological theories (e.g., Becker, 1962; Horney, 1937; Rogers, 1961), and in more recent empirical perspectives on psychological health. Kernis (2003), for example, posited that the awareness and expression of one’s perceived true self contribute to overall well-being, and self-determination theory argues that the pursuit of goals consistent with who one believes he or she truly is aids in the fulfillment of basic psychological needs (e.g., Deci & Ryan, 1995; Sheldon & Elliot, 1999). These perspectives and lay Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Matthew Vess, Department of Psychology, Montana State University, P.O. Box 173440, Bozeman, MT 59717-3440, USA. Email: vessmk@gmail.com. Journal of Personality ••:••, •• 2013 © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. DOI: 10.1111/jopy.12046