The relation between value priorities and proneness to guilt, shame, and empathy

Silfver-Kuhalampi, Mia; Helkama, Klaus; Lönnqvist, Jan–Erik; Verkasalo, Markku

doi:10.1007/s11031-008-9084-2

Cited by 98 publications

(112 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…People who are guilt-prone tend to be both empathic (George 1991;Leith & Baumeister 1998;Tangney 1990; and averse to disappointing others (Horney 1937). Moreover, guilt-proneness is negatively related to Machiavellianism, or the tendency to manipulate others for personal gain (Wastell & Booth 2003), and is negatively related to the desire for power and hedonism (Silfver, Helkama, Lonngvist & Verkasalo 2008). Further, feelings of guilt motivate a person to confess, apologize, and atone for their past miscues, rather than deny culpability or displace blame onto others (Lewis 1971;Tangney & Dearing 2002;Tangney et al 1996).…”

Section: Guilt and Shamementioning

confidence: 99%

Guilt by Design: Structuring Organizations to Elicit Guilt as an Affective Reaction to Failure

Bohns

Flynn

2013

Organization Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, we outline a model of how organizations can effectively shape employees' affective reactions to failure. We do not suggest that organizations eliminate the experience of negative affect following performance failures-instead, we propose that they encourage a more constructive form of negative affect (guilt) instead of a destructive one (shame). We argue that guilt responses prompt employees to take corrective action in response to mistakes, while shame responses are likely to elicit more detrimental effects of negative affect. Further, we suggest that organizations can play a role in influencing employees' discrete emotional reactions to the benefit of both employees and the organization. We describe the necessary antecedents for encouraging guilt responses without simultaneously eliciting shame. Essentially, employees are more likely to experience guilt (but not shame) if they feel they had control over a specific negative event and the event resulted in a negative outcome for others. Given these necessary preconditions, we identify a set of organizational characteristics-autonomy, specificity of performance feedback, and outcome interdependence-that can be modified to make the experience of guilt more likely than that of shame in the workplace. The ethical and practical limits of shaping employees' emotional experiences within a negative affective domain are also addressed. Published in Organization Science AbstractIn this article, we outline a model of how organizations can effectively shape employees' affective reactions to failure. We do not suggest that organizations eliminate the experience of negative affect following performance failures-instead, we propose that they encourage a more constructive form of negative affect (guilt) instead of a destructive one (shame). We argue that guilt responses prompt employees to take corrective action in response to mistakes, while shame responses are likely to elicit more detrimental effects of negative affect. Further, we suggest that organizations can play a role in influencing employees' discrete emotional reactions to the benefit of both employees and the organization. We describe the necessary antecedents for encouraging guilt responses without simultaneously eliciting shame. Essentially, employees are more likely to experience guilt (but not shame) if they feel they had control over a specific negative event and the event resulted in a negative outcome for others. Given these necessary preconditions, we identify a set of organizational characteristics-autonomy, specificity of performance feedback, and outcome interdependence-that can be modified to make the experience of guilt more likely than that of shame in the workplace. The ethical and practical limits of shaping employees' emotional experiences within a negative affective domain are also addressed.

show abstract

Section: Guilt and Shamementioning

confidence: 99%

Guilt by Design: Structuring Organizations to Elicit Guilt as an Affective Reaction to Failure

Bohns

Flynn

2013

Organization Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Las diversas investigaciones sobre la empatía le otorgan un carácter multidimensional y diferencian entre las dimensiones afectiva, cognitiva (Davis, 1980;Eisenberg et al, 2005;Silfver, Helkama, Lönnqvist y Verkasalo, 2008) perceptual (Eisenberg y Strayer, 1987) e, incluso, situacional y disposicional (Litvack, McDougall y Romney, 1997). Se ha comprobado que el componente emocional de la empatía se desarrolla antes que el cognitivo (Chakrabarti y Baron-Cohen, 2006).…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

Empatía en la adolescencia. Relaciones con razonamiento moral prosocial, conducta prosocial y agresividad

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ResumenEste estudio persigue un doble objetivo: i) analizar las relaciones entre empatía, conducta prosocial y razonamiento moral prosocial y sus diferencias en función del sexo; ii) analizar el valor predictor de dichas variables en la empatía, como variable dependiente. La población evaluada está compuesta por 1557 adolescentes de 12 a 15 años (M = 13.13, DT = .86, 47.4 % chicas, 52.6 % chicos). Los análisis muestran diferencias significativas entre chicos y chicas. Las chicas obtienen mayores índices de empatía, conducta prosocial, razonamiento moral prosocial, en las dimensiones de interiorizado, orientado hacia la necesidad y estereotipado. Los chicos, por su parte, muestran mayores índices en agresividad física y verbal, razonamiento moral hedonista y orientado a la aprobación. Las variables predictoras en la explicación de la empatía, tanto en chicos como en chicas, son la conducta prosocial (en positivo) y el razonamiento hedonista (en negativo). En el colectivo de varones aparecen, además, otras variables predictoras de la empatía. Éstas se refieren al razonamiento moral prosocial interiorizado y al orientado hacia la necesidad de forma positiva, y a la agresividad en negativo. Los

show abstract

“…Both are consistently associated with the capacity to recognize facial emotions (Treeby et al, 2016). Both are positively associated with valuing of universalism, benevolence, tradition, and conformity and negatively associated with valuing of power, hedonism, stimulation, and self-direction (Silfver et al, 2008). Guilt cannot exist without affective empathy:…”

Section: Guilt Pronenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Hajnal Line and Gene-Culture Coevolution in Northwest Europe

Fröst¹

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

North and west of a line running from Trieste to St. Petersburg, social relations have long conformed to the Western European Marriage Pattern, i.e., men and women marry relatively late; many people never marry; children usually leave the nuclear family to form new households, and households often have non-kin members. This pattern goes back at least to the thirteenth century and perhaps to prehistoric times. I argue that this environment of weaker kinship caused northwest Europeans to create communities based on shared moral rules, rather than shared kinship. Community members enforced these rules by monitoring not only the behavior of other members but also their own behavior and even their own thoughts. Initially, this new mindset did not have a genetic basis. Individuals acquired it within the bounds of phenotypic plasticity. Over time, however, a genetic basis would have developed through the survival and reproduction of individuals who were better at being socially independent, at obeying universal rules, at monitoring other community members, and at self-monitoring, self-judging, and self-punishing. These psychological adaptations-independent social orientation, universal rule adherence, affective empathy, guilt proneness-are moderately to highly heritable. Although they are complex, they required only minor evolutionary changes to evolve out of mechanisms that were already present but limited to specific behavioral contexts. Affective empathy, for instance, is a species-wide trait but usually confined to relations with close kin, particularly between a mother and her young children. An evolutionary scenario is proposed, and two questions discussed. Are these mental traits too complex to have evolved over a span of 30 to 300 generations? Are they too altruistic to be sustainable?

show abstract

The relation between value priorities and proneness to guilt, shame, and empathy

Cited by 98 publications

References 26 publications

Guilt by Design: Structuring Organizations to Elicit Guilt as an Affective Reaction to Failure

Guilt by Design: Structuring Organizations to Elicit Guilt as an Affective Reaction to Failure

Empatía en la adolescencia. Relaciones con razonamiento moral prosocial, conducta prosocial y agresividad

The Hajnal Line and Gene-Culture Coevolution in Northwest Europe

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About