Post on 03-Jun-2018
8/13/2019 The Temporal Pattern of Shame and Guilt
1/29
The Temporal Pattern of Shame and Guilt
21 January 2014
Joost Knaap
S1715267
Supervisor: Dr Kai Epstude
Faculty of Behavioral and Social Sciences
University of Groningen
8/13/2019 The Temporal Pattern of Shame and Guilt
2/29
The temporal pattern of Shame and Guilt
2
Samenvatting
In eerder onderzoek werd bewijs gevonden dat acties (iets gedaan hebben) meer spijt tot gevolg
hebben op de korte termijn, terwijl passiviteit (iets niet gedaan hebben) juist meer spijt tot gevolg
heeft naarmate een langere tijdsduur verstrijkt. In deze scriptie wordt op deze resultaten
voortgebouwd. Onderzocht werd of een dergelijk tijd-effect ook bestaat voor de emoties
schaamte en schuld. Schaamte is een emotie die zich vooral richt op het zelf, terwijl schuld zich
richt op situaties. De hypothese in het onderzoek was dat voor de ervaring van schaamte niet zou
uitmaken of sprake was van iets gedaan of niet gedaan hebben, in tegenstelling met de ervaring
van schuld. Dit omdat het voor mensen moeilijk is voor te stellen datzijzelfanders zouden zijn
geweest (zelfbeeld is stabiel door de tijd heen), maar daarentegen juist makkelijker om zich voor
te stellen dat eensituatieanders zou zijn geweest. Deelnemers lazen verschillende versies vanscenarios die ofwel schaamte ofwel schuld opriepen. Daarnaast werd ook handelen versus niet
handelen en tijdsduur gemanipuleerd, hetgeen resulteerde in een 2x2x2 tussen proefpersonen
onderzoeksopzet. De hypothese werd niet bevestigd. Wel werden significante verschillen
gevonden tussen gebeurtenissen die zich kort gelden (1 dag) en lang gelden (6 maanden) hadden
voorgedaan voor het schuld-scenario. Daarnaast gaven proefpersonen die het schaamte-scenario
hadden gelezen aan meer schaamte te ervaren als gevolg van iets dat ze gedaan hadden ten
opzichte van iets dat ze niet gedaan hadden. De implicaties hiervan voor toekomstig onderzoekworden besproken.
8/13/2019 The Temporal Pattern of Shame and Guilt
3/29
The temporal pattern of Shame and Guilt
3
Abstract
In previous research it has been found that actions produce more regret in the short term, but
contrarily- failures to act produce more regret in the long run. This thesis draws on these
findings, investigating whether such a temporal effect also exists for the other counterfactual
emotions shame and guilt. It is hypothesized that for guilt such an effect would exist, but not for
shame. Participants read about situations evoking either shame or guilt, over actions and
inactions (event type) on the short-term or long run (2x2x2 between subjects design). The results
did not give support for this hypothesis. However, significant differences between events that
happened in the short term (1 day ago) compared to events that happened in the long run (6
months ago) were found for the participants that read a guilt-inducing scenario. When
participants were presented with the shame scenario a significant difference between event type(action and inaction) was found: participants reported more shame because of actions compared
to inactions. Implications for further research are discussed.
Keywords: shame, guilt, regret, counterfactual thinking, simulation heuristic, norm theory,
action, inaction
8/13/2019 The Temporal Pattern of Shame and Guilt
4/29
The temporal pattern of Shame and Guilt
4
Foreword
I would like to thank Kai for his supervision of this thesis. Not only did he give constructive
feedback and inspiration, he also also places a high value in interpersonal relations. I remember
him, when we had an appointment, always first asking how I was doing before going to
business. I did appreciate that a lot. I would also like to thank my parents for their support
throughout my studies and Amy for proofreading parts of it.
Conducting a large research project and writing a thesis about is was not always an easy job.
However, I found and still find that counterfactual emotions (the topic of this thesis) is one of the
most interesting and compelling subjects in (social) psychology and I am glad to have been able
to explore it and maybe even having contributed a little to the understanding of the complex
functioning of these emotions. Writing this thesis has been a valuable experience.
Amsterdam, January 2014
Joost Knaap
8/13/2019 The Temporal Pattern of Shame and Guilt
5/29
The temporal pattern of Shame and Guilt
5
For all sad words of tongue or pen, the saddest are these: It might have been!
-- John Greenleaf Whittier (1989)
If we didnt have birthdays, you wouldnt be you
If youd never been born, well then what would you do?
If youd never been born, well then what would you be?
You mightbe a fish! Or a toad in a tree!
You might be a doorknob! Or three baked potatoes!
You might be a bag full of hard green tomatoes!
Or worse than that.. You might be a WASNT!
A Wasnt has no fun at all. No, he doesnt.
A Wasnt just isnt. he isnt present.
But you You are YOU! And, now isnt that pleasant.
-- Theodor Seuss Geisel (1959)
Every path is the right path. Everything could have been anything else and it would have just as
much meaning.
-- Quote from the movieMr Nobody(Van Dormael, 2009)
8/13/2019 The Temporal Pattern of Shame and Guilt
6/29
The temporal pattern of Shame and Guilt
6
Contents
LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................................... 7
SIMULATION HEURISTIC............................................................................................................................................. 7
REGRET................................................................................................................................................................ 10
SHAME AND GUILT,WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE? ............................................................................................................ 13
HYPOTHESES......................................................................................................................................................... 14
METHOD ................................................................................................................................. 16
RESULTS................................................................................................................................. 18
DISCUSSION .......................................................................................................................... 21
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................... 24
APPENDIX A: ADAPTED VERSION OF THE TEST OF SELF-CONSCIOUS AFFECT..27
8/13/2019 The Temporal Pattern of Shame and Guilt
7/29
The temporal pattern of Shame and Guilt
7
Literature review
Simulation heuristic
Humankind has the ability to do a remarkable thing: it can travel forward or backward in
subjective time, that is: reviewing and thinking about past events, which can be viewed as
mental time travelling (Mandel, Hilton & Catellani, 2005). Mandeland colleagues (2005,
p.1) describe this feature of the human mind as a truly outstanding evolutionary feat, one that
has propelled our species far beyond even the most formidable powers of retrospection.
