Tracing the Self-Regulatory Bases of Moral Emotions

Abstract

In this paper we explore a self-regulatory perspective on the self-evaluative moral emotions, shame and guilt. Broadly conceived, self-regulation distinguishes between two types of motivation: approach/activation and avoidance/inhibition. We use this distinction to conceptually understand the socialization dimensions (parental restrictiveness versus nurturance), associated emotions (anxiety versus empathy), and forms of morality (proscriptive versus prescriptive) that serve as precursors to each self-evaluative moral emotion. We then examine the components of shame and guilt experiences in greater detail and conclude with more general implications of a self-regulatory perspective on moral emotions. keywords: moral emotions, self-regulation, shame, guilt, parenting styles Self-Regulation and Moral Emotions 3 Tracing the Self-Regulatory Bases of Moral EmotionsUntil recently, morality was thought to entail moral reasoning that emotions only served to undermine (Kohlberg, 1984;Piaget, 1951). Emotions similarly were regarded as "hot" feelings to be contrasted against "cold" cognitions, and emotion and morality were thus discrete areas of investigation in psychology. Interestingly, as psychologists increasingly began to understand emotions as inherently cognitive (e.g., Lazarus, 1991;Russell, 2003), morality too began to be viewed as inextricably tied to emotions (e.g., Haidt, 2001Haidt, , 2007Rozin, Lowery, Imada, & Haidt, 1999). We now view moral experience as comprising not only a list of rules and ideals, but also strong emotions that serve as moral regulators of our self-evaluations and actions.Self-regulation describes purposive (but often not self-controlled) processes motivated by some internal object or goal (Carver & Scheier, 2008). It is a perspective that can incorporate both emotions and cognitions and suggests a "syndrome" (Averill, 1982) of connected appraisals, phenomenal experiences, and action tendencies. As such, self-regulation may aid in linking emotional experiences and moral rules, and in particular the interplay between the two.Classic social psychological theory has understood morality as "an internalized representation of normative standards" that are embedded in and derived from social interaction (Baldwin, 1906;Mead, 1934;Newcomb, 1950). Our experiences of moral emotions represent the ethics, ideals, and obligations inherent in being a member of society; and these are believed to be binding on the self (see Feldman, 2006). To understand the nature of this "binding," we need to recognize the centrality of the community to the individual-our nature as social beings and our need to belong Self-Regulation and Moral Emotions 4 (Baumeister & Leary, 1995;Mead, 1934). The development of self-regulation in the moral context fundamentally depends on our interactions as social beings and our need to maintain social relationships.In this paper we explore a self-regulatory perspective on morality and its relevance for the primary self-evaluative moral emotions, shame and guilt. We turn first...

Teachers' Emotion Regulation Skills Facilitate Implementation of Health-related Intentions

“…As such, our findings are consistent with the assumption that negative emotions cue action tendencies likely to interfere with the implementation of intentions, 34,61,62 and therefore, that the ability to adapt and cope with such emotions facilitates the implementation of health-related intentions. This has several important implications.…”

Cultural Variations in Shame’s Responses

“…Differences between these two categories of Chinese shame may reflect different relational configurations: A shame highlighting the presence of shamed others, creating a sense of responsibility, would have greater similarities to guilt than a shame involving disapproving others, which is likely more comparable with embarrassment. In effect, previously found relationships between shame and depressive symptoms (S. Kim, Thibodeau, & Jorgensen, 2011), and fear and anxiety (Sheikh & Janoff-Bulman, 2010b), for instance, may be culturally variable and due to differences in the phenomenology and ethnotheories associated with shame.…”

Factores de riesgo asociados a la violencia sufrida por la mujer en la pareja: una revisión de meta-análisis y estudios recientes.

“…La vergüenza genera un estado emocional desagradable e interrumpe la acción, al tiempo que genera una cierta confusión mental en la víctima. Por otro lado, la culpa tiene por referente una acción concreta y promueve la necesidad de reparación, mientras que la vergüenza es más generalizada y más orientada hacia uno mismo (Sheikh y Janoff-Bulman, 2010). Para poder librarse de estas emociones, la víctima recurre a estrategias como la reinterpretación cognitiva, la negación y el olvido de la situación, como en la atribución benévola de las causas de la agresión y el perdón de ésta.…”

“…A mayor culpa y vergüenza más riesgo de violencia. La vergüenza genera malestar, confusión en la víctima e impide la acción, y la culpa cumple una función reparadora sobre las conductas negativas del agresor y mantiene a la mujer en la situación de maltrato (Etxebarria, Ortiz, Conejero y Pascual, 2009;Sheikh y Janoff-Bulman, 2010). Por otra parte, el miedo se asocia a la huida y aleja a las mujeres de la situación de violencia, sin embargo, en situaciones de violencia crónica hace que la mujer se mantenga en la relación y favorece el ejercicio de nuevas conductas violentas (Echeburúa et al, 2002;Folkman, 2010;Moral et al, 2011;Stith et al, 2004).…”