Parenting and Child Characteristics in the Prediction

M e r r i l l - P a l m e r Q u a rt e r ly , V o l . 5 6 , N o . 4
Parenting and Child Characteristics in the Prediction
of Shame in Early and Middle Childhood
Rosemary S. L. Mills, Kimberley A. Arbeau, Debra I. K. Lall,
and Amy E. De Jaeger University of Manitoba
We examined individual differences in shame responding in early childhood and
predictive relations with shame proneness in middle childhood. Child shame responding, parental shaming, and child temperamental inhibition were assessed
at Time 1 (n = 225, aged 3–4 years), shame responding was reassessed at Time
2 (n = 199, aged 5–7 years), and shame proneness was assessed at Time 3
(n = 162, aged 7–9 years). Shame responding was assessed from emotionexpressive reactions to failure, parental shaming from self-reports and spouse
reports, temperamental inhibition from mother and father ratings, and shame
proneness from hypothetical scenarios. Girls showed more shame than boys by
school age. Increased shame responding between preschool age and school
age was predicted, for girls, from lower inhibition or higher mother shaming
and, for boys, from higher mother shaming if boys were highly inhibited. Shame
responding at preschool age predicted higher or lower shame proneness in
middle childhood conditional on gender and parenting.
Shame plays a central role in behavior. It is a key emotional barometer of a
person’s felt worth or value that motivates and regulates thinking, feeling,
and behavior related to preserving acceptance by others (Dickerson, Gruenewald, & Kemeny, 2004; Dickerson & Kemeny, 2004; H. B. Lewis, 1971;
Rosemary S. L. Mills, Department of Family Social Sciences; Kimberley A. Arbeau, Department of Family Social Sciences; Debra I. K. Lall, Department of Psychology; Amy E. De Jaeger,
Department of Psychology.
This research was supported by Canadian Institutes of Health Research grant MOP-57670.
Special thanks are extended to the children and parents who made this research possible and to
research assistants Gorette Imm, Leanne Mak, Nadine Sigvaldason, Brooke Singer, Bobbi Walling, and Andrea Winther.
Address correspondence to Rosemary Mills, Department of Family Social Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada R3T 2N2. Phone: (204) 474-9432. E-mail: rosemary_mills@
umanitoba.ca.
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, October 2010, Vol. 56, No. 4, pp. 500–528. Copyright © 2010 by
Wayne State University Press, Detroit, MI 48201.
500
Shame in Early and Middle Childhood
501
M. Lewis, 1992; Tangney & Fischer, 1995). States of shame are painful and
aversive, involving a sense of helplessness about the self, a desire to hide
or disappear, difficulty sustaining social interaction, and even difficulty
speaking fluently and thinking coherently (H. B. Lewis, 1971; M. Lewis,
1992; Weiner, 1986). As such, they are potent experiences that play a role
in both adaptive and maladaptive development. Shame is essential for normal development, helping to motivate socially acceptable behavior and efforts to improve the self. When it becomes a dominant emotion, however, it
can be maladaptive (Barrett, 1998; M. Lewis, 1992; Schore, 1996), as indicated by links between proneness to shame (a disposition to respond with
shame) and a wide range of mental and physical health problems beginning at least by the school years (Dickerson et al., 2004; Ferguson, Stegge,
Miller, & Olsen, 1999; Tangney, Burggraf, & Wagner, 1995). Despite the
recognized developmental significance of shame, there has been a paucity
of research on the sources of individual differences in shame responding
in young children. The purpose of the present study was to address this
gap in the literature by examining factors predicting shame responding in
normally developing children in early childhood.
Shame emerges by 3 years of age (Lagattuta & Thompson, 2007;
M. Lewis, 1992, 2007). Attributions of responsibility result in specific
emotions, with self-attributions for failure precipitating shame when the
focus is global and guilt when the focus is specific (e.g., Tangney & Dearing, 2002). By age 3, children have the cognitive prerequisites for making
global self-attributions. They have self-awareness, they are able to take the
view of others and think about others’ views toward them, and they have
acquired standards, rules, and goals and can evaluate themselves as succeeding or failing to meet them. They also have acquired the ability to
evaluate themselves in terms of responsibility and, when accepting responsibility, they can focus on the global self or on specific performance as
the cause. Also by age 3, children’s understanding of others has developed
sufficiently that they are becoming more sensitive to others’ actual or imagined judgments and are more vulnerable to feelings of shame (Lagattuta &
Thompson, 2007). Not surprisingly, then, individual differences in shame
responding emerge by this age (e.g., Barrett, Zahn-Waxler, & Cole, 1993;
Kelley, Brownell, & Campbell, 2000; M. Lewis, Alessandri, & Sullivan,
1992). Given the developmental significance of proneness to shame, a better understanding of the sources of early individual differences is needed.
Thus, the present study focused on sources in early childhood.
