Vicarious Shame and Guilt G P

04 Lickel (bc/s) 29/3/05 1:09 pm Page 145

Group Processes & G Intergroup Relations P 2005 Vol 8(2) 145–157 I R Vicarious Shame and Guilt

Brian Lickel University of Southern California Toni Schmader The University of Arizona Mathew Curtis University of Southern California Marchelle Scarnier The University of Arizona Daniel R. Ames Columbia University

Participants recalled instances when they felt vicariously ashamed or guilty for another’s wrongdoing and rated their appraisals of the event and resulting motivations. The study tested aspects of social association that uniquely predict vicarious shame and guilt. Results suggest that the experience of vicarious shame and vicarious guilt are distinguishable. Vicarious guilt was predicted by one’s perceived interdependence with the wrongdoer (e.g. high interpersonal interaction), an appraisal of control over the event, and a motivation to repair the other person’s wrongdoing. Vicarious shame was predicted by the relevance of the event to a shared social identity with the wrongdoer, an appraisal of self-image threat, and a motivation to distance from the event. Implications for intergroup behavior and emotion are discussed.

keywords guilt, interdependence, shame, social identity, stereotypes

I envied other students back then [in postwar Stillwell, & Heatherton, 1995; Eisenberg, 2000; Germany] who had dissociated themselves from Keltner & Harker, 1998; Tangney & Fischer, their parents and thus from the entire generation 1995). Although we commonly think of shame of perpetrators, voyeurs, and the willfully blind, and guilt as feelings we experience as a result of accommodators and accepters, thereby overcoming perhaps not their shame, but at least their suffering our own actions, the above quotation suggests because of the shame (p. 171). (Bernhard Schlink, The Reader) Author’s note SHAME and guilt are powerful emotions of self- Address correspondence to Brian Lickel, condemnation that are thought to regulate Department of Psychology, University of social interactions in situations where one has Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089, violated a moral or social code (Baumeister, USA [email: [email protected]]

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 8(2)

that feelings of self-condemnation can some- The nature of shame and guilt times result from acts committed by others. Given that the emotional reactions that we have Traditional emotion research has often assumed to the wrongdoings of other group members that shame and guilt are more similar than are relevant to both intragroup and intergroup different (e.g. C. A. Smith & Ellsworth, 1985). relations, it is surprising that no theoretical However, more contemporary perspectives framework has been developed of the argue that these two emotions differ in terms of antecedents and consequences to distinguish the motivations they evoke and their associated vicarious shame and guilt. The importance of appraisals (e.g. Hong & Chiu, 1992; Niedenthal, drawing such distinctions is critical if one Tangney, & Gavanski, 1994; R. H. Smith, assumes that each emotion will have unique Webster, Parrott, & Eyre, 2002; Tangney, Miller, behavioral consequences: as we will describe, Flicker, & Barlow, 1996; Wicker, Payne, & guilt may elicit more approach related behav- Morgan, 1983). For example, guilt predicts iors designed to repair the situation, whereas approach-related responses meant to repair the shame may elicit more withdrawing behaviors damage that was caused by the guilt-eliciting designed to distance oneself from the situation. event, and in fact several studies indicate that Although the factors that distinguish vicarious guilt is particularly linked to a desire to confess, shame and guilt have not been empirically apologize, or atone for one’s own wrongdoings investigated, some theorists have suggested that (e.g. Tangney et al., 1996; Wicker et al., 1983). these emotions can be experienced for another’s Shame, on the other hand, appears to be more misdeeds (Morris, 1987; Ortony, Clore, & strongly linked to responses aimed at insulating Collins, 1988; Tangney & Fischer, 1995; Weiner, oneself from negative evaluation. Thus, rather 1986). Intergroup researchers, meanwhile, have than facilitating reparative actions, feelings of examined guilt reactions to ingroup bias (e.g. shame provoke a desire to hide, disappear, or Doosje, Branscombe, Spears, & Manstead, 1998; escape (Tangney, 1995; Wicker et al., 1983). Iyer, Leach, & Crosby, 2003; McGarty et al., in In addition to being distinguished by their press). Doosje et al. (1998), for example, showed correspondent motivations, shame and guilt that under certain conditions, Dutch students also seem to differ with respect to how an indi- feel guilty for their country’s past history of vidual interprets a transgression with respect to colonization in Indonesia, and perhaps as a con- the self (Tangney & Fischer, 1995). Feeling sequence, feel motivated to provide reparations guilty for one’s own wrongdoing is often associ- to the people of Indonesia. Furthermore, ated with a focus on the speciﬁc controllable research on the black sheep effect (e.g. behaviors that led up to the wrongful event, Eidelman & Biernat, 2003; Marques, Yzerbyt, & whereas feeling ashamed involves a more global Leyens, 1988) suggests that individuals emphasis on what that event seems to imply derogate group members who fail to comply about the dispositional qualities one possesses with the norms of the group. This past research (Tangney & Fischer, 1995; Wicker, et al., 1983). demonstrates that people have emotional and For example, individuals who recall a guilt behavioral reactions to the negative behaviors experience are more likely to have the counter- of ingroup members. However, because none factual thought, ‘If only I had acted differently’, of this research has examined both shame and whereas those who recall a shame experience guilt, the conclusions yielded about the general are more likely to think, ‘If only I were a nature of vicarious emotion are limited. The different type of person’ (Niedenthal et al., goal of the present paper was to test a model 1994). Similarly, individuals perceive that they that distinguishes between vicarious shame and have more control over situations that they guilt felt for another’s wrongdoing. Rather than recall as guilt experiences as compared to focus on one particular type of group in one shame experiences (Wicker et al., 1983). Shame, type of context, our model is intended to however, in comparison to guilt, involves a generalize to a variety of groups and situations. greater feeling of self-consciousness and a fear