Kahneman and Tversky (1982) were among the first to theorize about this phenomenon.
They describe two classes of mental operations that can bring things to the mind: retrieval or
construction. With regard to the construction class they come up with a mental operation they
term the simulation heuristic. This simulation heuristic holds that people run events through
in their minds chronologically to assess likely consequences and to aid judgement. Examples
of judgmental activities in which mental simulation appears to be involved are (Kahneman &
Tversky, 1982): prediction (for example when imagining how people will behave in the
future), assessing the probability of a specified event (e.g. how do you assess the likelihood
of American armed intervention in Saudi Arabia in the next decade?) assessing conditioned
probabilities (e.g. if civil war breaks out in Saudi Arabia, what are the likely consequences?)
or assessments of causality (to test whether event A caused event B, we may undo event A in
our mind, and observe whether B still occurs in the simulation).
Another important example of the simulation heuristic (on which the focus lies in this
research paper) iscounterfactual reasoning; the mental simulation of how events might have
occurred in a different manner(Fiske & Taylor, 2008). Roese and Olson (1995) argue that
this ability to imagine alternative (i.e. counterfactual) outcomes is an omnipresent and
essential feature of our (mental) lives.
Counterfactuals are frequently conditional propositions that include both an antecedent
and a consequent (e.g. if A (antecedent) than B (consequent); Roese, 1997). Kahneman
and Tversky (1982) proposed a series of hypotheses. One of these was that counterfactual
simulations are normality-restoring. For example, in their study, participants read a scenario
about Mr. Jones, a 47 year old father of three and a successful banking executive. There were
two versions of the scenario. In the first version Mr. Jones left his office at the normal time
but he took a different route as than he normally did (route-scenario). In the second version of
the story, Mr. Jones left the office early to take care of some household chores, but did drive
8/13/2019 The Temporal Pattern of Shame and Guilt
8/29
The temporal pattern of Shame and Guilt
8
home along his normal route. The scenario also included the information that he occasionally
took a different route along the shore, but did not do so in this instance. In both versions of the
scenario Mr. Jones got involved in a car accident in which he is killed. After reading the
scenario participants were asked to produce, if only... statements.
It was found that the subjects that read the route-scenario were likely to undo the accident
by imagining Mr. Jones driving along his normal route (restoring of normality) instead of
leaving office at a different time (introducing an exception). After reading the time-scenario
participants were more likely to imagine Mr. Jones leaving office at the usual time (restoring
of normality) than think of a version in which he drove along the shore (introducing an
exception). It appears that it is easier for a person that engages in counterfactual thinking to
imagine that something that rarely happens would not have happened at all (i.e. easier to
reason that Mr. Jones would have left the office at the usual time or that he would have driven
home along his normal route). Only very rarely people tend to undo events by making
mutations that involve mentally deleting normal antecedents or inventing new ones instead of
deleting abnormal antecedents.
Another idea by Kahneman and Tversky (1982) was that the ease of undoing has
implications for the intensity of emotions that people experience and judgements they make.
For example, a second scenario depicted two persons, Mr. Crane and Mr. Tees, who were
scheduled to leave the airport on different flights, at the same time (Kahneman & Tversky,
1982). Both used the same car and were 30 minutes late for their flights, due to traffic
congestion. Mr Crane is told that his flight left on time, whereas Mr. Tees is told that his flight
was delayed and has just left, only 5 minutes ago. Participants were asked to indicate who
they thought would be more upset. Almost every participant (96 %) stated that Mr. Tees
would be the person most upset about missing his flight. This is remarkable, because strict
objectively seen, there is not a real difference in outcome between the two, both are in the
same situation of missing their flights.
Kahneman and Tversky (1982) argue that it seems that participants engage in a
simulation exercise, in which they test how close they came to reaching their flight in time.
Mr. Tees is now thought to be more disappointed because it is easierfor him to imagine that
he could have still caught his plane if he would have arrived 5 minutes earlier on the airport,
whereas it is more difficult for Mr. Tees to imagine a situation in which the 30 minutes delay
could have been avoided.
8/13/2019 The Temporal Pattern of Shame and Guilt
9/29
The temporal pattern of Shame and Guilt
9
Norm theory
To shortly summarize the key concepts proposed by Kahneman and Tversky (1982):
counterfactuals are normality restoring (1), some alternatives are closer to reality than others
(2) and the effect this has on the ease of undoing is linked with the intensity of emotions
experienced (3). These propositions are included and elaborated further upon in norm theory
(Kahneman and Miller, 1986). Norm theory states that the judgemental and affective
reactions to past events are influenced by a certain standard of comparison; cognitive
reference points that are used as a norm (Mandel et al., 2005). People who engage in
counterfactual thought seek to find restoration of that norm-state. In norm theory,
counterfactual alternatives are thought to be constructed ad hoc (online).
