Are self-conscious emotions about the self? Testing competing theories of shame and guilt across two disparate cultures.

IF 3.4 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Emotion Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2024-01-22 DOI:10.1037/emo0001321
Mitchell Landers, Daniel Sznycer, Patrick Durkee
{"title":"Are self-conscious emotions about the self? Testing competing theories of shame and guilt across two disparate cultures.","authors":"Mitchell Landers, Daniel Sznycer, Patrick Durkee","doi":"10.1037/emo0001321","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The emotions of guilt and shame play major roles in forgiveness, social exclusion, face-saving ploys, suicide, and honor killings. Understanding these emotions is thus of vital importance. The outputs of guilt and shame are already well understood: Guilt motivates amends; shame motivates evasion. However, the elicitors and functions of these emotions are disputed. According to attributional theory, guilt and shame are intrapersonal emotions elicited when negative outcomes are attributed to controllable/unstable (guilt) or uncontrollable/stable (shame) aspects of the self. By contrast, functionalist theory claims that guilt and shame are interpersonal emotions for minimizing the imposition of harm on valued others (guilt) and the cost of reputational damage on the self (shame). Although there is confirmatory evidence consistent with both theories, evidence ostensibly supporting one theory has been argued to actually support the other. To solve this problem of data interpretation, here we report contrastive critical tests of the two theories performed on online participant pools in the United States and India in 2021 (<i>N</i> = 853). Results in both countries support functionalist theory over attributional theory, suggesting that the intrapersonal effects reported in the emotion literature are tributary or incidental to the interpersonal functions of guilt and shame. Functionalist theory presents a promising framework for understanding the interpersonal and intrapersonal aspects of guilt, shame, and other self-conscious emotions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48417,"journal":{"name":"Emotion","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Emotion","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0001321","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The emotions of guilt and shame play major roles in forgiveness, social exclusion, face-saving ploys, suicide, and honor killings. Understanding these emotions is thus of vital importance. The outputs of guilt and shame are already well understood: Guilt motivates amends; shame motivates evasion. However, the elicitors and functions of these emotions are disputed. According to attributional theory, guilt and shame are intrapersonal emotions elicited when negative outcomes are attributed to controllable/unstable (guilt) or uncontrollable/stable (shame) aspects of the self. By contrast, functionalist theory claims that guilt and shame are interpersonal emotions for minimizing the imposition of harm on valued others (guilt) and the cost of reputational damage on the self (shame). Although there is confirmatory evidence consistent with both theories, evidence ostensibly supporting one theory has been argued to actually support the other. To solve this problem of data interpretation, here we report contrastive critical tests of the two theories performed on online participant pools in the United States and India in 2021 (N = 853). Results in both countries support functionalist theory over attributional theory, suggesting that the intrapersonal effects reported in the emotion literature are tributary or incidental to the interpersonal functions of guilt and shame. Functionalist theory presents a promising framework for understanding the interpersonal and intrapersonal aspects of guilt, shame, and other self-conscious emotions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

自我意识情绪与自我有关吗?测试两种不同文化中相互竞争的羞耻感和负罪感理论。
内疚和羞耻情绪在宽恕、社会排斥、面子伎俩、自杀和名誉杀人中扮演着重要角色。因此,了解这些情绪至关重要。内疚感和羞耻感的产出已广为人知:愧疚感促使人们改过自新;羞耻感促使人们逃避。然而,这些情绪的诱因和功能却存在争议。根据归因理论,内疚和羞愧是当负面结果归因于自我的可控/不稳定(内疚)或不可控/不稳定(羞愧)方面时引发的个人内部情绪。相比之下,功能主义理论认为,内疚和羞愧是一种人际情绪,是为了尽量减少对他人造成的伤害(内疚)和对自己造成的名誉损失(羞愧)。尽管两种理论都有确证的证据,但表面上支持一种理论的证据实际上却被认为支持另一种理论。为了解决这个数据解释问题,我们在此报告了 2021 年在美国和印度的在线参与者库中对这两种理论进行的对比性批判测试(N = 853)。两国的结果都支持功能主义理论而非归因理论,这表明情绪文献中报道的人内效应是内疚和羞愧的人际功能的支流或附带效应。功能主义理论为理解内疚、羞愧和其他自我意识情绪的人际和人内方面提供了一个很有前景的框架。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, 版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Emotion
Emotion PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
8.40
自引率
7.10%
发文量
325
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: Emotion publishes significant contributions to the study of emotion from a wide range of theoretical traditions and research domains. The journal includes articles that advance knowledge and theory about all aspects of emotional processes, including reports of substantial empirical studies, scholarly reviews, and major theoretical articles. Submissions from all domains of emotion research are encouraged, including studies focusing on cultural, social, temperament and personality, cognitive, developmental, health, or biological variables that affect or are affected by emotional functioning. Both laboratory and field studies are appropriate for the journal, as are neuroimaging studies of emotional processes.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信