146 04 Lickel (bc/s) 29/3/05 1:09 pm Page 147

Lickel et al. vicarious shame and guilt

that one will be rejected by others (R. H. Smith presumes that the impact of the group on the et al., 2002; Tangney et al., 1996; Wicker et al., self will be greater to the extent that one’s 1983). association to the group is strong. In fact, there is some evidence that vicarious shame and guilt Vicarious shame and guilt reactions are stronger in China, a collectivist culture, than in the United States, an indi- Given the dominant conceptualization of shame vidualist culture (Stipek, 1998). and guilt as self-conscious emotions, it is not However, a consideration of association- surprising that existing research has focused strength alone does not lead to predictions almost exclusively on people’s experience of about the degree to which shame versus guilt is these emotions after they have committed a likely to occur. Given the appraisals that are blameworthy action themselves. Indeed, proposed to distinguish shame from guilt previous research suggests that shame and guilt experiences, we considered whether there were are unique among negative emotions in that distinct aspects of social association that might both typically involve high appraisals of be linked to appraisals of behavioral control personal responsibility for a negative event over the wrongdoer (thus evoking vicarious (Manstead & Tetlock, 1989; C. A. Smith & guilt) versus appraisals that the event is a threat Ellsworth, 1985). Our work is a departure from to one’s image (thus evoking vicarious shame). this past research in that we suggest that actual Drawing upon group theory and research (e.g. personal causality for a negative event is not Brewer, 2000; Hamilton, Sherman, & Lickel, necessary to experience shame or guilt. We use 1998; Krech & Crutchﬁeld, 1948; Lewin, 1948; the terms vicarious shame and guilt to refer to Prentice, Miller, & Lightdale, 1994; Rabbie & instances in which a person who is not the Horwitz, 1988; Tönnies, 1998; Wilder & Simon, proximal agent of a wrongdoing experiences 1998), we highlight two dimensions of social these emotions. associations that might play a role in activating Our basic premise, that the emotional lives of these appraisals in response to another’s wrong- individuals are shaped by their association with doing. One dimension is the extent to which others, is a premise shared with many prior individuals are associated by a sense of shared researchers (e.g. Mackie, Devos, & Smith, 1999; identity. The second dimension is the extent to E. R. Smith, 1993). For example, social psy- which individuals are associated by being inter- chologists have examined how people ‘pick up’ personally interdependent with one another. Past and experience the same emotion of those with research, such as Prentice et al., 1994, assumed whom they are in close physical proximity (e.g. that these two dimensions might refer to distinct Hatfield, Cacioppo, & Rapson, 1994; Miller, types of groups (which they contrasted as 1987), as well as how people may experience common identity versus common bond groups). positive and negative feelings as a result of their In our analysis, we assume that some degree of social identity or association with successful or interpersonal interdependence and some unsuccessful others (e.g. Cialdini & de Nicholas, degree of shared identity are present in any 1989; Tajfel & Turner, 1986; Tesser, 1988) or social association. Thus, we view these as dimen- may experience vicarious dissonance from the sions, rather than types, of social association. acts of others (Norton, Monin, Cooper, & The term ‘shared identity’ is used to refer to Hogg, 2003.) At a basic level, we agree with the degree to which a social association is per- others who have suggested that our social ceived to reﬂect a deep and immutable aspect groups are included as part of our self-identity of identity that is common to two or more (e.g. E. R. Smith & Henry, 1996), and thus the people and is often used by social perceivers to behaviors and attributes of other group make causal inferences about their behavior. members have implications for the self. Much People may sometimes feel a sense of shared of the existing theory and research on how identity with others based on only minimal individuals are affected by their groups features (e.g. Tajfel, 1970). However, groups

147 04 Lickel (bc/s) 29/3/05 1:09 pm Page 148

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 8(2)