An assumption that is derived from norm theory is the emotional amplificationhypothesis(Kahneman & Miller, 1986). According to this hypothesis the affective response to
an event is enhanced if its causes are abnormal. The findings by Kahneman and Tversky
(1982) that Mr. Tees would be most upset after missing his flight (with only 5 minutes), for
example, are a clear exhibition of this hypothesis (because Mr. Tees plane was delayed,
which is a deviation from normality). Another exhibition of norm theory was demonstrated by
Miller and McFarland (1986). Participants were presented with a scenario in which a person
fell victim of a shooting incident while walking to a shop (Miller & McFarland, 1986). In oneversion it was a shop he frequently went by, in another version it was a shop he rarely visited.
The dependent variable was the amount of money participants awarded to the victim as
compensation. It was found that the participants awarded significantly more money to the
victim who went to the shop he usually very rarely frequented (e.g. the more abnormal
version).
The emotional amplification hypothesis implies that counterfactuals tend to have a
direction. They can be either positive when imagined alternative circumstances are evaluated
better than actuality (upward counterfactuals), or negative when alternative circumstances are
evaluated worse than actuality (downward counterfactuals; Roese, 1997).
Both types of counterfactual thinking, downward and upward, seem to have a
functional basis. Downward counterfactual thinking, for example, can be adaptive in helping
to (re)gain positive affect (Roese, 1994). As for downward counterfactual thinking, feeling
bad results in if only-thoughts, which leads to the imagination of a better world (Roese,
1997). In these situations imagining how things could have happened differently facilitates a
8/13/2019 The Temporal Pattern of Shame and Guilt
10/29
The temporal pattern of Shame and Guilt
10
better understanding of the world. This reconsideration of the past, and creating alternatives to
what actually has happened, can be useful in helping to adapt, and improve outcomes in the
future (e.g. Roese, 1994; Roese, 1997). For example, if Tommy failed an exam and realises
that he would have passed it, had he studied more, than he has identified a causally antecedent
action that he can use in the future to improve his performance (Roese, 1997). Although
upward counterfactuals can have both positive (better understanding of the world) and
negative consequences (feeling bad) that often stand in a state of tension with each other, the
net result will thus be positive on average (e.g. better future performance; Roese, 1997).
Regret
Counterfactual thinking is associated with specific affective experiences. Regret is, together with
the self-conscious emotions shame and guilt (see the next paragraph)pre-eminently associated
with the production of counterfactual thoughts. Gilovich and Medvec (1994, p.357) use an aptly
metaphor: Regrets are like taxes: nearly everyone must suffer them. It seems almost impossible
for a person to live his life without regretting anything. Regret is typically felt in response to
decisions that produce unfavorable outcomes, compared to the alternative (Van Dijk &
Zeelenberg, 2006). It has been found that regret leads to feelings that one should have known
better, having a sinking feeling, thoughts about the mistake that was made and opportunities that
were lost, feeling a tendency to kick oneself, and wanting to undo the event and get a second
chance (Zeelenberg, van Dijk, Manstead & van der Pligt, 1998).
One important factor determining the amplitude of regret is whether the emotions was
caused by actions or inactions. Numerous studies (see for an overview e.g. Gilovich & Medvec,
1995) show that people experience more regret caused by actions than by failures to act (e.g.
failing to seize the moment). For example Kahneman and Tversky (1982) let participants read
the following scenario:
Mr. Paul owns share in company A. During the past year he considered switching to
stock in company B, but he decided against it. He now finds out he would have been
better off by $1.200 if he had switched to the stock of company B. Mr. George owned
shares in company B. During the past year he switched to stock in company A. He now
finds that he would have been better off by $1.200 if he had kept his stock in company B.
Who feels greater regret?
8/13/2019 The Temporal Pattern of Shame and Guilt
11/29
The temporal pattern of Shame and Guilt
11
Participants answered in great majority (92%) that they thought that Mr. George (who loses
money because he fails to act) would experience more regret.
Gilovich and Medvec (1994) elaborated on this theory and came up with the notion of a
temporal pattern of regret, differentiating between short and long term periods of time after an
event took place. When participants were asked what they regretted most in life, among the most
common regrets participants reported were: missed educational opportunities, failures to seize
the moment, not spending enough time with friends and relatives and rushed in too soon
(Gilovich and Medvec, 1994, Study 2). Only the last regret is caused by an action, all the others
regrets imply failures to act. In another study (Gilovich & Medvec, 1994, Study 3 and 4)
participants were presented with a scenario that read as follows:
Dave and Jim do not know each other, but both are enrolled at the same elite East CoastUniversity. Both are only moderately satisfied where they are and both are considering
transferring to another prestigious school. Each agonizes over the decision, going back
and forth between thinking he is going to stay and thinking he will leave. They ultimately
make different decisions: Dave opts to stay where he is and Jim decides to transfer.
Suppose their decisions turn out badly for both of them: Dave still doesn't like it where he
is and wishes he had transferred, and Jim doesn't like his new environment and wishes he
had stayed.
After reading the scenario it was asked which of the persons depicted in the story would
experience more regret, either in the short term or in the long run. The results were that in the
short term subjects actions (Jims transfer to a different university) produced more regret than
their inactions (Dave staying at the university), however, in the long run a reverse effect showed.
A failure to act led to more regret in the long runthan an action.
Gilovich and Medvec (1994) give several explanations for this effect. They suggest
that there is a asymmetry in how easy people engage in behavioral adjustment a situation they
feel bad about. It is easier for people to follows action with another action than it is to follow
inaction with an action. Additionally people are more inclined to engage in dissonance
reduction for actions than for inactions, because tend to feel more responsible for their actions
than inactions (without responsibility there is less dissonance). Both theories (asymmetries in
ameliorative behavior and differential dissonance reduction) lead to the diminishing of the
string of regrettable action (Gilovich & Medvec, 1994, p. 362). That is: the higher amount of
regret experienced after actions in the short run causes psychological (dissonance reduction)
8/13/2019 The Temporal Pattern of Shame and Guilt
12/29
The temporal pattern of Shame and Guilt
12
and behavioral mechanisms (reparative action) to come in place which diminish regret.
