A Multicomponential Model of Shame

Martens, Willem H. J.

doi:10.1111/j.1468-5914.2005.00283.x

Cited by 20 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 38 publications

(38 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The negative view of shame's moral potential is buttressed by shame's connection to psychological defensiveness. As Tangney and others have argued, whereas guilt tends to spark apologies and afore-mentioned reconciliatory behaviours, shame is more likely to fuel counterproductive defenses and despair (Tangney 1995;Martens 2005;Gilbert 2003). Applied to everyday environmental ethics, this would mean that climate guilt can feed the eagerness to take action on behalf of nonhuman nature and change those practices that cause harm, whilst climate shame leads to anguished defensiveness-something that at least some of the insults hurled at Thunberg appear to attest to (although of course one cannot know the real psychological motivations in each case).…”

Section: Morally Destructive Shamementioning

confidence: 99%

Defensive over Climate Change? Climate Shame as a Method of Moral Cultivation

Aaltola

2021

J Agric Environ Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The climate crisis is an enormous challenge for contemporary societies. Yet, public discussions on it often lead to anger, mocking, denial and other defensive behaviours, one prominent example of which is the reception met by the climate advocate Greta Thunberg. The paper approaches this curious phenomenon via shame. It argues that the very idea of anthropogenic climate change invites feelings of human failure and thereby may also entice shame. The notion of “climate shame” is introduced and distinguished from “climate guilt”. Whereas climate guilt prioritises the flourishing of the environment and is focused on actions and morality, climate shame is concerned with human identity and selfhood. The paper then explores whether shame is a morally destructive or constructive emotion. Making use of both psychological and philosophical literature on shame, it argues that although shame faces many challenges that question its usefulness in moral pedagogy, these challenges can be met with “moral maturity”—moreover, following a utilitarian approach, the overall benefits of climate shame can justify its costs to individuals. My argument is that climate shame holds the potential of being a highly effective moral psychological method of persuasion, capable of inviting wholesale critical reflection on current, environmentally damaging practices and cultivation of more virtuous ways of co-existing with the rest of the natural world and other species.

show abstract

Section: Morally Destructive Shamementioning

confidence: 99%

Defensive over Climate Change? Climate Shame as a Method of Moral Cultivation

Aaltola

2021

J Agric Environ Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Psychologists regard shame as an "unconscious, primitive and initially physiological response to rejection and threat of casting out and social isolation" (Martens 2005, 400). It is also perceived to originate from an individual's own negative self-assessment, independent of public disapproval (Martens 2005).…”

Section: Why Do People Engage In Online Shaming?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Online Shaming in the Asian Context: Community Empowerment or Civic Vigilantism?

Škorić

Chua²,

Liew³

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Online shaming is a phenomenon where citizens engage in social policing by shaming transgressions via the Internet. It has been argued that the proliferation of new communication networks and digital recording devices could bring about a new paradigm for ensuring conformity to social norms through the self-regulation of society. Incorporating literature from criminology, law, psychology, sociology, and surveillance studies, this two-part exploratory empirical study conducted in Singapore aims to give an account of why people engage in online shaming (Study 1) as well as who is likely to be deterred and who is likely to contribute content in relation to personality traits, adherence to Asian values and social responsibility (Study 2). The in-depth interviews revealed that people engage in online shaming mainly to raise awareness about the lack of civic-mindedness in society. Furthermore, a survey of 321 Singaporeans suggest that people who are more likely to be deterred by the threat of online shaming are those who more socially responsible, more agreeable, more neurotic and adhere more strongly to Asian values. Furthermore, our findings suggest that individuals who are more likely to contribute to online shaming websites tend to be more socially responsible and open to new experiences. The theoretical, technological and policy implications of the findings are discussed.

show abstract

“…One of the early attempts to differentiate guilt and shame (Ausubel, 1955; Benedict, 1967) characterized guilt as a private emotion and shame as a public one. Although, empirical research (Tangney, Miller, Flicker, & Barlow, 1996) disconfirmed this distinction and indicated that the existence of audience was not the factor that differentiates between these two emotions, a more metaphorical existence (Taylor, 1985) rather than actual existence of an audience was suggested to be one of the distinguishing features of guilt and shame (Crozier, 1998; Martenz, 2005). According to Taylor (1985), an actual or imaginary audience may not be necessary to feel shame.…”

Section: The Conceptualization Of Guilt and Shamementioning

confidence: 99%

Are Constructiveness and Destructiveness Essential Features of Guilt and Shame Feelings Respectively?

Dost

Yağmurlu

2008

J Theory Soc Behav

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper involves a critical evaluation of a conceptualization of guilt and shame, which guides a number of research mainly in social psychology. In the contemporary literature, conceptualization of guilt and shame shows variation. In one of the leading approaches, guilt is regarded as an experience that targets behavior in evaluative thought and shame as targeting the self. According to this distinction, guilt has a constructive nature and it motivates the individual to take reparative actions, since it targets the behavior, whereas shame has a destructive quality and is linked with problem behaviors, since it targets the self. The claim that guilt and shame are adaptive and maladaptive feelings, respectively, by their very nature, has been challenged by theory and research. In that connection, the present evaluation argues that this dichotomous conceptualization of guilt and shame and research findings based on this dichotomy need to be reconsidered. This paper also highlights the difficulties in cross-cultural definition of self-conscious emotions.

show abstract

A Multicomponential Model of Shame

Cited by 20 publications

References 38 publications

Defensive over Climate Change? Climate Shame as a Method of Moral Cultivation

Defensive over Climate Change? Climate Shame as a Method of Moral Cultivation

Online Shaming in the Asian Context: Community Empowerment or Civic Vigilantism?

Are Constructiveness and Destructiveness Essential Features of Guilt and Shame Feelings Respectively?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About