based on shared gender, ethnicity, religion, and shared in common with the perpetrator should kinship often seem to involve high levels of relate to an appraisal that the event is a threat shared identity perhaps because these attributes to one’s own self-image, which in turn should are often seen as essential features of the indi- be associated with the degree of shame and dis- vidual (e.g. Allport, 1954; Haslam, Rothschild, tancing motivations. We should make clear & Ernst, 2000; Hirschfeld, 1995; Rothbart & that, in some cases, there is a high level of both Taylor, 1992; Yzerbyt, Rocher, & Schadron, interdependence with the wrongdoer and a 1997). Because perceptions of a shared social sense that the behavior reflects negatively on a identity are a source of self-identification and shared identity. In such cases, people may feel esteem, people are invested in maintaining a both shame and guilt for the group member’s positive reputation of their social identities and actions. As an extreme example, we might are loath to have negative stereotypes about imagine that the parents of a high school their groups confirmed (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). student who takes a gun to school and kills Distinct from the shared identity of a group, several classmates might feel guilty because they ‘interpersonal interdependence’ refers to the believe that they should have known about and degree to which individuals are perceived to been able to prevent their child’s behavior, have high levels of social interaction, possess whereas they might feel ashamed because they joint goals, and have shared norms of behavior fear that their own ‘flesh and blood’ is morally (e.g. Gaertner & Shopler, 1998, Hinsz, Tindale, flawed. However, though shame and guilt may & Vollrath, 1997; Lewin, 1948; Lickel et al., co-occur, we believe that even in these 2000; Rabbie & Horwitz, 1988; Wilder & Simon, instances, the emotions are separable. 1998). An important aspect of interdependent The present study was designed to test the associations is that the associated persons have hypotheses described above. The goal of this the opportunity for shared communication and study was to disentangle shame- and guilt- influence over one another’s thoughts and related constructs by assessing people’s experi- behaviors. Examples of highly interdependent ences with multiple group memberships in associations include business partners, close which there is likely to be some variation in the friends, and sports teammates. Thus, highly perception of shared identity as well as inter- interdependent associations involve close dependence. In particular, we selected three contact and communication between indi- group memberships that, based on past viduals, although any other connection between research (e.g. Haslam et al., 2000; Lickel et al., them might be arbitrary. Strong identity-based 2000), we expected would differ in their degree associations involve stable aspects of perceived of interdependence and shared identity. similarity among individuals although those Specifically, family and friendship groups should individuals may or may not have highly inter- be fairly high in interdependence compared to dependent relationships with one another. ethnic groups. Furthermore, although all three We argue that these different dimensions of groups might involve some degree of shared association are important to understanding the identity, we thought that a sense of shared degree to which a person feels vicarious shame identity (particularly, an essentialized identity) or vicarious guilt because of another’s trans- was more typical of family and ethnic associ- gression. When an individual engages in some ations than of friendship groups. Participants wrongful behavior, one’s perceptions of inter- recalled a time when a member of each of these dependence with that person are hypothesized groups did something that made them (the to be associated with one’s appraisals of having participants) feel ashamed or guilty. We control over the occurrence of the event, which examined the degree to which variation in their in turn are associated with the degree of guilt ratings of interdependence and the relevance and reparative motivations. In contrast, the of the event to a shared identity predicted their degree to which the person’s behavior is seen as appraisals of the event, their emotional reac- relevant to a group identity or reputation tions, and their behavioral motivations.

148 04 Lickel (bc/s) 29/3/05 1:09 pm Page 149

Lickel et al. vicarious shame and guilt

Methods should have done something to prevent the event’, ‘I’m afraid I may have encouraged the Participants and procedures person to do what they did by something I did Participants were 187 undergraduate students or said’, and ‘I felt responsible for the event who participated for course credit. Partici- occurring’. The measure of image threat was pants were asked to recall and make ratings of assessed with three items ‘I felt that the event three distinct events in which they felt reflected poorly on me’, ‘I felt that people ashamed or guilty for the actions of a family would make judgments about the type of member, a friend, and a person who they do person I am based on the event’, ‘I was afraid not know well but who happened to share that this person’s behavior would be viewed as their ethnicity (order was counterbalanced indicating something about the person I am’. across participants). Participants were Distancing was assessed with three items, ‘I instructed to spend five minutes writing about wanted to be completely unassociated with the the event and to describe what happened, who person who caused the event’, ‘I felt like I did what, and how the event made them feel. wanted to disappear from the situation’, and Of the 187 participants, 22 were excluded ‘At the time, I remember thinking that I didn’t because one or more of the three events want to be associated in any way with the person recalled was coded as being self-caused, rather who caused the event’. Reparative motivations than caused by someone else. Thus, responses were assessed four items, ‘I tried to do some- of 165 participants were analyzed. After each thing after the event to make it better’, ‘I felt I event, participants completed ratings of their should do something after the event to make it emotions, motivations, appraisals, and associ- better’, ‘I had a lot of ability to repair the ation related variables. impact of the event after it occurred’, and ‘I felt I should apologize for what happened’. All Measures items were rated from 1 (strongly disagree) – 9 Shame and guilt ratings Participants’ emotional (strongly agree). reactions to each event were assessed with 23 A factor analysis using maximum likelihood emotion words (rated from 1 = Not at all, 9 = estimation with varimax rotation yielded a four- Very intensely). Factor analyses of these emotions factor solution for each of the groups (family, utilizing maximum likelihood estimation with friend, ethnic group) indicating that items varimax rotation yielded distinct clusters of designed to assess behavioral control, image shame and guilt emotions that were consistent threat, event repair, and distancing were across each of the target groups (family, friend, distinct constructs. With some variation, these ethnicity). On the basis of these factor analyses, measures were fairly reliable across target we created separate composites of guilt items group: behavioral control (␣ = .62 for family, ␣ (guilty, regret, remorse) and shame items = .57 for friend, ␣ = .62 for ethnic group); (ashamed, embarrassed, disgraced, and humili- image threat (␣ = .82 for family, ␣ = .81 for ated) for each event. The guilt composite (␣ = friend, ␣ = .83 for ethnic group); reparations (␣ .76 for family, ␣ = .76 for friend, ␣ = .76 for = .78 for family, ␣ = .83 for friend, ␣ = .78 for ethnic group) and the shame composite (␣ = ethnicity); and distancing (␣ = .87 for family, ␣ .82 for family, ␣ = .78 for friend, ␣ = .82 for = .84 for friend, ␣ = .73 for ethnicity). ethnic group) were reliable for all three events. Other emotions were included as ﬁllers; results Association related variables Interdependence for these emotions can be obtained from the and shared identity questions were examined ﬁrst author. via factor analyses with maximum likelihood estimation and varimax rotation. For all three Appraisals and motivations Behavioral control events, items designed to assess interdepen- was assessed with four items: ‘I could have pre- dence and shared identity fell on two distinct vented this event from occurring’, ‘I felt I factors. Perceived interdependence was assessed

