Mapping Shame and Its Functions in Relationships

Ferguson, Tamara J.

doi:10.1177/1077559505281430

Cited by 35 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 57 publications

(76 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Although these results contradict the view of shame as self-defensive in nature, they support a long-standing view of shame as an important basis of social regulation and self-improvement (see Ahmed et al, 2001;Ferguson, 2005;Gausel & Leach, 2011;Keltner & Harker, 1998). The present results add to recent findings that shame predicts constructive self-criticism (Berndsen & McGarty, 2012;, the desire to self-reform Lickel et al, 2014;Tangney et al, 2014) and various pro-social motivations aimed at benefitting others (de Hooge et al, 2010;de Hooge et al, 2008;Imhoff et al, 2012;Shepherd et al, 2013).…”

Section: Explaining Pro-social Responses To Moral Failurecontrasting

confidence: 57%

“…Likely because of the psychological pain of viewing oneself as suffering a defect, many theorists think of shame as motivating self-defense, such as wanting to disappear, cover-up, withdraw, and avoid (for reviews, see Gilbert & Andrews, 1998; M. Lewis, 1992;Tangney & Fischer, 1995;Tracy & Robins, 2004). However, there is increasing evidence that shame about moral failures is associated with pro-social responses (for discussions, see Ferguson, 2005;Gausel & Leach, 2011;Scheff, 2000;Tracy & Robins, 2004).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There is a broad consensus that a moral failure can be appraised as an indication that the self suffers from a defect or shortcoming (for reviews, see Ferguson, 2005;Gilbert & Andrews, 1998;Tangney & Fischer, 1995). Although early clinical theorizing assumed that failure is typically attributed to internal, global, and stable causes (H.B.…”

Section: Appraisal-feeling Combinations: a Model Of The Experience Ofmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although early clinical theorizing assumed that failure is typically attributed to internal, global, and stable causes (H.B. Lewis, 1971; for reviews, see M. Lewis, 1992;Tangney et al, 2007), most non-clinical research shows that shame is only modestly tied to such characterological attributions for failure (e.g., Tracy & Robins, 2006; for reviews, see Ferguson, 2005;Tangney & Dearing, 2002). Gausel and Leach (2011) therefore argued that the appraisal of a wholly defective self should more reasonably be expected to be linked to the subjective feeling of inferiority, rather than the feeling of shame.…”

Section: Appraisal-feeling Combinations: a Model Of The Experience Ofmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Resolving the paradox of shame: Differentiating among specific appraisal-feeling combinations explains pro-social and self-defensive motivation

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Explaining Pro-social Responses To Moral Failurecontrasting

confidence: 57%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Appraisal-feeling Combinations: a Model Of The Experience Ofmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Appraisal-feeling Combinations: a Model Of The Experience Ofmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Resolving the paradox of shame: Differentiating among specific appraisal-feeling combinations explains pro-social and self-defensive motivation

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The expression of shame is a good signal of the negative estimation of one's behavior and the readiness to eliminate such socially unattractive behavior. These signals can prevent others' aggression (Ferguson, 2005;Gilbert & McGuire, 1998). Acceptance of one's wrongdoing together with elements of the expression of shame leads to the appeasement of the injured party and forgiveness (Keltner & Harker, 1998).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Moral emotions, conscience, and cognitive dissonance

Breslavs¹

2013

Psych. Rus.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the central topics in the studies of O. K. Tikhomirov and his collaborators was the link between cognitive and emotional processes. It is important not only how emotions are involved in the process of the productive performance of thinking tasks but also how cognitive processes mediate the involvement of the emotions in the regulation of activity. The efficacy of this regulation is represented through goal achievement and also through the correction of one's actions in the case of wrongdoing. Reformation of one's errors is the best way to improve one's abilities and skills. In moral philosophy the central instance of this reformation is conscience, which ensures positive or negative self-appraisal of one's own and others' actions. Unfortunately, in psychology this concept remains unclear. The goal of this article is to clarify it in the context of the contemporary psychology of emotion. Studies of emotions have shown the significance of appraisal in determining particular feelings. The special role of moral emotions, mainly guilt and shame, in the self-correction of one's actions is emphasized. According to this model, guilt and shame in particular can represent twinges of conscience in the mind because the cognitive dissonance between our (or others') actions and values shapes the basis of all these phenomena.

show abstract

Concern for self‐image and social image in the management of moral failure: Rethinking shame

Gausel

Leach

2011

Euro J Social Psych

194

355

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Moral failure is thought to damage self-image when people appraise it as indicating a global self-defect. This appraisal is thought to be associated with the feeling of shame and thus self-defensive motivation. However, a damaged social image better explains self-defensive motivation to hide from and avoid others. Based on an integrative review of theory and research, we offer a conceptual model of how concern for self-image and social image guides the experience of moral failure. The model distinguishes the appraisals (of self-defect and other-condemnation) and feelings (of rejection, inferiority, and shame) embedded in the shame concept. Concern for a damaged social image is represented in an other-condemnation → rejection combination, whereas concern for a damaged self-image is represented in a (global) self-defect → inferiority combination. As these appraisal-feeling combinations are concerned with damage done to one's image, they should be linked to self-defensive motivation. As the (specific) self-defect → shame combination is concerned with a repairable defect in self-image, it should be linked with self-improvement motivation. Thus, our model explains why "shame" is sometimes tied to self-defensive motivation and sometimes tied to self-improvement motivation after moral failure.

show abstract

Mapping Shame and Its Functions in Relationships

Abstract: Articles in this issue examine how experiences of shame, together with its effects on anger, are involved in maltreat-

Cited by 35 publications

References 57 publications

Resolving the paradox of shame: Differentiating among specific appraisal-feeling combinations explains pro-social and self-defensive motivation

Resolving the paradox of shame: Differentiating among specific appraisal-feeling combinations explains pro-social and self-defensive motivation

Moral emotions, conscience, and cognitive dissonance

Concern for self‐image and social image in the management of moral failure: Rethinking shame

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About