June P. Tangney

Moral affect: the good, the bad, and the ugly.

The relations among 3 moral affective personality characteristics--shame-proneness, guilt-proneness, and empathic responsiveness--were examined in 4 independent studies of undergraduates. Results indicate that shame and guilt are distinct affective experiences that have important and quite different implications in the interpersonal realm. There was a substantial positive correlation between shame-proneness and guilt-proneness. Nonetheless, as predicted, other-oriented empathic responsiveness was negatively related to proneness to shame but positively correlated with proneness to guilt. In contrast, an index of more self-oriented personal distress was positively linked to shame-proneness. Taken together, these results add a new dimension to the ugliness of shame but suggest that guilt may not be that bad after all, at least in the interpersonal domain.

Assessing individual differences in proneness to shame and guilt: Development of the Self-Conscious Affect and Attribution Inventory.

Individual differences in proneness to shame and proneness to guilt are thought to play an important role in the development of both adaptive and maladaptive interpersonal and intrapersonal processes. But little empirical research has addressed these issues, largely because no reliable, valid measure has been available to researchers interested in differentiating proneness to shame from proneness to guilt. The Self-Conscious Affect and Attribution Inventory (SCAAI) was developed to assess characteristic affective, cognitive, and behavioral responses associated with shame and guilt among a young adult population. The SCAAI also includes indices of externalization of cause or blame, detachment/unconcern, pride in self, and pride in behavior. Data from 3 independent studies of college students and 1 study of noncollege adults provide support for the reliability of the main SCAAI subscales. Moreover, the pattern of relations among the SCAAI subscales and the relation of SCAAI subscales to 2 extant measures of shame and guilt support the validity of this new measure. The SCAAI appears to provide related but functionally distinct indices of proneness to shame and guilt in a way that these previous measures have not.

Conceptual and methodological issues in the assessment of shame and guilt

Although shame and guilt are prominently cited in theories of moral behaviour and psychopathology, surprisingly little research has considered these emotions. A key factor hindering research in this area has been a need for psychometrically sound measures of shame and guilt. Fortunately, a number of new measures have been developed in recent years. In this article, I describe the current status of the assessment of these long-neglected emotions, highlighting both conceptual and methodological issues that arise in the measurement of shame and guilt. I begin with a discussion of several definitions of and distinctions between shame and guilt, summarizing the degree to which these alternative conceptualizations have been empirically supported. This background is important when evaluating the relative strengths and weaknesses of a given measurement strategy (e.g. the degree to which a strategy is grounded in a sound conceptual framework). I then describe specific measures of shame and guilt, including dispositional measures (i.e. assessing individual differences in proneness to shame and proneness to guilt across situations) and state measures (i.e. assessing feelings of shame and guilt in the moment), offering my observations on their respective strengths and weaknesses and some suggestions for future measurement development.

Proneness to Shame and the Narcissistic Personality

A sample of 215 undergraduates completed the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI), the original and revised Self-Conscious Affect and Attribution Inventory, the Splitting Scale, and the Selfism Scale. Contrary to clinical theory, proneness to shame was generally negatively correlated with narcissism as assessed by the NPI. When statistical procedures were used to isolate presumably maladaptive components of the NPI, the predicted positive association between shame (independent of guilt) and narcissism emerged. Shame-proneness was also positively correlated with splitting, a pathological narcissistic defense. These findings suggest that it is critical to differentiate between pathological and more benign aspects of narcissism.

Assessing individual differences in constructive versus destructive responses to anger across the lifespan.

Scenario-based, self-report measures were developed to assess how people characteristically experience and manage anger from middle childhood through adulthood. The Anger Response Inventories (ARIs) for children, adolescents, and adults each assess (a) anger arousal, (b) intentions, (c) cognitive and behavioral responses, and (d) Long-term consequences. Several independent studies provide support for the reliability and validity of the ARIs. Theoretically consistent patterns of correlations were observed with (a) global self-report measures of hostility, aggression, and anger-management strategies (adult version); (b) teacher reports of behavioral and emotional adjustment (child and adolescent versions); and (c) self- and family-member reports of behaviors on specific anger episodes (adolescent and adult versions). Findings from additional personality and developmental studies are summarized, further supporting construct validity.