149 04 Lickel (bc/s) 29/3/05 1:09 pm Page 150

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 8(2)

with three questions rated on a 9-point scale (␣ groups. For example, events involving either = .68 for family, ␣ = .78 for friend, ␣ = .86 for family or friends had higher ratings of inter- ethnicity): ‘To what degree is the person who dependence, appraisals of control, feelings of caused the event someone that you interact guilt, and a desire to make repairs compared to with’, ‘To what degree do you have influence or events involving an ethnic ingroup member. control over this person and his/her behavior’, Events involving an ethnic ingroup member, in and ‘How well do you know the person who contrast, were rated as highly relevant to the caused the event?’ Identity relevance was assessed group identity and evoked a desire to distance by two items ‘I felt like this person’s behavior oneself from the situation. was confirming negative conceptions that other people might have about the reputation of my Hierarchical linear modeling analyses family [or friendship group, or ethnic group]’, Although the mean differences described and ‘Was the event at all related to people’s above are informative, our more specific inten- negative beliefs or preconceptions about the tion was that by asking participants to rate three reputation of your family [or friendship group, different groups, we would have created or ethnic group]?’ (rated on a 9-point scale, 1 variance in ratings of interdependence and the = no, 9 = yes) that were fairly reliable (␣ = .66 potential for the event to be relevant to a for family; ␣ = .52 for friends; ␣ = .60 for shared identity that should be predictive of ethnicity). variance in their ratings of other shame and guilt related constructs in our model. However, because each participant rated three different Results groups, their ratings were not independent of Descriptive statistics on variables one another (i.e. ratings of group were nested Table 1 is a summary of mean ratings for each within subject). To account for the lack of inde- of the three target groups and results of one- pendence in participants’ ratings, we used hier- way repeated analyses of variance (ANOVAs) archical linear modeling (HLM; Raudenbush, testing differences among the three groups. Bryk, & Congdon, 2000) to test the hypothe- These descriptive statistics revealed significant sized relationships among the variables in the variation among ratings for the three different model nested at the within-subject level. In the

Table 1. Mean ratings in main study variables for each of the three target groups

Target group

Family Friend Ethnicity One-way ANOVA

Association variables

Identity relevance 5.08a 4.87a 6.39b F(2, 328) = 28.76, p < .001 Interdependence 6.48a 6.10a 2.19b F(2, 328) = 311.27, p < .001 Emotion ratings

Shame 6.35a 5.71b 5.66b F(2, 328) = 4.21, p < .05 Guilt 3.94a 3.99a 3.54b F(2, 328) = 10.87, p < .001 Appraisal ratings

Image Threat 5.56a 5.63a 5.07b F(2, 328) = 4.23, p < .05 Control 3.17b 3.73a 2.21c F(2, 328) = 42.57, p < .001 Motivation ratings

Distancing 5.49a 5.63a, b 6.14b F(2, 328) = 4.18, p < .05 Repair 4.64a 4.75a 3.59b F(2, 328) = 18.82, p < .01 Notes: Means within row not sharing the same subscript differ signiﬁcantly (p < .05). Response scales ranged from 1 to 9.

150 04 Lickel (bc/s) 29/3/05 1:09 pm Page 151

Lickel et al. vicarious shame and guilt

following analyses, each variable was standard- Appraisal, emotion, and motivation results ized (z-scored) and entered (person centered) Initial analyses demonstrated that ratings of as predictor or outcome variables in a hierar- shame and guilt were somewhat related (␥ = .37, chical maximum likelihood estimation pro- p < .001); as were appraisals of behavioral cedure. For these analyses, models were control and image threat (␥ = .16, p < .05); speciﬁed with a random error term for predic- while distancing and repair motivations were tor variables when analysis of variance com- not (␥ = .06, p > .10). Next, models were tested ponents revealed significant variability. The in which behavioral control and image threat resulting standardized scores are comparable to appraisals were entered simultaneously as pre- standardized regression coefficients in least- dictors first of shame, then of guilt. These squares regression techniques. Relationships analyses supported our predictions that image from this series of analyses are summarized in threat (␥ = .39, p < .001), rather than behavioral Figure 1. control (␥ = .04, p > .10), predicts shame,

Image Threat Appraisal .32*** .39*** r = .16* Relevance to .31*** Shared Identity Vicarious Shame

.50*** .20*** Motive to Distance

.08* r = .34***

–.20***

Behavior Control Appraisal .43*** .31*** Perceived .12*** Interdependence Vicarious Guilt

.36*** .33*** Motive to Repair

Figure 1. Summary of a series of hierarchical linear modeling analyses testing the relationships among variables (Note: Hypothesized relationships are indicated by solid lines. The implied model was not tested in its entirety simultaneously and is presented for its heuristic value of concisely summarizing relevant results).

