Gender Role Stress in Relation to Shame,Guilt, and Externalization

This study explored how gender role stress variables are related to shame‐proneness, guilt‐proneness, and externalization. Undergraduates completed the Test of Self‐Conscious Affect and the Masculine or Feminine Gender Role Stress Scale, respectively. Canonical analyses revealed 3 significant roots for the male sample accounting for 50% of the total variance between gender role stress and self‐conscious emotions, and 1 significant root for the female sample accounting for 31% of the variance. The discussion examines the complex relationship between gender role ideals and the experience of shame, guilt, and the use of externalization as a defense against these painful affects.     

For Shame: Feminism,Breastfeeding Advocacy,and Maternal Guilt

In this paper, we provide a new framework for understanding infant‐feeding‐related maternal guilt and shame, placing these in the context of feminist theoretical and psychological accounts of the emotions of self‐assessment. Whereas breastfeeding advocacy has been critiqued for its perceived role in inducing maternal guilt, we argue that the emotion women often feel surrounding infant feeding may be better conceptualized as shame in its tendency to involve a negative self‐assessment—a failure to achieve an idealized notion of good motherhood. Further, we suggest, both formula‐feeding and breastfeeding mothers experience shame: the former report feeling that they fail to live up to ideals of womanhood and motherhood, and the latter transgress cultural expectations regarding feminine modesty. The problem, then, is the degree to which mothers are vulnerable to shame generally, regardless of infant feeding practices. As an emotion that is less adaptive and potentially more damaging than guilt, shame ought to be the focus of resistance for both feminists and breastfeeding advocates, who need to work in conjunction with women to oppose this shame by assisting them in constructing their own ideals of good motherhood that incorporate a sense of self‐concern.     

Moving Toward Self-Forgiveness: Removing Barriers Related to Shame,Guilt, and Regret

When people believe that they have hurt or offended someone, one potentially adaptive response would be to forgive the self. In an ideal process of self-forgiveness, an offender would accept an appropriate amount of responsibility, experience enough guilt to prompt reparative behaviors and improvements in character, and then release excess guilty feelings that no longer serve a useful function. In real life, however, this process often goes awry. Sometimes people avoid guilty feelings altogether, taking emotional shortcuts to repair their moods and self-images without accepting responsibility or repairing relational damage. Others go to the opposite extreme, getting caught up in negative feelings such as shame, excessive guilt, and regret about their offenses. This article briefly reviews research on these potentially problematic responses and suggests ways that each one could be addressed in interventions to facilitate self-forgiveness.     

Toward Forgiveness: The Role of Shame,Guilt Anger,and Empathy

This research explored forgiving and its relationship to adaptive moral emotional processes: proneness to shame, guilt, anger, and empathic responsiveness. Gender differences associated with forgiving were analyzed. Participants were 138 graduate students in a large northeastern urban university. Results revealed that guilt‐proneness was positively related to Total Forgiveness, as were Empathetic Concern and Perspective Taking. A positive relationship between anger reduction and Overall Forgiveness was found. Guilt‐proneness, anger reduction, and detachment informed the process of forgiveness for women. For men, age, shame‐proneness, and pride in behavior informed the process of forgiveness. Implications and possible research are discussed.     

Maternal Guilt and Shame: Relationship to Postnatal Depression and Attitudes towards Help-Seeking

Existing literature indicates that women can experience feelings of shame and guilt in relation to motherhood. This study investigated whether maternal feelings of shame and guilt were associated with postnatal depressive symptoms and attitudes towards help-seeking. A cross-sectional, correlational design was employed. Shame and guilt were measured as both dispositional factors and contextual factors i.e. in relation to motherhood (event-related shame and guilt). A UK community sample of 183 mothers with an infant between 4?weeks and 1?year of age completed a series of online questionnaires. The results indicated that shame proneness significantly predicted postnatal depressive symptoms once demographics and social support had been accounted for. Furthermore, shame proneness significantly predicted less positive attitudes towards help-seeking. Guilt proneness was not a significant predictor of postnatal depressive symptoms or attitudes towards help-seeking. These findings highlight the potential negative consequences of maternal feelings of shame in the postnatal period.     