Theories of emotional development (Denham, 1998; Saarni, 1999)
suggest that individual differences in the experience, expression, regulation, and understanding of emotions derive from the interactive effects of
502
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly
factors both internal and external to the child. Given the crucial role parents
have as socializers, parental socialization is likely to be an important factor (Denham, Bassett, & Wyatt, 2007; Eisenberg, Cumberland, & Spinrad,
1998). Parental socialization occurs both through global aspects of general
parenting style (warmth, control) and through specific parenting practices
(modeling, teaching, reactions to the child), and it is influenced by cultural
factors (e.g., norms, values, gender stereotypes), parents’ characteristics
(e.g., personality, emotional expressivity), children’s characteristics (e.g.,
temperament, age, gender), and the context in which parent-child interaction occurs (e.g., history of interactions) (Denham et al., 2007; Eisenberg
et al., 1998). Parenting styles and practices involving negative appraisals
of the child are likely to play a key role in the development of proneness
to shame. Attributional perspectives suggest that socialization experiences
and child characteristics that affect susceptibility to global self-attributions
are likely to be key factors in the development of individual differences in
shame (H. B. Lewis, 1971; M. Lewis, 1992; Weiner, 1986). Parenting is
shame inducing when it precipitates global negative self-attributions either directly through global negative attributional statements to the child
(e.g., criticism or scolding that blames essential characteristics of the child)
or indirectly through actions or emotional expressions that signal disappointment, anger, disapproval, disgust, or contempt and generate such attributions by the child himself or herself (Campos, Thein, & Owen, 2004;
M. Lewis, 1992). Love withdrawal, expressions of disgust or contempt, and
humiliation are highly likely to activate global negative self-attributions
and thus are considered prototypical forms of shaming (M. Lewis, 1992).
Physical punishment and other forms of punitiveness also may be shame
inducing if they are interpreted as reflecting hostility (Gershoff, 2002;
Khaleque, & Rohner, 2002). Thus, by promoting global negative self-­
attributions, parental shaming is likely to contribute to the development of
individual differences in proneness to shame.
Research is sparse on the relations between shame responding in early
childhood and parenting styles and practices. The influence of parents has
not been examined, and the extent to which it may be conditional on child
characteristics is unknown. In observational studies, more negative and less
positive parental feedback about task performance was found to be associated with increased shame responses to task failure at age 3 (Alessandri
& Lewis, 1993, 1996), and negative maternal feedback during a teaching task at 24 months predicted more shame at 36 months (Kelley et al.,
2000). Global negative feedback did not predict shame responding in these
studies, possibly because of the low rate at which it was observed. In a
longitudinal study of young girls, a relatively authoritarian parenting style
Shame in Early and Middle Childhood
503
(punitive, critical, unsupportive) by both mother and father when a child
was age 3 predicted higher shame responding at age 5 (Mills, 2003). In a
longitudinal study of young boys, on the other hand, boys whose mothers
had been more intrusive (imposing their own goals) when the boys were
toddlers were less prone to exhibit shame at age 3 (Belsky, Domitrovich,
& Crnic, 1997). Given limited information regarding the socialization of
shame responding in young children and how it may interact with other
factors to promote shame, a major objective of the present study was to examine the prediction of shame responding in early childhood from parental
shaming (verbal hostility, physical punishment, punitiveness).
Mothers’ and fathers’ behavior both can contribute to the association
between parenting patterns and shame responding. A growing body of research suggests that substantial parenting similarities and differences exist
between mothers and fathers and that the interplay between the parenting
styles and practices of both parents together may influence children’s development significantly (e.g., Lindsey & Mize, 2001; Nelson, Hart, Yang,
Olsen, & Jin, 2006; Winsler, Madigan, & Aquilino, 2005). The finding that
girls’ shame responding was predicted by the combined effect of both parents (Mills, 2003) suggests that the behavior of both mothers and fathers
may interact to promote the development of shame responding. Thus, in
the present study, it was of interest to determine whether high shaming
by both mothers and fathers was associated independently or interactively
with child shame responding.
The influence of parental socialization also is likely to depend on child
characteristics that affect the way children respond to parental behavior.
There has been little attention to the extent to which links between parenting practices and shame responding are moderated by child characteristics
that affect children’s emotional responses to parental behavior. Temperament is likely to be important (Lagattuta & Thompson, 2007; M. Lewis,
2007). A great deal of attention has been paid to the role in self-conscious
emotions of fearful inhibition or “behavioral inhibition,” including low
threshold of arousal, subjective feeling of anxiety or fear, and inhibited
responses to novel, challenging, sudden, or intense events (Derryberry &
Rothbart, 1997; Kagan, Reznick, & Snidman, 1987). Children with this
temperament trait are more likely than other children to experience internal
cues of discomfort or distress in response to parental discipline, and their
bodily sensations are likely to facilitate self-focused attention and thus a
tendency to make global negative self-attributions about their behavior
(Dienstbier, Hellman, Lehnhoff, Hillman, & Volkenaar, 1975; M. Lewis,
1992). Thus, Kochanska and colleagues have demonstrated that reasoning and induction predict the development of conscience more strongly
504
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly
among high-inhibited than low-inhibited children (Kochanska, 1991; Kochanska, DeVet, Goldman, Murray, & Putnam, 1994). By the same token,
it has been suggested that high behavioral inhibition may magnify the effect of parental shame induction by facilitating or increasing self-focused
attention (e.g., Lagattuta & Thompson, 2007; M. Lewis, 2007). To date,
however, no research has investigated whether behavioral inhibition and
parental shaming interact to influence the development of shame responding in early childhood. The present study examined whether parental shaming is more strongly related to shame for highly inhibited children than for
other children.
