The Controversy Of Shame Proneness

1709 Words7 Pages
Introduction: Assumptions, argument and hypotheses.
What are the research questions being investigated? This study looked into the relationship between shame proneness, anticipated shame due to exposure and without exposure with offending intentions in a rational choice model (Tibbetts, 1997). The specific forms of offending investigated were drunk driving and shop-lifting (Tibbetts, 1997).
What are the assumptions being made by the article’s authors? Do these assumptions hold up when scrutinised? Why or why not? Identify some of the problems with the assumptions. The authors assume there is a clear distinction between shame and related emotions such as guilt and embarrassment. It is stated that embarrassment involves an audience and typically results from trivial or accidental incidents, and guilt relates to a specific behaviour or incident, whereas shame involves a greater negative evaluation of the global self (Tibbetts, 1997). The author state that criminological research has not acknowledged the conceptual distinctions of shame. This may be due to the fact that criminological research specifically looks into these emotional states in the context of crimes. Crimes often involve public awareness via the media, which constitutes an audience, and often involves detriment or harm to others, so it appears that embarrassment and guilt may be intricately tied to real life crimes, as well as the emotional experience of shame. Shame cannot be so easily distinguished from

More about The Controversy Of Shame Proneness

Open Document