The role of public exposure in moral and nonmoral shame and guilt.

Smith, Richard H.; Webster, J. Matthew; Parrott, W. Gerrod; Eyre, Heidi L.

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.138

Cited by 401 publications

(390 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

368

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In the face of such ambiguity, group members are unlikely to attribute their failure to discrimination (Major, Quinton, & McCoy, 2002), but as indicated earlier, social pressures may promote taking personal responsibility (Garcia et al, 2005;Stangor et al, 2002). Thus, the discriminatory event may be experienced as a personal rejection, a threat to the individual's competence, esteem, and status, and one over which the individual had little control (Branscombe, Slugoski, & Kappen, 2004;Smith, Webster, Parrott, & Eyre, 2002). Such appraisals are precisely those that are thought to elicit shame (Tangney & Dearing, 2002), rather than anger.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Anger and shame elicited by discrimination: Moderating role of coping on action endorsements and salivary cortisol

Matheson

Anisman

2008

Euro J Social Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Discrimination often elicits anger, and yet group members typically do not take actions to confront their situation. It may be that other emotions that run contrary to action-taking also arise (e.g., shame), limiting the active expression of anger. Indeed, Study 1 (N ¼ 36) revealed that, using a failure feedback paradigm, women expressed greater shame when their failure was due to discrimination, compared to a lack of personal merit. In contrast to anger, self-reported shame was not associated with action-taking. In Study 2, women (N ¼ 91) were emotionally primed to feel either anger or shame (vs. a no mood prime control), and the moderating influence of coping styles on the link between emotions, actions, and salivary cortisol levels following discrimination were assessed. Among women primed to feel anger, problem-focused coping predicted reduced self-reported shame, lower cortisol reactivity, and greater individualistic confrontational action endorsements. In contrast, priming shame increased cortisol reactivity, but diminished the relation between particular coping styles and their capacity to facilitate action. Findings are discussed in terms of the interactive influence of emotions and coping on responses to discrimination. Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.The predominant emotion elicited by overt experiences of discrimination is that of anger, particularly when the situation is viewed as unjust and the ingroup as strong (Mackie, Devos, & Smith, 2000;Swim, Hyers, Cohen, Fitzgerald, & Bylsma, 2003). Feelings of anger typically serve as a catalyst for action (Frijda, Kuipers, & TerSchure, 1989), including confrontational strategies on behalf of the group (Gill & Matheson, 2006;Mackie et al., 2000;van Zomeren, Spears, Fischer, & Leach, 2004;Yzerbyt, Dumont, Wigboldus, & Gordijn, 2003). Yet, actions to overcome the disadvantaged status of one's group are not, in fact, common (Louis & Taylor, 1999;Wright, Taylor, & Moghaddam, 1990). The factors that attenuate the relation between feelings of anger and group members' willingness to act on them remain to be fully elucidated.Due to pressures to take personal responsibility for negative events (Garcia, Horstman Reser, Amo, Redersdorff, & Branscombe, 2005;Stangor, Swim, VanAllen, & Sechrist, 2002), group members might not simply feel anger when they encounter discrimination, but may also experience feelings of shame (Tangney & Dearing, 2002;Tracy & Robins, 2004). Feelings of shame, in turn, might militate against the use of confrontational actions (Frijda et al., 1989). The present investigation evaluated women's emotions, particularly anger and shame, and their relation to action endorsements when women experienced gender discrimination. Further, inasmuch as discrimination may function as a stressor, individuals' coping propensities might serve to moderate the impact of anger and shame on behavioral responses to a discrimination event. As well, particular emotional responses, and especially shame, have been linked to physiological stress reactions, su...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Anger and shame elicited by discrimination: Moderating role of coping on action endorsements and salivary cortisol

Matheson

Anisman

2008

Euro J Social Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…With regard to guilt and shame, regret is generally considered to be the broader notion (Landman, 1993;Thalberg, 1963) and tends to have stronger associations with guilt than with shame (Smith, Webster, Parrot & Eyre, 2002;Tangney, 1995;Zeelenberg, van Dijk, van der Pligt, Manstead, van Empelen & Reinderman, 1998), and this relationship may be mediated by self-blame (Mandel & Dhami, 2005). Regret is a complex, secondary emotion (Johnson-Laird & Oatley, 1989) whereas guilt and shame are often seen as basic emotions (Izard, 1977).…”

