Classification of Finnish Shame-Prone People

The present study shows that the intensity and effects of shame experiences and the characteristics of shame-proneness have quite different manifestations in the lives of people who describe themselves as shame sensitive or shame-prone (Table 1). First of all, there are

“wrestlers” with internalized shame who have frequent and intense shame feelings and facial and body signs and language that expresses their shame-proneness or ongoing shame experience. Although an intense experience, they might not recognize it as or name it shame but talk rather about guilt or use other expressions, such as insufficiency or incompetence.

These individuals admit and show that they have low self-esteem and they do not trust their abilities and competence. They are often depressive, anxious and have somatic symptoms, and if they are perfectionists they are usually neurotic perfectionists. Close and intimate relationships and social life are never easy for these fearful or preoccupied individuals because they are socially insecure and reserved and in close relationships they are easily dependent and cling easily to others. Their need for closeness and intimacy and their need to get something that they believe is love, care and acceptance makes them ready to deny their own wishes and needs and causes them to serve others and fulfill their needs first. Their childhood and adolescent memories are either very rare or they are connected to traumatic and abusive events and incidents. They recall many intentional and unintentional rejections and they cannot remember either security or parental love and warmth. There are also memories of emotional, physical and even sexual abuse. At school, these individuals did not do especially well and among their peers and schoolmates they were often left alone or bullied. Although these individuals live most of time with their authentic selves and are not afraid of their real selves being exposed, they are not very happy with their lives because they feel that they have no power to change them. They hope to find people who can love and care for them and take away their emptiness; and they hope to find someone who is strong enough to change their lives.

Second, there are “survivors” who at least at some level have conscious feelings of shame and can recognize and differentiate their emotional experience as shame-based. They might feel temporary embarrassment or anxiousness although they do not get totally caught by shame feelings. They are able to defend against the global feeling of shame and keep up their appearances or recover from the momentary emotional and cognitional confusion that shame causes for them. They feel mostly good about themselves and their self-esteem looks high although it is unstable and based on specific competencies and strengths. Inside they might have a nagging feelings of inadequacy but most of time they are able to push them out of consciousness. They prefer frequent achievements and status and usually are open to new people to look for confirmation for their positive self-views. These shame-prone individuals with low internalized shame may tell others about their failures and shortcomings if they are not the ones which cause them shame although others might see them as shame producing.

Nonetheless, they do not talk about those experiences that cause them strong feelings of shame. Diverting attention away from their shame-producing negative qualities and faults they avoid exposure and often give others the impression that they are open, self-confident

195

and competent. In a safe relationship, they might admit their real weaknesses and insecurities that are shame inducing. Although they cannot always gain love and acceptance from others with their authentic self they have learned other ways to feel good about themselves and to get acceptance and validation from others. They are often socially prescribed perfectionists, people pleasers and codependent individuals who deny their own needs and wishes and listen to others and are ready to serve them. They usually get along well with most people although in close and intimate relationships they are often emotionally reserved and show signs of a dismissing attachment style. They are also rejection sensitive although most of time they are able to hide it from others. At work, these individuals find themselves easily in jobs where they serve and help others. They recall their childhood as safe although not filled with love, attunement and emotional warmth. Their most traumatic childhood experiences involved humiliation and unintentional rejections and they may recall emotional neglect and harsh parenting and even physical punishments. The overall childhood experience involved misattunements with parents and other significant ones and a lack of the concrete expressions of love and intimacy. Although these individuals are often liked and loved the problem is that they do not get others’ love and validation as their authentic self and they have at least some sense of their inauthenticity. At school, these individuals do well because they have a need to succeed and prove their competence for themselves and others. They make at least partly conscious choices to hide the parts of self that are not believed to be accepted by others and living as their inauthentic selves prevents these individuals from having a self-determined and spontaneous life with freely expressed emotions, “uncontrolled” relationships and more risky life choices. They have to live with the fear of exposing their real selves which could cause anxiousness in their social life and public performances. Deep inside they have a great desire to be seen and accepted by others with all their imperfections, weaknesses, insecurities and neediness.

Third, there are “defenders” who at a conscious level do not acknowledge or differentiate their emotional experiences as shame-based. Since their shame experiences are undifferentiated their shame could be recognized only when they acted out with, for instance, bursts of anger at themselves or at others, or withdrawal. To others, these people appear to be competent, incapable, successful and stable individuals who have high self-esteem. Although they feel good about themselves their self-esteem is contingent and unstable. Emotionally, they are not very intense or expressive but keep a rather a low profile. At work, these individuals are hard working, reliable and trustworthy mostly because they have a strong drive for power and success. Since success in work is an important source of their self-esteem they find it important to get a good position and to get regularly promoted. Concerning their childhood and parents they do not have so much to criticize but they rather believe that their parenting was good and suitable for them. They do not have many traumatic childhood or adolescent experiences but their childhood looks quite smooth. In school they worked hard and did well. Although these individuals seem successful and it looks like they enjoy their lives their problem is that they live with an inauthentic self without knowing it. Inauthentic self-hinderers keep their deeper emotional lives and their talents hidden. They become aware of their hidden and buried sides of self when they run into a life crisis. A major life change, such as divorce, unemployment or the death of a loved one, could stop them and expose their hidden but authentic side of self that is not so self-reliant and competent. At the same time, their self-worth might get shaken and their fragile self-esteem might be exposed. Individuals who belong to this category are in the present study those who have learned about their