Parental Apologies,Empathy, Shame,Guilt, and Attachment: A Path Analysis

The authors investigated the complex relationships of parental attitudes toward apologies, empathy, shame, guilt, and the parent's attachment orientation. Survey responses were obtained from 327 parents. A path analysis of the developed model demonstrated a close model fit (root‐mean‐square error of approximation = .07; comparative fit index = .93; incremental fit index = .94; χ² = 30.71, p < .001), supporting previous research on apologies as beneficial to relationships. A parent's proclivity toward apologies, positively influenced by empathy and guilt and negatively influenced by shame‐withdraw behaviors, produced a more secure parent–child attachment.     

Reactions to Violation of Normative Standards: A Cross-Cultural Analysis of Shame and Guilt

This study investigates the responses from individuals from three culture groups (Germans, Kurds, and Lebanese) following the violation of legal, religious, and traditional norms. The three samples formed two main groups with regard to their cultural orientation; the German sample showed an individualistic orientation whereas the other two samples (Kurds and Lebanese) showed a clear collectivistic orientation. As hypothesized by cross-cultural researchers, it was expected that individuals from collectivistic cultures would respond to normative violations with more shame and individuals from individualistic orientations with more guilt. The findings show that subjects from collectivistic cultures respond with more shame and guilt than subjects from the individualistic culture. However, there was no distinction with regard to the degree of guilt between the two main culture groups. Since the three culture groups show a similar religious outlook in terms of monotheism (Christianity and Islam), it was suggested that this factor increases the degree of guilt even for subjects with a collectivistic background. Moreover, it was found that the Kurds and Lebanese showed a greater willingness to keep to the norms of religion and tradition, and less willingness to allow state laws to intervene in family and ingroup disputes.     

Shame Proneness,Guilt Proneness,Behavioral Self-Handicapping,and Skill Level: A Mediational Analysis

In this study, the relationship between shame proneness, guilt proneness, behavioral self-handicapping, and skill level was examined in elite youth soccer players (N = 589, M_age = 16.8, SD = 1.8). Mediation analyses showed that shame proneness had a positive direct relationship with self-handicapping and a weak negative indirect relationship with skill level. Guilt proneness was shown to have a negative direct relationship to self-handicapping and a positive weak indirect relationship to skill level. Shame proneness may, thus, stimulate behavioral self-handicapping, whereas guilt proneness may discourage behavioral self-handicapping in soccer players.     

Empathy, Shame, Guilt, and Narratives of Interpersonal Conflicts: Guilt-Prone People Are Better at Perspective Taking

Both guilt and empathic perspective taking have been linked to prosocial, relationship-enhancing effects. Study 1 found that shame was linked to personal distress, whereas guilt was linked to perspective taking. In Studies 2 and 3, subjects were asked to describe a recent experience of interpersonal conflict, once from their own perspective, and once from the perspective of the other person. Guilt-prone people and guilt-dominated stories were linked to better perspective taking (measured by changes between the two versions of the story) than others. Shame had no effect. Guilt improved relationship outcomes but shame harmed them. Path analysis suggested that trait guilt-proneness leads to perspective taking, which leads to actual guilt feelings, which produces beneficial relationship outcomes. Guilt feelings may mediate the relationship-enhancing effects of empathy.     

Empathy and the Self-Absorption Paradox II: Self-Rumination and Self-Reflection as Mediators Between Shame,Guilt, and Empathy

The present study tested the hypothesis that proneness to shame would predict self-rumination (and personal distress) whereas proneness to guilt would predict self-reflection (and perspective taking, and empathic concern). Results supported the majority of these predictions, and revealed that self-reflection mediates the relationship between guilt and perspective taking. Additional results provided some support for the hypothesis that self-rumination mediates the relationship between shame and personal distress. However, results also revealed that shame mediated the relationship between self-rumination and personal distress, suggesting that shame and self-rumination may feed each other within a reciprocal cycle that is likely to result in a maladaptive empathic response (i.e., personal distress). Empathic concern was associated with higher levels of guilt, but results failed to replicate earlier findings demonstrating a positive relationship between empathic concern and self-reflection. The present results replicate and extend past research and suggest several promising avenues for future research.     