151 04 Lickel (bc/s) 29/3/05 1:09 pm Page 152

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 8(2)

whereas behavioral control (␥ = .31, p < 001), had a negative relationship to distancing (␥ = but not image threat (␥ = .10, p > .10), predicts –20, p < .001). Interdependence was, as hypoth- guilt. In a second pair of analyses, shame and esized, a predictor of repairs (␥ = .33, p < .001), guilt were entered simultaneously as predictors but identity relevance was not (␥ = .04, p > .10). first of distancing, then of repairs. Consistent To summarize, the preceding analyses each with past work on self-caused shame and guilt, examined the relationship of people’s percep- distancing was uniquely predicted by shame tions of the identity relevance of the event and (␥ = .50, p < .001), but not guilt (␥ = –.01, their interdependence to the wrongdoer to p > .10). Repair was predicted by guilt (␥ = .36, each of the other variables in our framework. p < .001), but only weakly by shame (␥ = .11, Consistent with our model, ratings of identity p = .07) (a follow-up contrast of the coefficients relevance (and not interdependence) positively in HLM indicates that the coefficients for guilt predicted shame related constructs, whereas and shame were significantly different, p < .05.) ratings of interdependence (and not identity Taken together, these results support the relevance) positively predicted guilt related notion that there are two distinct profiles of constructs. appraisal, emotion, and motivation that distinguish experiences of vicarious shame from Discussion experiences of vicarious guilt. The results of this study provide support for our Social association variables as predictors of hypothesis that vicarious shame and guilt are shame and guilt related constructs We next distinct emotional reactions predicted by examined the degree to which interpersonal unique appraisals of events and by different interdependence and the relevance of the aspects of one’s association to a wrongdoer. event to social identity uniquely predicted these People felt guilty for another’s wrongdoing to two emotion profiles. Importantly, an initial the extent that they had a highly interdepen- analysis showed that perceptions of identity dent association with that person and felt that relevance and interdependence were orth- they should have been able to control his or her ogonal (␥ = –.03, p > .10). The first set of actions. In contrast, people felt ashamed for analyses, in which the two association variables another’s wrongdoing to the extent that they were entered as predictors of appraisals, con- felt that the person’s behavior was relevant to a firmed that identity relevance was a significant social identity that they shared in common with predictor of image threat (␥ = .32, p < .001), but the wrongdoer and appraised the other interdependence was not (␥ = .05, p > .10). person’s behavior as a negative reflection on Furthermore, interdependence predicted themselves. In turn, each emotion predicted a behavioral control (␥ = .43, p < .001), but unique behavioral response. Whereas guilt pre- identity relevance did not (␥ = .05, p > .10). dicted a desire to make amends for another’s Separate HLM analyses revealed that identity wrongdoing, shame predicted a desire to relevance was a stronger predictor of shame distance oneself from the situation and the (␥ = .31, p < .001, than was interdependence wrongdoer. Importantly, one’s interpersonal (␥ = .08, p < .05) (a follow-up contrast of the bonds with a wrongdoer had little or no coefficients in HLM indicates that the co- relation to how ashamed one felt for that efficients for identity relevance and interdepen- person’s behavior, and the degree to which the dence were significantly different, p = .052). In person’s actions tarnished the group’s repu- contrast, interdependence was a significant pre- tation had little or no relation to feelings of dictor of guilt (␥ = .12, p < .001), but identity guilt. relevance was not (␥ = –.05, p > .10). Finally, a The research presented here advances our third set of analyses revealed that identity current understanding of shame and guilt as relevance had a positive relationship to distanc- self-conscious emotions as well as our under- ing (␥ = .20, p < .001), whereas interdependence standing of appraisals important in regulating

