补偿他人还是保护自己?内疚与羞耻情绪对合作行为的影响差异

作为两种常见且易被混淆的自我意识情绪, 诸多研究者对内疚和羞耻的产生前因及影响后效进行研究, 尤其是近年来的研究逐渐关注两者对合作行为的影响。我们通过对已有研究进行梳理发现, 内疚和羞耻对合作行为的影响及其机制存在差异, 内疚的影响更为稳定及具有普适性, 羞耻的影响具有复杂性和多样性, 更容易受到其他因素的影响。内疚和羞耻对合作行为的不同影响可从动机机制和调节机制两方面进行解释。首先, 动机机制包括内疚对他人的补偿、修复动机以及羞耻对自我的保护、修复动机。内疚对他人的补偿、修复动机主要体现在维护社会互动中的公平; 弥补对他人造成的伤害, 降低自己和他人的痛苦; 修复人际关系, 重新获得他人或自己的接纳与认同。羞耻对自我的保护、修复动机主要体现在释放消极的情绪状态; 维护积极的自我形象和声誉, 修复自我; 保护自我, 防止后续伤害及不良后果。总体而言, 内疚者关注过失行为及后果, 侧重于对受害他人的补偿或对与他人关系的修复, 而羞耻者关注整体自我的受损, 侧重于对自我的保护和对自己社会形象的修复, 基于此, 我们在前人研究的基础上构建了内疚与羞耻影响合作行为的动机机制对比模型图。其次, 调节机制涉及到个体因素和情境因素的调节作用, 其中个体因素包括认知因素、社会价值取向、自我控制能力、情绪特质和情绪状态, 情境因素包括暴露情境和掩蔽情境、实验情境和日常情境、相关情境和不相关情境。具体而言, 内疚对合作行为的影响的较少受情境的限制, 而羞耻受情境因素限制较多, 在暴露情境、相关情境中更能促进合作行为的产生, 而在掩蔽情境、不相关情境中, 羞耻较难影响个体的合作抉择, 且无论是实验室情境还是日常情境, 内疚似乎都比羞耻更易影响合作。最后, 鉴于内疚与羞耻的诱发和测量方法的有效性仍需检验, 两种情绪对合作行为影响的过程机制和生理机制仍不明晰, 个体因素影响的研究尚不充足以及跨文化研究较为缺乏, 未来研究可以从内疚和羞耻诱发与测量方法的有效性, 情绪作用发生的内在过程和生理机制, 情绪影响的个体和文化差异这几方面进行扩展和深挖。     

At the Point of Death—A Case Study

In 1979 Pastoral Psychology published my first autobiographical case study: the story of a near-fatal automobile accident, collateral damage of a high speed police chase in downtown Chicago. Providence was evident in my survival of that collision, as well as in the present case study: a massive heart attack during a psychotherapy session in 2001. By comparing these two crises, I find that I must call into focus a psychological propensity: if a near-fatal experience occurs from the “outside in” (e.g. automobile accident), guilt may well surface as the emotion of conflict; but if a near-fatal experience occurs from the “inside out” (e.g. heart attack), the emotion of conflict may emerge as shame. In the former the body is assaulted; in the latter it revolts.     

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.

羞愧研究综述

近年来羞愧作为自我意识情绪研究中一个重要的主题而再度得到心理学家的关注,本文从羞愧的概念、发展理论、羞愧和内疚的差异研究、羞愧的动机作用等几个方面总结了对羞愧的研究结果,在此基础上探讨该领域未来的研究趋势。     

大学生心理控制源与内疚感和羞耻感对反事实思维的影响

研究以128名大学生为研究对象,采用2 (心理控制源: 外控型、内控型)×2 (自我道德感: 内疚感、羞耻感) 两因素被试间实验设计,考察了外控和内控大学生在内疚感和羞耻感两种不同的自我道德情感下反事实思维内容的差异。结果表明:(1) 心理控制源对大学生反事实思维不同内容的诱发具有重要的影响:外控者更倾向于产生行为和情境导向的反事实思维,而内控者更倾向于产生自我导向的反事实思维。内疚感和羞耻感对大学生反事实思维内容的产生没有直接的影响;(2) 反事实思维内容的产生受到了心理控制源与内疚感和羞耻感两种自我道德情感的交互影响:外控者在羞耻感的启动条件下比在内疚感的启动条件下表现出了更多的行为和情境导向的反事实思维,而内控者在内疚感的启动条件下比在羞耻感的条件下表现出了更多的自我导向的反事实思维。研究结果有助于解释以中西方不同被试而得出的内疚感和羞耻感与反事实思维关系的矛盾结论。     

自尊、归因方式与内疚和羞耻的关系研究

通过对1040名中学生施测问卷,建立自尊、归因方式与内疚和羞耻的结构方程模型。结果表明：1）自尊与内疚和羞耻呈显著正相关,归因方式与内疚或羞耻呈显著负相关;2）自尊是归因方式与内疚和羞耻之间的中介变量,归因方式对自尊的直接作用大于对内疚和羞耻的直接作用,对内疚和羞耻的间接作用大于直接作用;3）个体对内疚事件更倾向于内归因,对羞耻事件更倾向于外归因。     

When Self-Blame Is Rational and Appropriate: The Limited Utility of Socratic Questioning in the Context of Moral Injury: Commentary on Wachen et al. (2016)

In this commentary, we argue that a generally sound therapeutic technique—Socratic questioning—is ill-suited to address a common variant of combat-related emotional and psychological distress. Specifically, moral injury is a term used to describe a syndrome of shame, self-handicapping, anger, and demoralization that occurs when deeply held beliefs and expectations about moral and ethical conduct are transgressed. Importantly, moral injury can and often does result from instances of intentional perpetration. We contend that challenging the accuracy of self-blame in such cases is conceptually problematic and potentially harmful. Such an approach is based on a questionable premise—i.e., that self-blame and resulting guilt are inherently illogical or inaccurate. Though this is often the case, it is not invariably so. We briefly describe an alternate approach—Adaptive Disclosure—that allows for accurate and legitimate self-blame when warranted but also promotes the possibilities of self-forgiveness, compassion, and moral reparation.     

Aggression in Malaysian adolescents: Validation of the IRPA self-report to measure reactive and proactive aggression

Motives for aggression can be reactive or proactive. While research on these motives for aggression exists in Western societies, little is known about their prevalence in a non-Western society such as Malaysia. The first step to narrow this gap is to validate an instrument, which measures levels of reactive and proactive aggression. In the present study we translated the instrument for reactive and proactive aggression (IRPA) self-report, and examined its psychometric properties in 957 Malaysian adolescents. Participants completed the IRPA self-report along with instruments measuring victimization, anger, shame, and guilt. The outcomes confirmed the expected two-factor structure, good internal consistency and validity of the IRPA self-report in a Malaysian sample.     

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.     

Religious Fundamentalism and Gender Differences

The role of religious fundamentalism and its relationship to shame and guilt was evaluated in 107 students who attend a church-sponsored university. A number of personality measures were given and gender differences were analyzed. The role of externalization was similar for males in this sample to that of earlier studies. However, it was found that females showed positive correlations between externalization and both shame and guilt. For females, more fundamentalistic religious training may help to contribute to an external orientation at the expense of identifying with a personal religion, and appropriate guilt.