Contrarily people do use these strategies less when inactions are concerned and end up
regretting their failures to act more in the long run. A possible explanation is that the reasons
why one did not act in the past seem to become less pressing and harder to image (i.e. less
salient), when time passes (Gilovich & Medvec, 1994). Therefore it may be easier to think
about why one acted, but more difficult why one did not. In the short-term people rely on
bottom-up processes that elicit specific memories, whether over time, people rely top-down
processes. Because of this much less accurate and abstract way of processing, it is harder for
people to remember the reasons why one did not act, leading to greater regret in the long term
(Gilovich & Medvec, 1994).
Furthermore, Leach and Plaks (2009) found that the way in which actions and
inactions are usually represented plays a major role in assessing the perceived amount of regret
of events. That is: actions tend to be more concrete than inactions. For a better understanding the
difference between abstract versus concrete representation it can be useful to image a person
ringing a doorbell (Leach & Plaks, 2009). This persons behavior can be described either in
abstract terms as calling on a friend (which is a higher level representation) or concretely as
pushing a button (lower level representation). A change in a high level representation of an
event produces major changes in the meaning of the event, whereas a change in a lower level
representation produces only relatively minor changes in the meaning of the event, which makes
this a key difference between the two (Trope & Liberman, 2003).
Construal level theory (Trope & Liberman, 2003) states that details about distant future
events are often knowable only as the time draws closer, which causes people to associate distant
future events with abstract concepts (e.g. composing of general, superordinate and essential
features). When - in contrast - the event is coming nearer, concrete considerations (e.g.,
subordinate goals, specifics of the situation) are more fruitful for a successful execution of the
task at hand. Actions tend to be more concrete in that they are more causal than inactions
(Leach & Plaks, 2009). That is: a strong and concrete subjective link exists between action and
its effects. Contrarily, such a link is absent for inactions, which leads to a more abstract
processing. It was found, for example, that participants greater regret for inactions in the distant
term was mediated by the level of abstraction (Leach & Plaks, 2009); distant term inactions were
regretted more than actions onlywhen they were represented abstractly. This in turn causes a
greater memorability for the event and an increased focus on the broader implications.
8/13/2019 The Temporal Pattern of Shame and Guilt
13/29
The temporal pattern of Shame and Guilt
13
Shame and guilt, what is the difference?
Both shame and guilt are negatively valenced, self-relevant emotions (Niedental, Tagney &
Gavanski, 1994). Studies suggest that the function of these emotions is to guide behavior that
conforms to social and moral norms and to promote restitution from misdeeds (Parrott, 2001).
Although most people use the terms shame and guilt in an interchangeable manner, there
have been made numerous attempts to differentiate between the two emotions (see for an
overview Tangney & Tracy, 2012).
The main approach in the field has for long been based on the assumption that shame and
guilt can be differentiated by the types of situations that induce these emotions. Shame was
thought to be an affective reaction following public exposure (and disapproval) of some
shortcoming. Guilt on the other hand was thought to be a reaction of the internalized
conscience of a person when ones personal standards are violated andcould in this manner be
seen a more private emotion. Evidence for this theory is mixed. For example, Walbott and
Scherer (1995) conducted a large-scale cross-cultural study in which participants from different
cultures were asked to recall situations in which they had experienced a whole range of different
emotions including shame and guilt. It was found that shame experiences were elicited
significantly more often by other people or by external sources, whereas guilt experiences were
more often attributed to the self. Walbott and Scherer (1995, p. 174) conclude: This [finding] is
consistent with the idea that guilt is caused by internal sanctions, whereas shame is caused by
external sanctions emanating from other people of institutions. On the other hand, there is
empirical evidence that although shame and guilt occurred most often in social contexts, also
solitary shame experiences were not uncommon(e.g. Tangney, Miller, Flicker & Barlow,
1996).
Helen Block Lewis (1971) was the first to come up with a different theory that draws
upon the role of the self instead of the role of private-public situations. She theorises that a
distinction of shame and guilt can be made on the basis of the functional role of the self. In her
theory the experience of shame is associated with the self, which is the focus of evaluation,
whereas the self is not the central object of evaluation in guilt. Instead, the focus in guilt lies on
the thingdone or undone. As a result shame leads to a fairly global self-condemnation, whereas
guilt is experienced somewhat apart from the self (Niedenthal et al., 1994).
A consequence of this is that shame and guilt seem to be involved in different types of
counterfactual thinking. For example, Niedenthal and colleagues (1994, study 1) asked subjects
8/13/2019 The Temporal Pattern of Shame and Guilt
14/29
The temporal pattern of Shame and Guilt
14
to read about two situations inducing shame or guilt and then to undo these situations (i.e.
generating counterfactuals).
It was found that subjects tended to undo the shame inducing situations by altering the
self, whereas subjects tended to undo guilt situations by altering actions (behavior). In a second
study (Niedental et al., 1994, study 2), participants read about an ambiguous event that could
induce both shame and guilt. Subsequently, participants were asked to produce counterfactuals in
which they either altered the self or behavior. This led to similar results. Subjects who were
asked to change the self, reported to experience more shame subsequently, whereas subjects who
were asked to change behavior experienced more guilt. Tracy and Robins (2006) found that
individuals do not regulate feelings of guilt through making external attributions. Instead, they
make internal attributions, which lead to an even greater experience of guilt. It seems that guilt is
regulated behavioral rather than cognitive (Tracy & Robins, 2006). Guilt motivates reparative
behavior (apology, future hard work). In contrast shame leads to blaming stable, uncontrollable
aspects of the self (Tracy & Robins, 2006). Therefore, an ashamed person has to adopt a long-
term strategy of behavioral modification to reduce the emotional experience of shame. That is:
working toward becoming a different kind of person.
