Abstract: This study aimed at investigating intentional and non-intentional situations eliciting shame and guilt in relation to children's involvement in bullying, victimization and prosocial behaviour. We used the contextual model designed by Olthof, Schouten, Kuiper, Stegge, and Jennekens-Schinkel (2000) according to which certain situations elicit more shame than guilt ("shame-only", SO), whereas others elicit both guilt and shame ("shame-and-guilt", SAG). Besides these, four new scenarios were added (2 SO and 2 SAG) in which the protagonist was alternatively the perpetrator or the receiver of harm. Participants were 121 children aged 9-11, who filled in the self-report Shame and Guilt Questionnaire, and a peer nomination survey to investigate the roles of bully, victim, prosocial and not involved. Results showed that in SAG situations, perpetrated-harm situations elicited more guilt than neutral situations; while in SO situations, neutral situations elicited more shame than received-harm situations. In SAG situations, prosocial children reported feeling more ashamed and guilty than bullies and not-involved children, while in SO situations, victims scored higher on shame than not-involved children. Results are discussed considering the contextual model employed and the relationship between emotions and behaviours.