152 04 Lickel (bc/s) 29/3/05 1:09 pm Page 153

Lickel et al. vicarious shame and guilt

intragroup and intergroup interactions. First, Smith, Murphy, & Coats, 1999; Levine & with respect to emotion theory, our studies rep- Moreland, 1998). In our present work, we have resent the first systematic investigation of the conceptualized shared identity and interdepen- appraisals that underlie why someone might dence as separate dimensions of social associ- feel ashamed versus guilty for the actions of ation rather than as mutually exclusive types of others. Although other studies have explored groups. Furthermore, the results show that how people respond to wrongs committed by articulating these dimensions of social associ- fellow ingroup members (e.g. Doosje et al., ation can have important implications for how 1998; McGarty et al., in press), our research is members of groups perceive and respond to unique in its intent to map the terrain of the behavior of their fellow ingroup members. vicarious shame and guilt in a way that is not To our knowledge, this is the first study to tied to specific social associations or types of explicitly compare how these two dimensions of wrongdoing. Furthermore, our framework association predict intragroup and intergroup provides a platform for future research by processes (but see Hamilton et al., 1998; Hogg describing vicarious shame and guilt at four & Moreland, 1993; Sedikides, Schopler, & levels of analyses: aspects of social association, Insko, 1998, for a discussion of the advantages self-related appraisals, emotional experience, of inclusive frameworks for studying groups). and motivation. It is also worth noting that this study rep- Limitations and future directions resents some of the strongest evidence to date The study we presented relied on a narrative that shame and guilt are associated with distinct recall approach to studying emotion. The motivations. For example, even in ground- narrative approach has the benefit of assessing breaking work on the distinctions between a wide variety of events that are personally these emotions, Tangney et al. (1996) did not meaningful to participants. Even so, this retro- find clear evidence that guilt included a greater spective nature of this approach does limit desire to make amends for a personal wrong- some of the conclusions we can draw about doing than did shame. One possible reason for causation and does not allow us to pull apart the this lack of clarity is that past work has often temporal sequencing of these component pro- measured distancing and repair as opposite cesses. For this reason, we did not feel we could ends of a single dimension, rather than as adequately test mediational hypotheses in these orthogonal motivations. Our data suggest that cross-sectional studies. Again experimental these may be very different motivations and studies will be needed to test mediational should be studied independently. claims and examine these emotions on-line. In addition to advances in emotion research, In addition, we have constrained our analysis the model presented here may also advance our to events for which individuals have felt a fairly understanding of the relationship of the self to strong and memorable emotional reaction to the group. Most research on group behavior another’s behavior. Because of this, we are and perception has developed around one of somewhat limited in drawing conclusions two assumptions about the nature of groups. about what factors are necessary to experience One set of theories has been developed for an emotional reaction in the first place. We groups that are social categories defined largely can speculate, however, that certain other by a shared characteristic or group label (e.g. appraisals are required to activate a vicarious Haslam et al., 2000; Park & Judd, 1990; Turner, shame or vicarious guilt experience. The first Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987). A step, we believe, is that the individual assigns second set of theories has been developed for responsibility for the negative event to another groups that are close interacting groups that individual with whom they are somehow associ- are characterized as having high degrees of ated. Second, the individual must perceive the communication, cooperation, and mutual event to be negative or discrepant with goals influence (Cartwright & Zander, 1960; E. R. that he or she holds. Other factors, such as the

153 04 Lickel (bc/s) 29/3/05 1:09 pm Page 154

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 8(2)

intentionality of the act may also influence In conclusion, shame and guilt are intriguing these initial appraisals and should be investi- emotions that have only recently come under gated in future work. focused empirical inquiry. Likewise, investi- We believe that one important issue for gations of how the self is shaped through group future work will be to integrate what is known memberships have recently flourished. from the literature on people’s affective reac- However, much of the recent work that has tions to the more global and historical wrong- been done on how groups affect the self has doings (such as a history of colonialization) of focused on how groups impact more on cogni- their groups (e.g. Doosje et al., 1998; Iyer et al., tive processes of the self (e.g. Sedikides et al., 2003; McGarty et al., in press—for a recent 1998; E. R. Smith & Henry, 1996). Less work edited volume on the topic see Branscombe & has examined the impact of groups on the Doojse, 2004) with other work on people’s specific emotions that people experience. It is shame and guilt reaction to specific acts of our hope that the framework developed here ingroup members (e.g. Johns, Schmader, & will encourage additional research that inte- Lickel, in press; Schmader & Lickel, in press). grates theory on emotion and group processes. Clearly, our current framework is directed pri- marily toward explaining how people react to specific acts by other members of their group. Acknowledgments Future work should compare how people make This research was supported by a National Science sense of specific acts (such as a White American Foundation Grant #BCS-0112427 awarded to the first observing another White American act in a and second authors and a faculty small grant racist way) with more global and historical awarded to the second author from the University of events (such as the institutionalized history of Arizona Foundation. racism in America). Nonetheless, we agree with We thank Greg Willard, Shawn Williams, Jonah the arguments of Iyer et al. (2003) that research Firestone, Heather Gangestad, Amy Baesler, Shawna on group-based guilt will be advanced most pro- Boggie, Jill Endres, Emily Bacal, Lorena Bravo, Chris Davis, Calli Payne, Jessica Pishney, Cynthia ductively when researchers attempt to identify Wallentin, and Ali Winkler for their invaluable help the importance of distinctions between guilt with collecting and coding these datasets. We also and other emotions, such as sympathy, shame, wish to thank Shelly Gable, John Nezlak, and Tom and anger. We believe that the framework we Denson for their statistical advice and Mark Zanna, present in this paper is a useful step in this Jeff Greenberg, and Michael Johns for their direction. comments on earlier versions of this paper. In addition to its applicability to situations that are typically the focus of social identity and intergroup relations research, we are also inter- References ested in the application of our framework to Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. other settings such as workplace or intimacy Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley. groups. For example, parents clearly may be Baumeister, R. F., Stillwell, A. M., & Heatherton, blamed for the actions of their children (e.g. T. F. (1995). Personal narratives about guilt: Role Lickel, Schmader, & Hamilton, 2003), but sur- in action control and interpersonal relationships. prisingly little research has examined parents’ Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17, 173–198. emotional reactions to their children’s trans- Branscombe, N. R., & Doojse, B. (2004). Collective guilt: International perspectives. New York: gressions. Likewise, in romantic relationships, Cambridge University Press. feelings of vicarious shame and guilt for one’s Brewer, M. B. (2000). Superordinate goals versus partner may play a role in predicting relation- superordinate identity as bases of intergroup ship satisfaction and duration. We believe that cooperation. In D. Capozza & R. Brown (Eds.), the findings reported here represent a starting Social identity processes: Trends in theory and research point for these investigations. (pp. 117–132). London, UK: Sage.