Hypotheses
In the present study the main aim is to investigate whether actions and failures to act have also
consequences for the experience of shame and guilt. In addition it is investigated whether the
temporal pattern reported by Gilovich and Medvec (1994) exists for the experience of shame and
guilt as well. In the literature it has been shown that some aspects of reality are appear more
mutable than others, depending on the relative ease to which aspects of reality can be altered to
produce counterfactuals (Kahneman & Miller, 1986).
This concept could be useful to make a distinction between shame and guilt. Shame is
pre-eminently an emotion focused on the self, whereas guilt is focused on situational factors
(e.g. Niedenthal et al., 1994). Because the self-concept is viewed as relatively stable over time
(e.g. Demo, 1992) it is hypothesized that events inducing shame are less mutable than events
inducing guilt. This idea hinges on the premise that it is considerably easier for a person to
imagine how a situationcould have been different (if only I didt), compared to how he himself
could be different (if only I werent). As a result it is assumed that the reversed effect on the
time dimension (inactions induce more regret in the long run) will show for situations inducing
8/13/2019 The Temporal Pattern of Shame and Guilt
15/29
The temporal pattern of Shame and Guilt
15
guilt, but not shame.
It short is expected that:
- In the short-term subjects experience greater guilt stemming from actions than from
inactions (hypothesis 1);
- In the long run subjects experience greater guilt stemming from inactions than from
actions (hypothesis 2);
- No such time effect exists for the experience of shame (hypothesis 3). That is: in both
the short-term and long run subjects experience greater shame from inactions than from
actions.
8/13/2019 The Temporal Pattern of Shame and Guilt
16/29
The temporal pattern of Shame and Guilt
16
Method
Participants and design.234 undergraduate Psychology students at the University ofGroningen took part in the present study, of which 70 were male and 164 female. The
youngest participant was 18 years old, the oldest 29, whereas the mean age of all the
participants was 20.35. The participants received credits in exchange for their participation
and were randomly assigned to one of the six experimental conditions. The study can be
characterized as a 2 (shame vs. guilt) x 2 (short vs. long term) x 2 (action vs. inaction)
between subjects design.
Procedure. After completing an assent form, participants read one of six scenarios,
which were an adaption of the original scenarios used byNiedenthal, Tangley and Gavanski(1994). The participants were asked to carefully read the scenario and to imagine experiencing
the situation that was described. It was noted that it was not important for the experiment
whether they thought the experiences could actually happen, but that the researchers were
interested in their thoughts about the experiences if they were to happen. The scenario
inducing shame stemming from an action (scenario 1a) read as follows (with the short vs.
long term conditions in bold):
Imagine yourself sitting in a class of 15 students that is taught by a professor you admire
more than any other on campus. You really believe that he/she is brilliant. The professor
asks a question about one of the readings/assignments and you immediately volunteer
the answer with some enthusiasm. But its the wrong answer, the professor informs you
somewhat dryly and he/she turns to address another student in the class.
Please image that this event [has happened 1 day ago / has happened six months ago].
The scenario inducing shame stemming from an inaction (scenario 1b) read as follows:
Imagine yourself sitting in a class of 15 students that is taught by a professor you admire
more than any other on campus. You really believe that he/she is brilliant. The professor
asks a question about one of the readings/assignments where you have previously
written an essay about. Everybody in class expects you to answer it. But you seem
paralyzed and keep quiet. The professor looks disappointed and addresses another
8/13/2019 The Temporal Pattern of Shame and Guilt
17/29
The temporal pattern of Shame and Guilt
17
student in the class.
Please image that this event [has happened 1 day ago / has happened six months ago].
The scenario inducing guilt stemming from an action (scenario 2a) read as follows:
You are house-sitting for a friends parents. Its a pretty easy task actually. All you have
to do is eat their food, collect the mail, and feed their bird. Everything is going just fine
until one morning you discover that the bird died during the night. You did not feed him
with the bird food as you were instructed but you bought some nuts on the market
yourself. The bird died from choking while swallowing a particularly large nut.
Please image that this event [has happened 1 day ago / has happened six months ago].
The scenario inducing guilt stemming from an inaction (scenario 2b) read as follows:
You are house-sitting for a friends parents. Its a pretty easy task actually. All you have
to do is eat their food, collect the mail, and feed their bird. Everything is going just fine
until one morning you discover that the bird died during the night. You forgot to turn the
air conditioning down at night as you had been instructed. The bird died from the
excessive cold.
Please image that this event [has happened 1 day ago / has happened six months ago].
After this, participant were asked to indicate to what extent they agreed with a number of
statements adapted from the Test of Self-Conscious Affect (TOSCA; Tangney, Wagner &
Gramzow, 1989). The ratings were done on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from totally agree till
totally disagree.
An example of a statement measuring shame is You would feel like you wanted to hide. An
example of a statement indicating feelings of guilt is You would feel unhappy and eager to
correct the situation(the complete survey is added as a supplement to this thesis).
Manipulation checks. After these statements participants answered three questions that
served as a manipulation check. They were asked how long ago the events portrayed in the
scenario were supposed to happen (time manipulation check) and whether he or she thought
the event happened because he did something or did not do something (action vs. inaction
manipulation check). After this, the participant indicated whether other people knew about the
8/13/2019 The Temporal Pattern of Shame and Guilt
18/29
The temporal pattern of Shame and Guilt
18
events that had happened (guilt-shame manipulation check).Finally the participant was asked
how big the change would be that he would feel the same way in a similar situation.
