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

Abstract

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.

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.…”

“…In line with this idea, some emotion researchers have suggested that shame signals to group members one's awareness of norm-violating behaviour and one's willingness to conform to group standards (e.g. Barrett, 1995;Fessler, 1999;Gausel & Leach, 2011;Gilbert, 1997;Izard, 1977).…”

“…Various researchers have suggested that appeasement may be a central function of shame (e.g. Fessler, 1999;Gausel & Leach, 2011;Gilbert, 1997), motivating dents who chose the together task. Withdrawal/approach preference reflects the degree to which respondents preferred doing the together task, ranging from 0 (prefer alone task) to 100 (prefer together task).…”

Wise Desire-Priorities: Hedonism or Moral Integrity?

“…Aristotle (trans. 1985) therefore admitted that in order to act morally most people need self-control and guidance that is provided not only by their subjective sense of shame (see also, Gausel & Leach, 2011), but also by socially imposed rules, standards and obligations. In a modern western society, people are likely to hold moral values like; benevolence, respect for the autonomy of others, respect for others' rights, and civil courage (even though they sometimes fail to respect these values).…”