196

shame-proneness as adults. Most often a personal crisis has stopped them and forced them to evaluate their whole lives and reconsider different aspects of their selves, such as self-esteem, emotionality and personality.

Defenders are not easily differentiated from survivors since they are very similar. The most visible difference between these two groups is in their level of shame consciousness.

Survivors do at least at some level recognize and even admit their shame experiences and shame-proneness whereas defenders’ defenses are so strong that they neither recognize nor admit their shame. In Table 1 there is also a group of people who are not shame-prone but whose shame is healthy and constructive. This group is called “rulers with healthy shame.”

People who belong to this group did not participate in the present study. This category is based on the ideals of parenting and home and school environments that the shame-prone people who participated in the present study presented. In addition, this category is also based on the literature and research that describes the optimal parenting, way of raising a child and childhood environment to prevent the development of shame-proneness.

197

“Wrestlers” “Survivors” “Defenders” “Rulers with healthy shame”

Emotional experience of

Attachment Insecure (fearful or preoccupied) Insecure (avoidant) Secure

Self-esteem Low, low explicit, low implicit Fragile high, unstable, contingent, high explicit, low implicit Secure high, high explicit, high implicit Judge Oneself and others, shame before

oneself and others

Others, shame before others, denied shame before oneself Nobody

Self Authentic / inauthentic self, unwanted self

Inauthentic self,

denied unwanted self, actual self < idealized self

Authentic self, Actual self = ideal self

Atmosphere at home Anxious, emotionally fearful, not safe, not secure

Emotionally neutral, or cold or fearful, safe but not secure Safe and secure, emotional and physical security

Seen by significant ones As nothing/no one, ignoring, As Object

Table 1. Classification of Finnish shame-prone people.

198

5.2. Practical Implications

Implications for Counseling Practices

Shame is the most difficult emotion to understand and deal with and it causes human beings the most pain and sorrow. When trying to understand shame from a broader context, it is clear that it is the most common contributor to psychological problems and it is also the most important reason to seek therapy. However, it seems as if therapy does not always give individuals the eagerly needed help for the pain that shame causes them. Therapy should focus on the problems that are shame-based and the aim of the therapy should be ways to help individuals overcome the bonds and consequences of shame. The type of intervention and the type of therapy should be based on the type of shame of the individual who is seeking help. Shame-prone individuals with internalized shame (“shame wrestlers”) could benefit most from long-term psychoanalytic therapy that deals with the problems of low self-esteem and fearful or preoccupied attachments. Their therapy should begin by addressing the basic needs of secure attachments and balanced trust of others and should help them to take charge of their emotional and mental lives. They are usually so bound with shame that they have no strength by themselves to overcome these feelings. One of the participants of the present study expressed this concern as follows:

“When I get the strength I will throw away my cloak of shame because I am tired of wearing it. And besides, it doesn’t even belong to me.” Lisa, 60 years, essay

In addition to long-term psychoanalytic therapy, shame-prone individuals with less internalized and more externalized shame (“survivors” and “defenders”) could also benefit from other types of therapy, such as cognitive-behavioral therapy and cognitive analytic therapy. Their problem is that they are easily misunderstood by therapists who presume they are emotionally balanced and mentally strong individuals and thus able to handle their life challenges. Their therapy should focus more on understating the effects of shame on inauthenticity and on the defensiveness that shame causes for them. Therapists should be able to get behind their defensiveness to deal with problems associated with fragile self-esteem, deeply buried insecurity and rejection sensitivity. Helping them to understand the difference between shame and guilt and helping them to understand and recognize shame buttons, and shame coping and defending mechanisms, such as those that are described in the compass of shame, could be beneficial for both groups. Both groups could also benefit from a better understanding of the mechanisms that are behind adaptive and maladaptive perfectionism and overt and covert narcissism.

Implications for Spiritual Counseling

The spiritual meaning and the consequences of shame are not always clear in the context of theological practices and spiritual counseling. Quite often in psychological therapy, and in theology and in spiritual counseling, shame is not given adequate attention. Although shame is one of the most powerful emotions mentioned in the Bible, theologians and spiritual counselors still have difficulties distinguishing it from the emotion of guilt. If the counselor cannot distinguish the difference between shame and guilt in his or her own life, he or she

199

would have difficulties providing the most efficient help for someone who has feelings of shame and guilt. If someone who is bound with shame seeks spiritual help for his or her difficulties and talks about his or her guilt or “pathological guilt,” the spiritual counselor should be able to guide him or her to understand that the difficulties are rooted in shame.