How Does Guilt Differ from Shame

Publisher Summary This chapter describes several theoretical distinctions between shame and guilt that have been suggested by social scientists over the years. It begins with the review based on psychoanalytic and anthropological theories. Shame and guilt are frequently mentioned in the same breath, as moral emotions that regulate social behavior, or as potentially problematic affective experiences that lie at the heart of many psychological symptoms. Recent theory and research has identified important differences between these two closely related emotions—differences that appear to have rather profound implications both for psychological adjustment and for social behavior. A common basis for distinguishing between shame and guilt focuses on presumed differences in the types of situations that elicit these emotions. The chapter summarizes recent empirical results that seriously challenge this assumption and describes the breadth of empirical support for Lewiss reconceptualization, which downplays the objective content of eliciting events and instead highlights differences in the individuals interpretation of the role of the self in shame and guilt situations. Consistent with Lewis, a range of studies confirm that distinct phenomenological experiences are associated with shames focus on the self, and guilts focus on specific behaviors. This research also indicates that shame and guilt typically lead to very different motivations in interpersonal contexts, with guilt on balance emerging as the more adaptive response to transgressions.

Gender differences in jail inmates' symptoms of mental illness, treatment history and treatment seeking.

BACKGROUND Rates of mental illness among prisoners are substantial, but little is known about the unique mental health needs of women in jail, those under pre-trial custodial remand or serving short sentences. AIMS To compare male and female jail inmates along a wide range of symptoms of mental illness using identical assessment methods, and to examine gender differences in treatment seeking before and during incarceration. METHODS Soon after incarceration in a county jail, 360 male and 154 female pre-trial and post-trial inmates completed the Personality Assessment Inventory, a wide-ranging measure of psychiatric symptoms. Treatment seeking information was taken from official jail records. RESULTS Women were more likely to report clinically significant symptoms of anxiety, borderline personality features, somatic concerns and trauma-related symptoms; however, trauma-related symptoms and borderline features were also common among male inmates. Although both men and women reported high rates of drug-related problems, alcohol-related problems were twice as prevalent among male inmates. Female inmates were more likely to seek and be enrolled in jail-based treatment; there were no differences in reported help seeking prior to incarceration. CONCLUSIONS Female jail inmates are especially in need of mental health services. Effective interventions for post-traumatic stress disorder and borderline personality disorder are needed in jail settings for both male and female inmates during incarceration and upon release.

Assessing Jail Inmates’ Proneness to Shame and Guilt: Feeling Bad About the Behavior or the Self?

This study of 550 jail inmates (379 male and 171 female) held on felony charges examines the reliability and validity of the Test of Self Conscious Affect—Socially Deviant Version as a measure of offenders’ proneness to shame and proneness to guilt. Discriminant validity (e.g., vis-à-vis self-esteem, negative affect, social desirability/impression management) and convergent validity (e.g., vis-à-vis correlations with empathy; externalization of blame, anger, psychological symptoms; and substance use problems) were supported, paralleling results from community samples. Furthermore, proneness to shame and guilt were differentially related to widely used risk measures from the field of criminal justice (e.g., criminal history, psychopathy, violence risk, antisocial personality). Guilt-proneness appears to be a protective factor, whereas there was no evidence that shame-proneness serves an inhibitory function. Subsequent analyses indicate these findings generalize quite well across gender and race. Implications for intervention and sentencing practices are discussed.

Two Faces of Shame: The Roles of Shame and Guilt in Predicting Recidivism

Psychological research using mostly cross-sectional methods calls into question the presumed function of shame as an inhibitor of immoral or illegal behavior. In a longitudinal study of 476 jail inmates, we assessed shame proneness, guilt proneness, and externalization of blame shortly after incarceration. We interviewed participants (N = 332) 1 year after release into the community, and we accessed official arrest records (N = 446). Guilt proneness negatively and directly predicted reoffense in the 1st year after release; shame proneness did not. Further mediational modeling showed that shame proneness positively predicted recidivism via its robust link to externalization of blame. There remained a direct effect of shame on recidivism: Unimpeded by defensive externalization of blame, shame inhibited recidivism. Items assessing a motivation to hide were primarily responsible for this pattern. Overall, our results suggest that the pain of shame may have two faces—one with destructive potential and the other with constructive potential.

Shame in the therapy hour

Excessive shame can be associated with poor psychological adjustment, interpersonal difficulties, and overall poor life functioning. Consequently, shame is prevalent among individuals undergoing psychotherapy. Yet, there is limited guidance for clinicians trying to help their clients deal with shame-related concerns. This book explores the manifestations of shame and presents several approaches for treatment. It brings together the insights of master clinicians from different theoretical and practice orientations, such as psychodynamics, object relations, emotion-focused therapy, functional analysis, group therapy, family therapy, and couples therapy. The chapters address all aspects of shame, including how it develops, how it relates to psychological difficulties, how to recognize it, and how to help clients resolve it. Strategies for dealing with therapist shame are also provided, since therapist shame can be triggered during sessions and can complicate the therapeutic alliance. With rich, detailed case studies in almost every chapter, this book will be a practical resource for clinicians working with a broad range of populations and clinical problems.