Despite decades of empirical research, conclusions regarding the adaptiveness of dispositional guilt and shame are mixed. We use meta‐analysis to summarize the empirical literature and clarify these ambiguities. Specifically, we evaluate how guilt and shame are uniquely related to pro‐social orientation and, in doing so, highlight the substantial yet under‐acknowledged impact of researchers’ methodological choices. A series of meta‐analyses was conducted investigating the relationship between dispositional guilt (or shame) and pro‐social orientation. Two main methodological moderators of interest were tested: test format (scenario vs. checklist) and statistical analysis (semi‐partial vs. zero‐order correlations). Among studies employing zero‐order correlations, dispositional guilt was positively correlated with pro‐social orientation (k = 63, Mr = .13, p < .001), whereas dispositional shame was negatively correlated, (k = 47, Mr = –.05, p = .07). Test format was a significant moderator for guilt studies only, with scenario measures producing significantly stronger effects. Semi‐partial correlations resulted in significantly stronger effects among guilt and shame studies. Although dispositional guilt and shame are differentially related to pro‐social orientation, such relationships depend largely on the methodological choices of the researcher, particularly in the case of guilt. Implications for the study of these traits are discussed.