Helping individuals to understand the dynamics of shame and guilt in human life would most probably provide some relief from the shame that binds them.

Nonetheless, as a spiritual counselor it should be kept in the mind that the belief in God or a higher power or praying does not guarantee relief from the bonds of shame. Unreliable promises of instant recovery from earlier traumas or some kind of “super power” in getting rid of the consequences of shame might bring only short-term relief. Dealing with traumas or other shame-related problems involves a long-term commitment to healing and often requires professional counseling, both psychological and spiritual. For both groups of people, those with internalized shame and those without internalized shame, it is important to admit the power of shame in one’s life and be willing to undergo the painful process of healing. It should be kept in mind that there is no need to try to achieve total freedom from feelings of shame. Healthy shame is part of humanity and one could benefit from listening to the message it has for us. Spirituality and a belief in God should help in the process of healing from the shame that binds each individual. In addition, a belief in God as one’s creator should help us to live an authentic life with imperfections and weaknesses. Norman Vincent Peale has concluded this idea beautifully, as follows:

“One of the greatest moments in anybody’s developing experience is when he no longer tries to hide from himself but determines to get acquainted with himself as he really is.” Norman Vincent Peale

200

References

Abe, Jo Ann (2004). Shame, guilt, and personality judgment. Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 38, Issue 2, 85-104.

Abell, Ellen & Gecas, Viktor (1997). Guilt, shame, and family socialization: A retrospective study. Journal of Family Issues, Vol. 18, Issue 2, 99-123.

Ahmed, Eliza & Harris, Nathan & Braithwaite, John & Braithwaite, Valerie (2001). Shame management through reintegration. Cambridge, UK/England: Cambridge University Press.

Ainsworth, Mary D. Salter (1967). Infancy in Uganda: Infant care and the growth of love. Baltimore, MD. The John Hopkins Press.

Ainsworth, Mary D. Salter & Blehar, Mary C. & Waters, Everett & Wall, Sally (1978). Patterns of attachment:

A psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Akhtar, Salman & Thomson, J. Anderson Jr. (1982). Overview: narcissistic personality disorder. American Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 139, Issue 1, 12-20.

Albers, Robert H. (1996). The shame factor: Theological and pastoral reflections relating to forgiveness. Word and World, Vol. 16, Issue 3, 347-353.

Albers, Robert H. (2000). Shame and the conspiracy of silence. Journal of Ministry in Addiction and Recovery, Vol. 7, Issue 1, 51-68.

Aldridge, David (2000). Spirituality, healing and medicine: Return to the silence. London, UK: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Alessandri, Steven M. & Lewis, Michael (1993). Parental evaluation and its relation to shame and pride in young children. Sex Roles, Vol. 29, Issue 5-6, 335-343.

Allan, Steven & Gilbert, Paul & Goss, Kenneth (1994). An exploration of shame measures—II:

Psychopathology. Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 17, Issue 5, 719–722.

Andrews, Bernice (1995). Bodily shame as a mediator between abusive experiences and depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Vol. 104, Issue 2, 277-285.

Andrews, Bernice (1998). Methodological and definitional issues in shame research. In P. Gilbert & B.

Andrews (Eds.), Shame: Interpersonal behavior, psychopathology, and culture (pp. 39-54). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Andrews, Bernice & Brewin, Chris R. & Rose, Suzanna (2000). Predicting PTSD symptoms in victims of violent crime: The role of shame, anger, and childhood abuse. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Vol.

109, Issue 1, 69-73.

Andrews, Bernice & Hunter, Elaine (1997). Shame, Early Abuse, and Course of Depression in a Clinical Sample: A Preliminary Study. Cognition and Emotion, Vol. 11, Number 4, 373-381.

Andrews, Bernice & Qian, Mingyi & Valentine, John D. (2002). Predicting depressive symptoms with a new measure of shame: The Experience of Shame Scale. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, Vol. 41, Issue 1, 29-42.

Annells, Merilyn (1996). Grounded Theory Method: Philosophical Perspectives, Paradigm of Inquiry, and postmodernism. Qualitative Health Research, Vol. 6, Issue 3, 379-393.

Anolli, Luigi & Pascucci, Patrizia (2005). Guilt and guilt-proneness, shame and shame-proneness in Indian and Italian young adults. Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 39, Issue 4, 763-773.

Archer, Simon (2006). Shame, doubt and the shameless object. The Journal of the British Associations of Psychotherapists, Vol. 43, Issue 2, 93-107.

Arndt, Jamie & Goldenberg, Jamie L. (2004). From Self-Awareness to Shame-proneness: Evidence of Causal Sequence Among Women. Self and Identity, Vol. 3, Issue 1, 27-37.