Shame Proneness Scale Research Articles

Relationship between Parent and Peer Attachment with Coping Strategy among Teenagers Pregnancy

Teen mums on the rise with teenagers becoming more sexually active, over 18,000 cases of girls under 19 were recorded in 2011. The aim of this study addresses the issue of teenager's parent attachment versus peer attachment and coping strategy. This study uses a questionnaire for Teenage Pregnancy Profile which contains of three psychological measurements: (1) Parent and Peer Attachment Inventory and (2) Coping Strategy Inventory, and (3) Guilt and Shame Proneness Scale. This study is to identify relationship of parent and peers attachment, feeling of guilt and shame with coping strategy of pregnant teenagers. Respondents in this study consist of 75 pregnant girls (age between 12 and 18), who live in four rehabilitation centers. Majority (27 respondents, 75%) of them declared that they have first time sexual experience and became pregnant at the age of 12 to 15 years old. Results show Pearson's correlation between parent and peer attachment, and coping strategies of the respondents. Significantly weak positive Pearson's correlation (r=.32) show between parent attachment with peer attachment follow by peer attachment with social focus coping strategy (r=.30). The result of inter-correlation between sub- scales of Guilt and Shame Proneness Scale shown significantly positive moderate correlation in range of (r=.42 to r=.57).The implication of this study reflects the need of prevention and also rehabilitation program to high risk group teenagers. Teenagers need to develop positive values toward self-respect and self-esteem as well as coping strategy through assertive training. This study addresses the limitation of data collection from rehabilitation centres under the provision of Social Welfare Department. Future study should also include qualitative approach to have in-depth understanding of how teenage pregnant girls develop positive coping strategies in the process of recovering.

The Regulatory Function of Empathy, Shame and Guilt Proneness in Moral Judgement in Organizational Life

Moral judgment and moral dilemmas are a pervasive part of organizational life and every decision-maker can and will encounter them at some point. Whether people make the utilitarian decision (preferring to maximize overall welfare) or the deontological one (choosing to adhere to moral rules), depends both on the contextual aspects, as well as on individual traits such as empathy and so-called moral emotions - guilt and shame. This paper aims to study the differences between the utilitarian and the deontologists employees in relation with empathy, guilt and shame proneness. In order to discriminate the two categories (utilitarian and deontologist), the well-established “Trolley problem” was used. In the Switch version, the task can be accomplished by using a lever to switch the train track, such that the train only kills one person. On the other hand, in the Footbridge version, pushing a very fat man off a bridge, using his body to stop the train, can save the five. The following questionnaires were used on a sample of 61 participants (47 females and 14 males, aged between M=20,88, AS=1,81): Interpersonal Reactivity Index, and The Guilt and Shame Proneness scale. Results showed a significant difference between the utilitarian and deontologist on the fantasy and empathic-concern scales for the Switch version. However, no significant differences were observed for guilt or shame proneness. As for the Bridge version, the differences were identified only on the empathic-concern scale and on the Guilt‐Negative‐Behavior‐Evaluation scale of GASP

Introducing the GASP scale: A new measure of guilt and shame proneness.

Although scholars agree that moral emotions are critical for deterring unethical and antisocial behavior, there is disagreement about how 2 prototypical moral emotions--guilt and shame--should be defined, differentiated, and measured. We addressed these issues by developing a new assessment--the Guilt and Shame Proneness scale (GASP)--that measures individual differences in the propensity to experience guilt and shame across a range of personal transgressions. The GASP contains 2 guilt subscales that assess negative behavior-evaluations and repair action tendencies following private transgressions and 2 shame subscales that assess negative self-evaluations (NSEs) and withdrawal action tendencies following publically exposed transgressions. Both guilt subscales were highly correlated with one another and negatively correlated with unethical decision making. Although both shame subscales were associated with relatively poor psychological functioning (e.g., neuroticism, personal distress, low self-esteem), they were only weakly correlated with one another, and their relationships with unethical decision making diverged. Whereas shame-NSE constrained unethical decision making, shame-withdraw did not. Our findings suggest that differentiating the tendency to make NSEs following publically exposed transgressions from the tendency to hide or withdraw from public view is critically important for understanding and measuring dispositional shame proneness. The GASP's ability to distinguish these 2 classes of responses represents an important advantage of the scale over existing assessments. Although further validation research is required, the present studies are promising in that they suggest the GASP has the potential to be an important measurement tool for detecting individuals susceptible to corruption and unethical behavior.

Self-conscious emotions and criminal offending.

This study examined the relation of personality traits--shame-proneness, guilt-proneness, and pride--on offending behavior. Using survey data from a sample of 224 college students, the construct and criterion-related validity of scales of the Shame Proneness Scale, the Test of Self-conscious Affect, and the Personality Feelings Questionnaire-2 were assessed. Regression analyses showed that self-conscious emotions are important in the etiology of criminal offending. Specifically, rated pride was positively correlated with self-reported criminal activity, whereas ratings of guilt were negatively associated with offending. The relation of shame with criminality varied depending on the type of measure used to indicate proneness to shame.