Results
The data met the assumptions of homogeneity of variance. The dependent variable shame was
normally distributed (for the groups that consisted of the combination of the levels of action
(action versus failure to act) and time (long versus short; Shapiro-Wilk > .05). There was an
indication that the dependent variable guilt was not normally distributed (Shapiro-Wilk
8/13/2019 The Temporal Pattern of Shame and Guilt
19/29
The temporal pattern of Shame and Guilt
19
Guilt scenario measuring guilt
Similarly, a two-way analysis of variance with time and event-type as the independent
variables and guilt as the independent variable showed a main effect on the time dimension
(F(1,100) = 10.71,p= .01), for the subjects that were presented with the guilt scenario.
Again, participants reported experiencing less guilt if they read about events that happened a
long time ago (M= 3.22, SD= .67), versus not long ago (M= 3.63, SD= .57).
Shame scenario measuring shame
A significant effect existed between the scenario in which an action was described compared
to the scenario in which an inaction was described (F(1,126) = 10.538 ,p= .01). It was found
that when subjects read about an event that induced shame because they failed to do
something, they reported more shame (M= 2.93, SD= .73), than when they read a scenario in
which they did something (M= 2.49, SD= .73). No other effects were significant.
Shame scenario measuring guilt
Interestingly, also a significant difference between actions (M= 2.73, SD= .76) and inactions
(M= 3.21, SD= .67) was found for guilt when participants were presented with the shame
scenario (F(1,126) = 14.45,p< .01), that is: participants reported more guilt over failures to
act. No other significant effects were found.
Repeated measures ANOVA for the guilt scenarios
A repeated measures ANOVA with a Greenhouse-Geisser correction determined that mean
ratings on the guilt scale differed significantly from mean ratings on the shame scale for the
participants that were presented with a guilt scenario (F(1, 100) = 56.80,p< 0.01). In
accordance with what one might expect, indeed ratings on the guilt scale (M= 3.41, SD= .66)
were higher than on the shame scale (M= 2.97, SD= .74). Additionally it was found that a
significant effect existed with respect to the time dimension (F(1,100) = 12.16,p< .01).
Repeated measures ANOVA for the shame scenarios
Similarly, a repeated measures ANOVA with a Greenhouse-Geisser correction showed that
mean ratings on the guilt scale differed statistically significantly from mean ratings on the
shame scale for the participants that were presented with a shame scenario (F(1, 126) = 26.17,
p< .01). Contrary to what one would expect, ratings on the guilt scale were higher (M = 2.75,
SD = .76), than on the shame scale (M= 2.73, SD= .76), indicating that participants did
8/13/2019 The Temporal Pattern of Shame and Guilt
20/29
The temporal pattern of Shame and Guilt
20
experience more guilt instead of shame when confronted with a shame scenario. An
significant effect existed between the scenario in which an action was described compared to
the one in which an failure to act was described (F(1,126) = 14.75,p< 0.01), indicating that
ratings on the shame and guilt scales were on average higher for inactions than actions.
Manipulation checks
Almost all participants answered the time manipulation check (How long ago did the events
portrayed in the story happen?) correctly. Two participants answered that they did not now
and one answered 34 (without specification whether this were days or months). Another two
participants answered that they read about events that happened 2 years ago, whereas another
answered 4 weeks (this actually was the 6 months condition), and one participant reported
that the events were supposed to happen 3 years ago (whereas he or she was in the 1 day
condition). With regard to whether the events in the scenario happened because of an action
or an inaction 33 participants (of 234 in total) failed this check, whereas 41 failed the guilt-
shame manipulation check. The participants indicated a change of average 70.14 %
(SD=22.55) that they would feel the same in a similar situation.
An additional analysis of the data was carried out, in which all participants that failed
one or more manipulation checks were eliminated. In total 79 responses were eliminated. All
effects of the previous analysis were found. Only, the finding that the participants that read
the guilt scenario reported less shame in the long run was not replicated, that is: in the second
analysis no effect was found.
8/13/2019 The Temporal Pattern of Shame and Guilt
21/29
The temporal pattern of Shame and Guilt
21
Discussion
Previous research on counterfactual thinking has shown that people tend to experience more
regret over actions than inactions on the short run, but as time passes, a shift takes place: people
tend to experience more regret because of things they failed to do compared to the things they
did (Gilovich & Medvec, 1994). A possible explanation is that the reasons why one did not act in
the past seem to become less pressing and harder to image (i.e. less salient), when time passes
(Gilovich & Medvec, 1994). Therefore it may be easier to think about why one acted, but more
difficult why one did not. Peoples regret may thus intensify because the failure to act in the past
seems inexplicable to them in the present.
In the present research it was expected that the time effect observed for the experience of
regret would exist for the experience of shame and guilt as well. Since shame is pre-eminently an
emotion focused on the self (whereas guilt is focused on situational factors) and the self-
concept is viewed as relatively stable over time it was hypothesized that events inducing shame
are less mutable than events inducing guilt. This idea hinges on the premise that it is
considerably easier for a person to imagine how a situation could have been different (if only I
didt), compared to how his own behavior could be different (if only I werent). It was
expected that in the short-term subjects experience greater guilt stemming from actions than
from inactions (hypothesis 1). Furthermore, it was expected that in the long run subjects would
experience greater guilt stemming from inactions than from actions (hypothesis 2) and that no
such time effect exists for the experience of shame (hypothesis 3), that is: subjects experience
more guilt over inactions in both the short term and the long run.
