How social connectedness affects guilt and shame: Mediation by hope and differentiation of self

We tested a mediation model of social connectedness and guilt and shame. Social connectedness was hypothesized to be related to greater hope and differentiation of self. Hope and differentiation of self, in turn, were expected to be related to less shame and more prosocial guilt. The results found that hope mediated the relationship between social connectedness and guilt, and differentiation of self mediated the relationship between social connectedness and shame. Alternative explanatory models were explored and taken into consideration in the interpretation of the results.     

Maternal Guilt and Shame: The Role of Self-discrepancy and Fear of Negative Evaluation

Guilt and shame are emotions commonly associated with motherhood. Self-discrepancy theory proposes that guilt and shame result from perceived discrepancies between one’s actual and ideal selves. Fear of negative evaluation by others may enhance the effects of self-discrepancy especially for shame, which involves fear of others’ reproach. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationships between self discrepancy, guilt, shame, and fear of negative evaluation in a cross-sectional, self report study of mothers. Mothers of children five and under (N = 181) completed an on-line survey measuring guilt, shame, fear of negative evaluation, and maternal self-discrepancies. Guilt and shame were related to maternal self-discrepancy and fear of negative evaluation. In addition, fear of negative evaluation moderated the relationship between maternal self-discrepancy and shame such that mothers who greatly feared negative evaluation had a very strong relationship between these variables. Maternal self-discrepancy and shame were not related among mothers who had low fear of negative evaluation. The results are discussed in terms of the detrimental effects of internalizing idealized standards of perfect motherhood.     

The Effect of Shame‐Proneness,Guilt‐Proneness,and Internalizing Tendencies on Nonsuicidal Self‐Injury

Nonsuicidal self‐injury is especially common in adolescents and young adults. Self‐injury may be related to shame or guilt—two moral emotions—as these differentially predict other maladaptive behaviors. Using a college sample, we examined not only how shame‐proneness, guilt‐proneness, and internalizing emotional tendencies related to self‐injury, but also whether these moral emotions moderate the relation between internalizing tendencies and self‐injury. High shame‐proneness was associated with higher frequencies of self‐injury. High guilt‐proneness was associated with less self‐injury, although this effect was mitigated at higher levels of internalizing tendencies. These results suggest shame‐proneness is a risk factor for self‐injury, while guilt‐proneness is protective.     

Evolving Concepts of Evolution: The Case of Shame and Guilt

Evolutionary biologists often refer to a distinction between ultimate and proximate explanation. On the one hand, such a distinction points to important issues for social psychologists, especially in terms of what it means to say that people experience emotions such as guilt and shame. On the other hand, the value of the ultimate/proximate distinction depends on how it is understood because its application can be problematic. We illustrate the use and possible misuse of the distinction in terms of its application to the differentiation of the self‐conscious emotions guilt and shame.     

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。     

Self-conscious emotions and depression: rumination explains why shame but not guilt is maladaptive

Feelings of shame and guilt are factors associated with depression. However, studies simultaneously investigating shame and guilt suggest that only shame has a strong unique effect, although it is not yet clear which psychological processes cause shame and not shame-free guilt to be related to depression. The authors hypothesized that shame, in contrast to guilt, elicits rumination, which then leads to depression. Therefore, in this study we investigated event-related shame and guilt, event-related rumination, and depression among 149 mothers and fathers following family breakup due to marital separation. Data were analyzed using latent variable modeling. The results confirm that shame but not guilt has a strong unique effect on depression. Moreover, the results show that the effect of shame is substantially mediated by rumination. The results are discussed against the background of self-discrepancies and self-esteem.     

Differentiating shame from guilt

How does shame differ from guilt? Empirical psychology has recently offered distinct and seemingly incompatible answers to this question. This article brings together four prominent answers into a cohesive whole. These are that (a) shame differs from guilt in being a social emotion; (b) shame, in contrast to guilt, affects the whole self; (c) shame is linked with ideals, whereas guilt concerns prohibitions and (d) shame is oriented towards the self, guilt towards others. After presenting the relevant empirical evidence, we defend specific interpretations of each of these answers and argue that they are related to four different dimensions of the emotions. This not only allows us to overcome the conclusion that the above criteria are either unrelated or conflicting with one another, it also allows us to tell apart what is constitutive from what is typical of them.     

