Thesis (S.T.M.)--Trinity Lutheran Seminary, 2001. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 228-231).

Proefschrift--Utrecht. / "Literature quoted": p. [124]-125.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Virginia Commonwealth University, 2010. / Prepared for: Dept. of Psychology. Title from title-page of electronic thesis. Bibliography: leaves 98-107.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1974. / Typescript. Vita. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references.

Proefschrift--Utrecht. / "Literature quoted": p. [124]-125.

No description available.

M.A. / Shame and guilt are two terms which have been used synonymously in the psychological literature for many decades. It has only recently, however, been realized that there are fundamental differences in not only the experience, but also the elicitation of these two self-conscious emotions. Studies of the elicitation and experience of not only shame and guilt, but other self-conscious emotions too, represent a relatively new domain in psychology. The study of self-conscious emotions is thus fertile ground for further research. Tracy and Robins are two of the first researchers to present a comprehensive causal theory of self-conscious emotions. Their theory utilizes research from the field of cognition. Causal attributions are those aspects of cognition whereby an individual will explain the cause of an event or situation in terms of either dispositional or situational factors. It is hypothesized then that the attribution of either the disposition or the situation will result in either shame or guilt respectively. This study has utilized Tracy and Robins’ (2004) causal theory of self-conscious emotions as the foundation to investigate which casual attributions are utilized by males and females in the experience of shame and guilt. Tracy and Robins do not distinguish between the attributions used by males and females despite literature indicating gender differences in self-conscious emotions and causal attributional styles. This study involved 525 first year students from the University of Johannesburg. The instruments used for this study include the Test of Self-Conscious Affect and the Multidimensional Multiattributional Causality Scale. Moderated hierarchical multiple regression was used to investigate the moderating effect of gender on the attribution of shame and guilt. For shame the study found that as expected, ability was positively related to shame. Unexpected however, was that effort, luck, and context were also positively related to shame. Save for luck, in which males and females showed similar levels of intensity for high levels of luck, females experienced shame with greater intensity than males in terms of ability, effort, and context attributional styles. For guilt the study found that as expected, effort was positively related to guilt. For effort, females experienced more guilt than males do. Unexpectedly, however, was the finding that (for both genders) ability was positively related to guilt with females experiencing guilt with greater intensity than males. Also unexpected was the finding that for luck and context, only males experienced more guilt as luck and context were attributed as the cause of an event (females, as expected, experienced less guilt). It is recommended that future studies: Use a random sample to ensure the results can be generalized onto other populations; Create a sample where there are equal numbers of male and female participants to allow for accurate comparisons; Capture the cultural affiliation of the participant; Consider using samples across different age-groups; Use open-ended questions with the TOSCA to assess the healthy components of guilt; Standardize terms and phrases of the MMCS so that it is applicable to a South African context.

The present paper will inform about three studies that seek to make a contribution to the area of self-conscious emotions, namely guilt and shame, and their consequences for intergroup relations in a South African context. As with previous research, this research investigated whether belonging to a particular group (i.e. being a white South African) is likely to evoke feelings of collective guilt and collective shame when reminded of the atrocities of Apartheid, even though the individual members did not personally contribute to their group’s negative history. The first study aimed to investigate experimentally the effects of experienced collective ingroup guilt and shame on the desire to make reparation. The second study aimed to test the relationship between guilt/shame and reparation of white South Africans in the field. Furthermore, the second study aimed to account for the dialectical aspects of the intergroup situation by exploring guilt/shame and reparation of white South Africans as expected by young black South Africans (as members of the previously oppressed group). The third study aimed to replicate the differences between experienced guilt/shame/reparation and reported ingroup identification by white South Africans and the expected guilt/shame/reparation from white South Africans and reported ingroup identification by black South Africans as found in the study 2. In addition, the third study aimed to control the antecedents for collective guilt and for collective shame. It also explored the impact knowledge about atrocities of the ingroup (white participants) has on emotions and reparation attitudes and whether perceived status relations at present and in the future impacts the emotions as well general reparation attitudes.

No description available.

No description available.