154 04 Lickel (bc/s) 29/3/05 1:09 pm Page 155

Lickel et al. vicarious shame and guilt

Cartwright, D., & Zander, A. (1960). Group dynamics. embarrassment, amusement, and shame. Journal of Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson. Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 441–454. Cialdini, R. B., & de Nicholas, M. E. (1989). Keltner, D., & Harker, L. (1998). The forms and Self-presentation by association. Journal of functions of the nonverbal signal of shame. In P. Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 626–631. Gilbert & B. Andrew (Eds.), Shame: Interpersonal Doojse, B., Branscombe, N. R., Spears, R., & behavior, psychopathology, and culture. Series in Manstead, A. S. R. (1998). Guilty by association: affective science (pp. 78–98). London: Oxford When one’s group has a negative history. Journal University Press. of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 872–886. Krech, D., & Crutchfield, R. C. (1948). Theory and Eidelman, S., & Biernat, M. (2003). Derogating problems of social psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill. black sheep: Individual or group protection? Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (1998). Small Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 602–609. groups. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & L. Gardner Eisenberg, N. (2000). Emotion, regulation, and (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., moral development. Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 2, pp. 415–469). New York: McGraw-Hill. 51, 665–697. Lewin, K. (1948). Resolving social conflicts. New York: Gaertner, L., & Schopler, J. (1998). Perceived Harper. ingroup entitativity and intergroup bias: An Lickel, B., Hamilton, D. L., Wieczorkowska, G., interconnection of self and others. European Lewis, A., Sherman, S. J., & Uhles, A. N. (2000). Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 963–980. Varieties of groups and the perception of group Hamilton, D. L., Sherman, S. J., & Lickel, B. (1998). entitativity. Journal of Personality and Social Perceiving social groups: The importance of the Psychology, 78, 223–246. entitativity continuum. In C. Sedikides, Lickel, B., Schmader, T., & Hamilton, D. L. (2003). J. Schopler, & C. A. Insko (Eds.), Intergroup A case of collective responsibility: Who else was to cognition and intergroup behavior (pp. 47–74). blame for the Columbine High School shootings? Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, Haslam, N., Rothschild, L., & Ernst, D. (2000). 194–204. Essentialist beliefs about social categories. British Mackie, D. M., Devos, T., & Smith, E. R. (1999). Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 113–127. Intergroup emotions: Explaining offensive action Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Rapson, R. L. (1994). tendencies in an intergroup context. Journal of Emotional contagion. New York: Cambridge Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 602–616. University Press. Manstead, A. S., & Tetlock, P. E. (1989). Cognitive Hinsz, V. B., Tindale, R. S., & Vollrath, D. A. (1997). appraisals and emotional experience: Further The emerging conceptualization of groups as evidence. Cognition & Emotion, 3, 225–239. information processors. Psychological Bulletin, 121, Marques, J. M., Yzerbyt, V. Y., & Leyens, J. P. (1988). 43–64. The ‘black sheep effect’: Extremity of judgments Hirschfeld, L. A. (1995). Do children have a theory towards ingroup members as a function of group of race? Cognition, 54, 209–252. identification. European Journal of Social Psychology, Hogg, M. A., & Moreland, R. L. (1993). Studying 18, 1–16. social processes in small groups. British Journal of McGarty, C., Pedersen, A., Leach, C. W., Mansell, T., Social Psychology, 32, 107–110. Waller, J., & Bliuc, A. M. (in press). Group-based Hong, Y., & Chiu, C. (1992). A study of the guilt as a predictor of commitment to apology. comparative structure of guilt and shame in a British Journal of Social Psychology. Chinese society. Journal of Personality, 126, 171–179. Miller, R. S. (1987). Empathic embarrassment: Iyer, A., Leach, C. W., & Crosby, F. J. (2003). White Situational and personal determinants of reactions guilt and racial compensation: The benefits and to the embarrassment of another. Journal of limits of self-focus. Personality and Social Psychology Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1061–1069. Bulletin, 29, 117–129. Morris, H. (1987). Nonmoral guilt. In F. Schoeman Johns, M., Schmader, T., & Lickel, B. (in press). (Ed.), Responsibility, character, and the emotions: New Ashamed to be an American? The role of essays in moral psychology (pp. 220–240). New York: identification in predicting vicarious shame for Cambridge University Press. anti-Arab prejudice after 9/11. Self and Identity. Niedenthal, P. M., Tangney, J. P., & Gavanski, I. Keltner, D. (1995). The signs of appeasement: (1994). ‘If only I weren’t’ versus ‘If only I hadn’t’: Evidence for the distinct displays of Distinguishing shame and guilt in counterfactual