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.     

Dealing with the past and facing the future: mediators of the effects of collective guilt and shame in Bosnia and Herzegovina

Two studies are reported which examined potential mediators of the effects of collective guilt and shame on reparation attitudes. Samples of young Bosnian Serbs (Ns = 173, 247) were asked to report their feelings of guilt and shame for what their group had done during the 1992–1995 war in Bosnia Herzegovina. They also reported their attitudes towards making reparation to Bosnian Muslims. Both collective guilt and shame positively predicted reparation attitudes, but these associations were differently mediated. The effects of guilt were mediated by empathy for the outgroup, while the effects of shame were mediated by self‐pity and empathy. The theoretical and applied implications of these findings are discussed. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Do Social Connections and Hope Matter in Predicting Early Adolescent Violence?

We tested relationships between social connections, hope, and violence among young adolescents from socially distressed urban neighborhoods, and examined whether relationships between adolescents' family and school connectedness and violence involvement were mediated by hopefulness. Data were from middle school students involved in the Lead Peace demonstration study. The sample (N = 164) was 51.8% female; 42% African American, 28% Asian, 13% Hispanic, and 17% mixed race or other race; average age was 12.1 years; 46% reported physical fighting in the past year. In multivariate models, parent-family connectedness was protective against violence; school connectedness was marginally protective. Hopefulness was related to lower levels of violence. The relationship between school connectedness and violence was mediated by hopefulness; some evidence for mediation also existed in the family-parent connectedness and violence relationship. Findings warrant continued exploration of hopefulness as an important protective factor against violence involvement, and as a mediator in relationships between social connections and violence involvement.     

The Interpersonal Adaptiveness of Dispositional Guilt and Shame: A Meta‐Analytic Investigation

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.     

Reassessing the dimensionality of the moral emotions

The dimensionality of the moral emotions was tested to examine whether theoretical distinctions between specific emotions were empirically supported. A total of 720 drink‐driving offenders indicated the degree to which they experienced feelings associated with the moral emotions, in an interview conducted after attending court or a restorative justice conference. Expected distinctions between shame and guilt were not found. Instead the principal components analysis identified three factors: shame‐guilt, embarrassment‐exposure, and unresolved shame. The results also show that shame‐guilt was related to higher feelings of empathy and lower feelings of anger/hostility. It is concluded that differences between shame and guilt may be overstated. Furthermore, it is suggested that the relationship between situational experiences of shame and the disposition to feel it may be more complicated than initially thought.     

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.     

Nuestra culpa: collective guilt and shame as predictors of reparation for historical wrongdoing

Three studies examined the hypothesis that collective guilt and shame have different consequences for reparation. In 2 longitudinal studies, the ingroup was nonindigenous Chileans (Study 1: N = 124/120, lag = 8 weeks; Study 2: N = 247/137, lag = 6 months), and the outgroup was Chile's largest indigenous group, the Mapuche. In both studies, it was found that collective guilt predicted reparation attitudes longitudinally. Collective shame had only cross-sectional associations with reparation and no direct longitudinal effects. In Study 2, collective shame moderated the longitudinal effects of collective guilt such that the effects of guilt were stronger for low-shame respondents. In Study 3 (N = 193 nonindigenous Chileans), the cross-sectional relationships among guilt, shame, and reparation attitudes were replicated. The relationship between shame and reparation attitudes was mediated by a desire to improve the ingroup's reputation.     