The Approach and Avoidance Function of Guilt and Shame Emotions: Comparing Reactions to Self-Caused and Other-Caused Wrongdoing

Although theory suggests that guilt motivates approach tendencies and shame motivates avoidance tendencies, research has not always supported these relationships. The present study examined the degree to which shame and guilt are uniquely predictive of avoidance and approach motives, respectively, for both self-caused and other-caused wrongdoings. Results revealed that shame and guilt are more highly correlated for self-caused compared to other-caused wrongdoings. This greater blending of shame and guilt in response to self-caused acts makes it somewhat more difficult to distinguish between different unique motivational correlates of these two emotions. However, in response to other-caused wrongdoings, shame uniquely predicted avoidance tendencies (distancing from the event), whereas guilt uniquely predicted approach tendencies (repairing the event). The implications for research on motivation, emotion, and social relations are discussed.

Development of the Weight- and Body-Related Shame and Guilt scale (WEB-SG) in a nonclinical sample of obese individuals

In this article, we present the evaluation of the psychometric properties of a new self-report measure of Weight- and Body-Related Shame and Guilt (WEB-SG). The main purpose of the study was to measure shame and guilt feelings separately in obese individuals and investigate differing behavioral and emotional correlates of these emotions. Altogether, 331 obese participants completed the WEB-SG and other established self-report measures. A subset of the participants completed a 6-month follow-up. The WEB-SG proved to be internally consistent and temporally stable over a 6-month period. Regarding the factorial structure, a two-factor conceptualization was supported. The construct validity of the WEB-SG subscales was evidenced by a substantial overlap of common variance with related measures. The subscales Shame and Guilt showed differential correlation patterns to other scales. The WEB-SG is a brief, psychometrically sound measure for assessing body shame and guilt concerning weight control in obese individuals.     

Atheism and Morality,Guilt and Shame: Why the Moral Complacency of the New Atheism is a Mistake

When it comes to morality, the New Atheists appear to think that their rejection of religion, except for the removal of fundamentalist distortions, changes nothing. We think that this is because they have not thought things through. Atheism might not be a threat to shame morality, but it is certainly a threat to guilt morality. Given that there are reasons to doubt the viability today of shame morality, we face a far greater problem if atheism triumphs than the New Atheists admit.     

Individual Differences in Experiences of and Responses to Guilt and Shame: Examining the Lenses of Gender and Gender Role

How are experiences of and reactions to guilt and shame a function of gendered views of the self? Individual differences in guilt and shame responses were explored in a sample of 104 young adults, most of whom were European American. Results indicated that, although women reported greater proneness to guilt and shame, men reported more trait guilt. Heightened levels of guilt- and shame-proneness were observed among both men and women with traditionally feminine gender roles, whereas a more traditionally masculine self-concept was associated with decreased shame-proneness for women. Gender schematic women favored verbal responses to ameliorate the experience of guilt, whereas gender schematic men preferred action-oriented responses. These results are discussed as gendered outcomes of schematic versus aschematic gender role socialization.     

Evidence for the Distinctness of Embarrassment,Shame, and Guilt: A Study of Recalled Antecedents and Facial Expressions of Emotion

Following proposals regarding the criteria for differentiating emotions, the current investigation examined whether the antecedents and facial expressions of embarrassment, shame, and guilt are distinct. In Study 1, participants wrote down events that had caused them to feel embarrassment, shame, and guilt. Coding of these events revealed that embarrassment was associated with transgressions of conventions that govern public interactions, shame with the failure to meet important personal standards, and guilt with actions that harm others or violate duties. Study 2 determined whether these three emotions are distinct in another domain of emotion-namely, facial expression. Observers were presented with slides of 14 different facial expressions, including those of embarrassment, shame, and candidates of guilt (self-contempt, sympathy, and pain). Observers accurately identified the expressions of embarrassment and shame, but did not reliably label any expression as guilt.