The results did not give support for this hypothesis. When participants were presented with
the bird scenario (inducing guilt) they experienced overall more guilt in the short term (compared
to the long run), but this was independent of event type (action and inaction). When participants
were presented with the professor scenario (inducing shame) a significant difference between
event type (action and inaction) was found. That is: overall, participants who read the professor
scenario experienced more shame as a consequence of something they failed to do compared to
something they did. This finding is in line with the idea that simulations are more likely to
increase the perceived likelihood of a potential outcome than to reduce the probability or extent
of an outcome. It has been shown in previous research (e.g. Dunning and Parpal, 1989), that in
general simulations are more likely to increase the perceived likelihood of a potential outcome
8/13/2019 The Temporal Pattern of Shame and Guilt
22/29
The temporal pattern of Shame and Guilt
22
(mental addition) than to reduce the probability or extent of an outcome (mental subtraction).
Dunning and Parpal (1989, study 1) asked subjects to indicate how many morequestions on a
test they would get right if they studied 3 ours longer. Alternatively they asked how manyfewer
questions subjects would get right if they studied three hours less. Subjects estimated a greater
impact when presented with the additive frame (studying 3 ours longer), than when presented
with the subtractive frame (studying three hours less). In other words: although the time period
of studying or not-studying was the same, subjects thought that studying for three hours more
would result in a greater change in the amount of right answers, than studying less would. In a
second study Dunning and Parpal (1989, study 2) asked students at Stanford University in what
extent coming to Stanford as opposed to the university of their second choice had influenced
their education, social life and future prospects. Other students estimated the potential
consequences of attending their second favorite university. Also in this study subjects perceived
greater impact when they were confronted with an additive (Stanford) as opposed to a subtractive
frame (university of second choice). The effect seems to exist because people give more weight
to features of the particular mental stimulation serving as the subject of comparison and place a
higher value in factors that produce instead of inhibit the relevant outcome (Dunning & Parpal,
1989). People that engage in counterfactual thought because they have done something are
eliminating that outcome (i.e. subtraction; if only I hadnt done that). On the other hand, people
that engage in counterfactual thought because they did not do something are adding an outcome
(i.e. mental addition; if only I did that). When people are thinking back about an event in
which they failed to do something (inaction), compared to when they did do something (action),
imagining that they wouldhave acted will have greater impact.
In the present study (counterfactual) thinking about not having answered the question of the
professor (if only I didnt, which is mental subtraction) is harder for people than thinking about
having answered the question (if only I did, which is mental addition). Because it is easier for
participants to come up with counterfactuals for the outcome caused by an inaction (death of the
bird by leaving a window open), they experience a higher amount of shame.
However, a difference in time between actions and inactions (short versus long ago) such as
in the classic regret studies by Gilovich and Medvec (1994) was not found. Morrison and Roese
(2011, p.580) name an important disadvantage of using students as participants in research:
College student samples are quick and cheap, but whether effects gleaned from such samples
generalize to the wider population remains a key challenge for psychological theory.In their
study they investigated real-life regrets using a national representative sample in the US and they
8/13/2019 The Temporal Pattern of Shame and Guilt
23/29
The temporal pattern of Shame and Guilt
23
did replicate the time effect (regrets over inactions were more common over long term). The
notion that using students as participants can be problematic applies to the present study as well:
a percentage between 10-20 % of the participants failed multiple manipulation checks. Another
important shortcoming of the present study is the use of a scenario design, which leads to a
diminishing of experimental realism compared to surveys assessing real life emotions (such as
the study by Morrison and Roese, 2011). On the other hand: the participants did indicate
indicated a chance of on average 70.14 % that they would feel the same in a similar (real world)
situation. The clear disadvantage of asking participants about actual experiences is that it is
harder to compare their answers with each other (as opposed to using a scenario). However,
Morrison and Roese (2011) give a clear example of the fact that it is possible, however time
consuming and costly.
A rather curious finding was that participants reported experiencing a higher amount of guilt
than shame when they were presented with a shame scenario (about the professor). Apparently
the scenario did produce more guilt than shame. Niedenthal and colleagues (1994), however, did
find in a pilot study, using the exact same professor scenario, that participants rated the scenario
4.82 on the shame scale and 2.51 on the guilt scale. In the present study the participants rated the
professor scenario 2.75 on the guilt scale and 2.73 on the shame scale. Part of the difference can
be explained by measurement differences: the scale Niedenthal and colleagues used was a 7
point scale, whereas in the present study a 5 point scale was used. However, why participants
rated a higher amount of guilt instead of shame for the professor scenario (that was supposed to
induce shame) cannot be explained by this.
Conclusion
A temporal effect for actions and inactions in the experience of shame and guilt, such as Gilovic
and Medvec (1994) found (in which actions produce more regret in the short term and inactions
in the long run) failed to show in this study. However, it was found that participants that read a
scenario inducing shame experienced more shame as a consequence of something they failed to
do compared to something they did (without a time effect). Participants that read a scenario
inducing guilt experienced more guilt in the short term, compared to the long run. To further
investigate how these emotions operate in time, additional research is needed, in whichas a
recommendationreal life emotional events are taken into account.
8/13/2019 The Temporal Pattern of Shame and Guilt
24/29
The temporal pattern of Shame and Guilt
24
References
Demo, D. (1992). The self-concept over time: Research issues and directions.Annual Review
of Sociology, 18(1992), 303326
Dunning, D., & Parpal, M. (1989). Mental addition versus subtraction in counterfactual
reasoning: on assessing the impact of personal actions and life events. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 57(1), 515.