Social cuing of guilt by anger and of shame by disgust

Scholars have proposed a conceptual structure for the self-critical moral emotions of guilt and shame and the other-critical emotions of anger and disgust. In this model, guilt is linked with anger and shame with disgust. This relationship may express itself in asymmetrical social cuing between emotions: In a social context, other people's angry facial expressions may communicate that the target should feel guilty, and other people's disgusted facial expressions may communicate that the target should feel ashamed. We conducted two experiments, one in the United Kingdom and the other in Spain, in which participants were shown pictures of faces expressing either anger or disgust. Participants rated the degree to which the faces would make them feel guilt or shame in a casual social encounter, and they answered questions about inferences concerning the emotional expressions. In both studies, angry expressions led to greater guilt and less shame than did disgusted expressions. This relationship was explained better by the type of norm violation inferred than by whether the violation was thought to involve the target's action or personality versus the target's character.     

Shame, guilt, and depressive symptoms: a meta-analytic review

Recent theoretical and empirical work has facilitated the drawing of sharp conceptual distinctions between shame and guilt. A clear view of these distinctions has permitted development of a research literature aimed at evaluating the differential associations of shame and guilt with depressive symptoms. This study quantitatively summarized the magnitude of associations of shame and guilt with depressive symptoms. Two hundred forty-two effect sizes were obtained from 108 studies employing 22,411 participants. Shame showed significantly stronger associations with depressive symptoms (r = .43) than guilt (r = .28). However, the association of shame and depressive symptoms was statistically indistinguishable from the associations of 2 maladaptive variants of guilt and depressive symptoms (contextual-maladaptive guilt, involving exaggerated responsibility for uncontrollable events, r = .39; generalized guilt, involving "free-floating" guilt divorced from specific contexts, r = .42). Other factors also moderated the effects. External shame, which involves negative views of self as seen through the eyes of others, was associated with larger effect sizes (r = .56) than internal shame (r = .42), which involves negative views of self as seen through one's own eyes. Depressive symptom measures that invoked the term guilt yielded stronger associations between guilt and depressive symptoms (r = .33) than depressive symptom measures that did not (r = .21). Age, sex, and ethnicity (proportion of Whites to Asians) did not moderate the effects. Although these correlational data are ambiguous with respect to their causal interpretation, results suggest that shame should figure more prominently in understandings of the emotional underpinnings of depressive symptoms.     

未来时间洞察力、目标定向、社会联结与大学生学习适应

采用问卷调查的方法,对708名大学生的未来时间洞察力(FTP)、目标定向、社会联结与学习适应的关系进行研究.结果表明:(1)FTP、学习定向及社会联结与大学生学习适应显著正相关,成绩定向与学习适应显著负相关.(2)中介效应检验表明,行为承诺(FTP的行为倾向成分)、目的意识(FTP的认知成分)、未来意象(FTP的认知成分)以及社会联结对学习适应均有直接影响,同时行为承诺、未来意象以及社会联结还通过学习定向间接影响学习适应,目的意识还通过成绩定向间接影响学习适应;而未来效能与远目标定向(FTP的体验成分)不能有效预测大学生学习适应.     

Attachment styles,shame, guilt,and collaborative problem-solving orientations

The present study explored relations among adult attachment styles, shame- and guilt-proneness, and several measures of relationship problem-solving attitudes and behaviors. Participants were 142 undergraduates (32 males, 110 females) who completed both categorical and continuous measures of adult attachment, as well as self-report measures of the other constructs under investigation. Most participants (93%) were currently involved in either exclusive or casual dating relationships at the time of the study. Controlling for respondents’dating status, results indicated that participants’attachment styles were significantly related to both shame-proneness and collaborative problem-solving, Preoccupied and fearful students were more shame-prone than were their secure and dismissive peers, and secure participants reported significantly higher collaboration scores relative to their fearful counterparts. As expected, shame and guilt scores were differentially related to collaborative problem-solving, and participants’attachment security significantly moderated observed shame-guilt correlations. Finally, respondents’guilt and shame scores partly mediated observed relations between adult attachment styles and collaborative problem-solving orientations.     

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.     

Shame and guilt as behaviour regulators: Relationships with bullying,victimization and prosocial behaviour

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.