Defend or repair? Explaining responses to in-group moral failure by disentangling feelings of shame, rejection, and inferiority.

Abstract

Research on shame about in-group moral failure has yielded paradoxical results. In some studies, shame predicts self-defensive motivations to withdraw. In other studies, shame predicts pro-social motivations, such as restitution. We think that this paradox can be explained by disentangling the numerous appraisals and feelings subsumed under the label "shame." In 2 studies, we asked community samples of Norwegians about their in-group's discrimination against the Tater minority. Confirmatory factor analysis validated the measures of the appraisals and feelings used in Study 1 (N = 206) and Study 2 (N = 173). In both studies, an appraisal of the in-group as suffering a moral defect best predicted felt shame, whereas an appraisal of concern for condemnation of the in-group best predicted felt rejection. In both studies, felt rejection best predicted self-defensive motivation, whereas felt shame best predicted pro-social motivation. Implications for conceptualizing and studying shame are discussed.

The social side of shame: approach versus withdrawal

“…Indeed, empirical research has repeatedly demonstrated shame to be able to induce prosocial behaviours, such as donating, cooperating, or gift giving, notably in situations where people are together with others towards whom they feel ashamed (De Hooge, 2014;De Hooge, Breugelmans, & Zeelenberg, 2008). Similar findings have been reported for experiences of group-based shame (Gausel & Leach, 2011;Gausel, Leach, Vignoles, & Brown, 2012;Welten et al, 2012). Taken together, current research on the behavioural effects of shame suggests that shame leads to both social withdrawal and social approach.…”

“…Haidt, 2003;Keltner & Harker, 1998;Lewis, 1971Lewis, , 1992Tangney, 1991), others argue that shame motivates social approach (e.g. De Hooge et al, 2008;Gausel & Leach, 2011;Gausel et al, 2012;Welten et al, 2012). Surprisingly, no empirical research thus far directly compared these two opposing expectations, because existing studies did not include the possibility for respondents to choose between entering social and non-social situations.…”

“…De Hooge, 2014), or has used self-report rating scales that measure tendencies to engage in a single behaviour (e.g. Gausel et al, 2012).…”

Shame in regulatory settings

“…While research suggests that expectation of feeling shame deters offending, it provides less support for conceptualising shame as a direct response to social threat. Studies suggest that shame can occur in the absence of external disapproval, that individual sensitivity to criticism is a moderating factor and that the individual's own moral judgement is important (Gausel et al 2012;Liss et al 2013;Smith et al 2002).…”

Assessing Natural Language: Measuring Emotion-Words within a Sentence or Without a Sentence?

“…Some (e.g., Smith, Webster, Parrott, & Eyre, 2002) therefore design their questionnaires with a general heading à la "What would [someone or you] be feeling and thinking" and then present various key-words (like "embarrassed") for the participants to rate. Others argue that questionnaire statements should be measured within a meaning-giving context (e.g., a sentence) so the key-words (like "embarrassed") form a part of a meaning-giving appraisal emotion chain (e.g., Gausel, Leach, Vignoles, & Brown, 2012) as in natural language. But which is the better approach?…”