Fiske, S., & Taylor, S. (2008). Social cognition. From brains to culture. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Gilovich, T., & Medvec, V. H. (1994). The temporal pattern to the experience of regret.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(3), 35765. Retrieved from
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7965599
Gilovich, T., & Medvec, V. H. (1995). The experience of regret: what, when, and why.
Psychological Review, 102(2), 37995. Retrieved from
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22115451
Kahneman, D., & Miller, D. (1986). Norm theory: Comparing reality to its alternatives.
Psychological review. Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/rev/93/2/136/
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1982). The simulation heuristic. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, &
A. Tversky,Judgement Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases(pp. 201-208). New
York: Cambridge university press.
Leach, F. R., & Plaks, J. E. (2009). Regret for errors of commission and omission in the
distant term versus near term: the role of level of abstraction.Personality & social
psychology bulletin, 35(2), 2219. doi:10.1177/0146167208327001
Lewis, H. B. (1971). Shame and guilt in neurosis. New York: International Universities Press.
Mandel, David R. Hilton, D. J., & Catellani, P. C. (Eds.). (2005). The Psychology ofCounterfactual Thinking. London: Routledge.
8/13/2019 The Temporal Pattern of Shame and Guilt
25/29
The temporal pattern of Shame and Guilt
25
Morrison, M., & Roese, N. J. (2011). Regrets of the Typical American: Findings From aNationally Representative Sample. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2(6),576583. doi:10.1177/1948550611401756
Miller, D. T., & McFarland, C. (1986). Counterfactual Thinking and Victim Compensation: A
Test of Norm Theory.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 12(4), 513519.
doi:10.1177/0146167286124014
Miller, Dale T., & Gunasegaram, S. (1990). Temporal order and the perceived mutability of
events: Implications for blame assignment.Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 59(6), 11111118. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.59.6.1111
Niedenthal, P. M., Tangney, J. P., & Gavanski, I. (1994). If only I werent versus if only I
hadnt: distinguishing shame and guilt in counterfactual thinking.Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 67(4), 58595.
Parrott, W. (2001). The nature of emotion. In T. A., & N. Schwarz,Blackwell Handbook of
Social Psychology: Intraindividual Processes(pp. 376-390). Oxford: Blackwell
Publishers.
Roese, N. J., & Olson, J. M. (1995). What Might Have Been: The Social Psychology ofCounterfactual Thinking. New Jersey: Erlbaum.
Roese, N J. (1997). Counterfactual thinking.Psychological bulletin, 121(1), 13348.
Roese, Neal J. (1994). The functional basis of counterfactual thinking. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 66(5), 805818. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.66.5.805
Tangney, J. (1996). Conceptual and methodological issues in the assessment of shame and
guilt.Behaviour research and therapy, 34(9), 741754.
Tangney, J., & Dearing, R. (2003). Shame and guilt(pp. 447450) New York: Guilford.
Tangney, J. P., Miller, R. S., Flicker, L., & Barlow, D. H. (1996). Are shame, guilt, and
embarrassment distinct emotions?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(6),
125669.
8/13/2019 The Temporal Pattern of Shame and Guilt
26/29
The temporal pattern of Shame and Guilt
26
Tangney, J., & Tracy, J. L. (2012). Self-conscious emotions. In M. Leary & J. Tangney(Eds.),Handbook of self and identity(pp. 446478).
Tangney, J.P., Wagner, P., & Gramzow, R. (1989). The Test of Self-Conscious Affect.
(TOSCA). Fairfax: George Mason University.
Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. (2006). Appraisal antecedents of shame and guilt: support for a
theoretical model.Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(10), 133951.
doi:10.1177/0146167206290212
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003). Temporal construal.Psychological Review, 110(3), 403
421. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.110.3.403
Van Dijk, E., & Zeelenberg, M. (2006). The dampening effect of uncertainty on positive andnegative emotions.Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 19(2), 171176.doi:10.1002/bdm.504
Wallbott, H., & Scherer, K. (1995). Cultural determinants in experiencing shame and guilt. In:J.P. Tangney & K.W. Fischer (Eds.), Self-conscious emotions.New York: Guilford
Zeelenberg, Marcel, van Dijk, W. W., Manstead, A., & der Pligt, J. (1998). The Experience of
Regret and Disappointment. Cognition & Emotion, 12(2), 221230.
doi:10.1080/026999398379727
8/13/2019 The Temporal Pattern of Shame and Guilt
27/29
The temporal pattern of Shame and Guilt
27
Appendix A: adapted version of the Test of Self-Conscious Affect (TOSCA; Tangney, Wagner
& Gramzow, 1989).
Totally
disagreeDisagree Neutral Agree
Totally
agree
You would feel like
you wanted to hidex x x x x
You would feel
inadequatex x x x x
You would feel stupid x x x x x
You would feel
incompetentx x x x x
You would feel
disgusted with your
lack of will power
and self-control
x x x x x
You would feel
immaturex x x x x
You would feel like a
cowardx x x x x
You would think you
are basically lazy
x x x x x
You would think:
This is making me
anxious. I need either
fix it or get someone
else to
x x x x x
8/13/2019 The Temporal Pattern of Shame and Guilt
28/29
The temporal pattern of Shame and Guilt
28
Totally
disagreeDisagree Neutral Agree
Totally
agree
You would think:
Im terriblex x x x x
You would feel small
... like a mousex x x x x
You would probably
avoid eye-contact for
a long time
x x x x x
You would feel alone
and apart from other
people
x x x x x
You would think
about quittingx x x x x
You would feel: I
deserve to be
reprimanded
x x x x x
You would keep quiet
and avoid other
people
x x x x x
You would feel
unhappy and eager to
correct the situation
x x x x x
You would feel you
should not accept itx x x x x
8/13/2019 The Temporal Pattern of Shame and Guilt
29/29