155 04 Lickel (bc/s) 29/3/05 1:09 pm Page 156

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 8(2)

thinking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Attachment to groups: Theory and management. 67, 585–595. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, Norton, M. I., Monin, B., Cooper, J., & Hogg, M. A. 94–110. (2003). Vicarious dissonance: Attitude change Smith, R. H., Webster, J. M., Parrott, W. G., & from the inconsistency of others. Journal of Eyre, H. L. (2002). The role of public exposure in Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 47–62. moral and nonmoral shame and guilt. Journal of Ortony, A., Clore, G. L., & Collins, A. (1988). The Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 138–159. cognitive structure of emotions. New York: Cambridge Stipek, D. (1998). Differences between Americans University Press. and Chinese in the circumstances evoking pride, Park, B., & Judd, C. M. (1990). Measures and models shame, and guilt. Journal of Cross-Cultural of perceived group variability. Journal of Personality Psychology, 29, 616–629. and Social Psychology, 59, 173–191. Tajfel, H. (1970). Experiments in intergroup Prentice, D. A., Miller, D. T., & Lightdale, J. R. discrimination. Scientiﬁc American, 223, 96–102. (1994). Asymmetries in attachments to groups and Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). Social identity their members: Distinguishing between common- theory of intergroup behavior. In W. Austin & identity and common bond groups. Personality and S. Worchel (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 484–493. (2nd ed., pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall. Rabbie, J. M., & Horwitz, M. (1988). Categories Tangney, J. P. (1995). Shame and guilt in versus groups as explanatory concepts in interpersonal relationships. In J. Tangney & K. W. intergroup relations. European Journal of Social Fischer (Eds.), Self-conscious emotions: The psychology Psychology, 18, 117–123. of shame, guilt, embarrassment, and pride Raudenbush, S. W., Bryk, T., & Congdon, R. (2000). (pp. 114–139). New York: Guilford Press. HLM 5: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear Tangney, J. P., & Fischer, K. W. (1995). Self-conscious modeling. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientiﬁc Software emotions. New York: Guilford. International. Tangney, J. P., Miller, R. S., Flicker, L., & Barlow, Rothbart, M., & Taylor, M. (1992). Category labels D. B. (1996). Are shame, guilt, and and social reality: Do we view social categories as embarrassment distinct emotions? Journal of natural kinds? In K. Fiedler & G. R. Semin (Eds.), Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1256–1269. Language, interaction and social cognition Tesser, A. (1988). Toward a self-evaluation (pp. 11–36), Newbury Park, CA: Sage. maintenance model of social behavior. In Schlink, B. (1995). The reader. New York: Vintage L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social International. psychology (Vol. 21, pp. 181–227). San Diegto, CA: Schmader, T., & Lickel, B. (in press). Stigma and Academic Press Inc. shame: Emotional responses to the stereotypic Tönnies, F. (1988) [1887, 1935]. Community and actions of one’s ethnic ingroup. In S. Levin & society (Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft). New C. van Laar (Eds.), Stigma and group inequality: Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books. Social psychological approaches, Mahwah, NJ: Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, Erlbaum. S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the Sedikides, C., Schopler, J., & Insko, C. A. (1998). social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, UK: Intergroup cognition and intergroup behavior. Mahwah, Blackwell. NJ: Erlbaum. Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation Smith, C. A., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1985). Patterns of and emotion. New York: Springer-Verlag. cognitive appraisal in emotion. Journal of Wicker, F. W., Payne, G. C., & Morgan, R. D. (1983). Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 813–838. Participant descriptions of guilt and shame. Smith, E. R. (1993). Social identity and social Motivation and Emotion, 7, 25–39. emotions: Toward new conceptualizations of Wilder, D., & Simon, A. F. (1998). Categorical and prejudice. In D. M. Mackie & D. L. Hamilton dynamic groups: Implications for social (Eds.), Affect, cognition, and stereotyping: Interactive perception and intergroup behavior. In processes in group perception (pp. 297–315). San C. Sedikides, J. Schopler, & C. A. Insko (Eds.), Diego, CA: Academic Press. Intergroup cognition and intergroup behavior Smith, E. R., & Henry, S. (1996). An in-group (pp. 27–44). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. becomes part of the self: Response time evidence. Yzerbyt, V. Y., Rocher, S., & Schadron, G. (1997). Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 635–642. Stereotypes as explanations: A subjective Smith, E. R., Murphy, J., & Coats, S. (1999). essentialistic view of group perception. In

156 04 Lickel (bc/s) 29/3/05 1:09 pm Page 157

Lickel et al. vicarious shame and guilt

R. Spears, P. J. Oakes, N. Ellemers, & S. A. Haslam affected by their social identities, particularly (Eds.), The social psychology of stereotyping and group when those identities are targeted by negative life (pp. 20–50). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. social stereotypes.

Paper received 9 May 2004; revised version accepted MARCHELLE SCARNIER is a graduate student of 8 October 2004. Psychology at the University of Arizona. She received her MA in social psychology in 2003 and is currently working towards her PhD. Presently, Biographical notes her research examines the interplay between motivation and cognition processes when people BRIAN LICKEL is an assistant professor in the strive to maintain positive perceptions of close Department of Psychology at the University of others who conﬁrm negative stereotypes. Southern California. His work focuses on emotion and social cognition related to groups, MATHEW CURTIS is a graduate student in Psychology in particular to folk theories of groups, social at the University of Southern California. His emotions such as shame and guilt, and the role current research examines vicarious shame and of group-based responsibility in intergroup guilt in close relationships, linguistic intergroup behavior. bias, and legal decision-making.

TONI SCHMADER is Assistant Professor of DANIEL AMES earned his PhD in social/personality Psychology at the University of Arizona. She psychology from UC Berkeley and is now an received her PhD in social psychology from the Assistant Professor at Columbia Business School. University of California, Santa Barbara in 1999. His research interests revolve around social Her research examines how individuals are judgments and behavior.

157