Search

Guilt plays a role in various forms of psychopathology. However, different types of guilt might be involved in different mental disorders. Obsessive-compulsive (OC) patients are prone to a type of guilt in which the violation of an internalized moral norm is necessary and sufficient, whereas data suggest that depression might be linked to more interpersonal types of guilt. However, the extent to which a specific guilt phenomenology is involved in each condition is yet to be determined. Here we assessed the association between different types of guilt and different diagnostic groups. Two clinical samples (33 OCD and 35 non-OCD) filled in the Moral Orientation Guilt Scale (MOGS) along with other OCD and depression measures. Regression was employed to test group differences in the MOGS subscales and to test the influence of MOGS subscales on OCD and depression levels. Results confirm that different types of guilt might be implicated in different psychopathological conditions. Specifically, moral norm violation guilt is more present in OC patients than in other disorders. Depression seems to be associated with different guilt feelings depending on the psychopathological condition, specifically in non-OC patients, with types of guilt involving a "victim", supporting the accounts viewing interpersonal guilt as involved in the emergence of depressive symptomatology and hyper-altruistic behavior as a vulnerability factor for depression. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper describes the impasses occurring in the treatment of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, being the special object of our analysis the patient's representations. In particular we shall try to answer the following questions: how does the obsessive-compulsive patient evaluate the psychological help provided by the psychotherapist? Which are the peculiar evaluations that hinder or even nullify this kind of help? We shall answer starting from one of the most substantiated thesis in the field of clinical cognitivism, the one according to which the obsessive symptomatology can be traced back to evaluations due to an hypertrophic sense of responsibility (Arntz et al. 2007; Ladouceur et al. 1997; Lopatka & Rachman 1995; Mancini et al. 2004; Salkovskis 1985, 1989; Salkovskis & Forrester 2002; Shafran 1997) and more specifically to a fear of moral guilt (Basile e Mancini 2011; Gangemi et al. 2007; Mancini 2005; Mancini & Gangemi 2004; Mancini et al. 2008; Rachman 1993; Shafran et al. 1996; Shapiro & Stewart 2011). We shall maintain, consistently with the above-mentioned thesis and on the basis of the clinical observation, that it is possible to explain most of the resistances to change and of the relational deadlocks as effects of evaluations amenable to those very same psychological structures implied in the genesis of the obsessive symptomatology (Saliani & Mancini 2010) and we shall provide, through clinical examples and excerpts of self-dialogue reported by patients, a thorough description of these kind of evaluations occurring in the various phases of treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Guilt emerges as the emotional result of a conflict between our behavior and internalized morality. Since morality is best conceptualized as a multidimensional construct, guilt results in different phenomena depending on the moral values internalized by the "guilty". Indeed, mounting evidence supports the distinction between guilt feelings emerging from deontological morality and guilt feelings emerging from altruistic morality. Most measures fail to consider moral orientation when assessing guilt. Our aim was to develop a reliable and valid tool, able to independently measure different types of guilt feelings. We presented the 17-items Moral Orientation Guilt Scale (MOGS) to a large subclinical sample, along with other questionnaires. Analyses included measures of classical test theory and innovative techniques of network analysis. This cross-validation approach pointed at four factors: "Moral Norm Violation", "Moral Dirtiness", "Empathy" and "Harm". Results suggested MOGS good reliability and a strong construct and convergent validity. Importantly, "Moral Norm Violation" and "Moral Dirtiness" scores were positively correlated with disgust sensitivity, supporting the link between disgust and deontological guilt. Differently, "Harm" scores were negatively correlated with disgust sensitivity scores, in line with the notion that altruism and disgust possibly evolved as part of contrasting motivational systems. • MOGS measures different types of guilt considering individual moral orientation. • Deontological guilt shows a positive association with disgust sensitivity. • Altruistic guilt shows a negative association with disgust sensitivity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]