Section: What We Know About Regretmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The distinction between regret and remorse is particularly ambiguous and researchers often use the terms interchangeably (Brehaut et al, 2003;Connolly et al, 1997;Roese & Summerville, 2006;Smith et al, 2002). The lexicon does little to help, defining remorse as a feeling of "compunction, deep regret, (emphasis added) for a sin or wrong committed" (OED, 1991).…”

Section: What We Know About Regretmentioning

confidence: 99%

Regret as autobiographical memory

Davison

Feeney

2008

Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-pro t purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source• a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses• the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details.

show abstract

“…As a result, proud trustees may be more inclined to re-affirm the good relationship and demonstrate more trustworthiness (Nesse, 1990;Fessler, 1999Fessler, , 2001, and appreciative or grateful investors may be more likely to trust the trustee's cheap signals and re-extend trust (Hirshleifer, 1987;McCullough et al, 2001;Dunn and Schweitzer, 2005;Algoe et al, 2008;. Alternatively, when a trustee has demonstrated untrustworthy behavior (breaking a promise or exploiting an investor) the investor may experience anger and frustration (e.g., see Ortony et al, 1988;Dunn and Schweitzer, 2005) while the trustee experiences guilt, and shame (e.g., see Baumeister et al, 1994;Smith et al, 2002;Ketelaar and Au, 2003;Sznycer, 2010;Sznycer et al, 2012). Angry and frustrated investor's may be more 8 Despite being difficult to control, people regularly make efforts to control their experience of emotions and the effects of those emotions on decision making processes (Gross, 2002).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predictable and Predictive Emotions: Explaining Cheap Signals and Trust Re-Extension

Schniter

Sheremeta

2014

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite normative predictions from economics and biology, unrelated strangers will often develop the trust necessary to reap gains from one-shot economic exchange opportunities. This appears to be especially true when declared intentions and emotions can be cheaply communicated. Perhaps even more puzzling to economists and biologists is the observation that anonymous and unrelated individuals, known to have breached trust, often make effective use of cheap signals, such as promises and apologies, to encourage trust re-extension. We used a pair of trust games with one-way communication and an emotion survey to investigate the role of emotions in regulating the propensity to message, apologize, re-extend trust, and demonstrate trustworthiness. This design allowed us to observe the endogenous emergence and natural distribution of trust-relevant behaviors, remedial strategies used by promise-breakers, their effects on behavior, and subsequent outcomes. We found that emotions triggered by interaction outcomes are predictable and also predict subsequent apology and trust re-extension. The role of emotions in behavioral regulation helps explain why messages are produced, when they can be trusted, and when trust will be re-extended.Keywords: emotion, cheap signal, promise, apology, trust game, reciprocity, experiment INTRODUCTIONIn this paper, we explore the role of positive emotions (pride, believability, appreciation, contentment, cheerfulness, happiness) and negative emotions (guilt, shame, anger, disgust, aggravation, frustration) in regulating cheap signaling, trust re-extension, and trustworthy behavior in the wake of a veiled trust-based interaction between strangers with no explicit indication of certain expectation for repeated interaction 1 . Interactions with 1 A number of other behavioral economic studies have also used veiled designs where interacting participants are unaware of opportunity for repeated interaction(s) that will later be made available (e.g., see Binmore et al., 1985;Burnham et al., 2000;Ellingsen et al., 2010;Gambetta and Székely, 2014). Ellingsen et al. (2010, p. 96) discuss why the veiled design avoiding deception by commission does not violate the non-deception norm in behavioral economic experiments and why withholding procedural information may serve to limit undesirable experimenter demand. Nevertheless, because there is no clear agreement among economists as to what kinds of deception are taboo (see survey results by Krawczyk, 2013 and discussion by Wilson, 2014), deception by omission remains a potential concern with our design. Veiled designs may create negative externality in that the next time participants return to the laboratory to participate in other studies, they may question whether they should anticipate unannounced tasks or interactions, unless the instructions explicitly exclude such a possibility (see also Davis and Holt, 1993, pp. 23-24;Wilson, 2014). It is unlikely that our design produced these externalities, however, as we followed the procedural norm for conducting...

show abstract

The role of public exposure in moral and nonmoral shame and guilt.

Cited by 401 publications

References 45 publications

Anger and shame elicited by discrimination: Moderating role of coping on action endorsements and salivary cortisol

Anger and shame elicited by discrimination: Moderating role of coping on action endorsements and salivary cortisol

Regret as autobiographical memory

Predictable and Predictive Emotions: Explaining Cheap Signals and Trust Re-Extension

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About