Another child characteristic that may affect the relation between parental shaming and children’s shame responding is the gender of the child.
Girls may be more sensitive to shame induction than boys. Some evidence
indicates that girls are more prone to shame than boys from an early age
(Barrett et al., 1993; M. Lewis et al., 1992). There is also evidence for
differential socialization of submissive and assertive emotions in girls
and boys (Chaplin, Cole, & Zahn-Waxler, 2005; Crick & Zahn-Waxler,
2003), suggesting that girls may be more encouraged to experience or express shame than boys. There is limited evidence for gender differences
in shame-promotive parenting, however. One study of parental evaluative
feedback in relation to shame in 3-year-olds (Alessandri & Lewis, 1993)
found that parents gave girls more negative and less positive feedback
about task performance. To the extent that girls are exposed to more shaming than boys, and thus are more sensitive to shame, parental shaming may
be more strongly related to shame for girls than for boys. Thus, we examined whether relations between shame responding and parental shaming
were different for girls and boys.
Another objective of the study was to determine whether shame responding assessed in early childhood from emotion-expressive responses
was related to shame proneness assessed in middle childhood. In early
childhood, children’s proneness to shame was assessed from observations
of their reactions to failing performance tasks designed to manipulate attributions about responsibility for the outcome (Alessandri & Lewis, 1996;
Belsky et al., 1997; Kelley et al., 2000; M. Lewis et al., 1992; Mills, 2003).
Although the measure involved, by necessity for ethical reasons, a mild
shame induction, more pronounced shame responding to a mild eliciting
situation seems potentially nonnormative and a reflection of proneness to
shame responding. Proneness to shame responding, if reinforced by shaming experiences, would strengthen a tendency to respond with shame and
facilitate the development of a disposition to this emotion. Thus, it was
of interest to establish whether shame responding to the failure paradigm
Shame in Early and Middle Childhood
505
would predict shame proneness in middle childhood. We expected that the
likelihood of such a relation would be greater for those children exposed
to parental shaming.
In summary, this study addressed several questions about the sources
of early individual differences in shame responding that have received
little or no attention previously: (a) whether shame responding is related
to parental shaming, and whether mothers and fathers have independent
and/or interactive effects; (b) whether child temperamental inhibition
moderates associations between shame responding and parental shaming; and (c) whether child gender moderates associations between shame
responding and parental shaming. A second objective was to determine
whether shame responding to the failure paradigm in early childhood predicts proneness to shame in middle childhood among children exposed to
parental shaming.
Parenting was assessed both by parents’ self reports and by their partners’ reports of their parenting practices. Self-reports and spouse reports
tend to show modest agreement (Russell, Hart, Robinson, & Olsen, 2003;
Winsler et al., 2005). In some research, spouse ratings of parenting behavior have been used in addition to or in place of self-ratings in an effort to
avoid social desirability effects (Nelson et al., 2006; Nix et al., 1999; Porter
et al., 2005; Russell et al., 2003; Yang et al., 2004). In some of these studies, spouse reports appeared to yield more meaningful findings (Yang et al.,
2004), whereas in others more relations between parenting and child outcome were found when self-reports rather than spouse reports were used
(Russell et al., 2003). To increase the reliability of measurement, both selfreports and spouse reports were obtained in the present study.
Method
Participants
Participants were 225 children (128 boys, 97 girls) and their parents (218
mothers, 184 fathers) involved in a longitudinal study that began when the
children were between 3.7 and 4.5 years of age (M = 4.14 years, SD =
0.24). Of the 225 children who participated at the first time point (Time 1),
199 (88%) participated at the second time point (Time 2) when they were
between 5.3 and 7.3 years of age (M = 5.89 years, SD = .26), and 162 (72%)
participated at the third time point (Time 3) when they were between 7.6
and 9.4 years of age (M = 8.15 years, SD = .26).
Families with young children were recruited through a letter of invitation under a cover letter sent by a government agency responsible for
506
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly
administering health care. The agency generated a mailing list of 3,500
families drawn randomly from all 6,358 families residing in an urban area
(pop. 600,000) as of June 1, 2002, with a child born between June 1, 1999,
and May 31, 2000, and therefore 3 or 4 years of age at the time of recruitment. To protect their privacy, recipients of the letter were unknown to the
researchers unless they self-identified as interested in participating in the
study. Recruitment began as soon as the mailing list was generated, and
was conducted in three stages over an 18-month period until the target
sample size was reached. At each stage, letters of invitation were sent to approximately one third of families on the mailing list. Details were provided
about the study, and families were invited to return an enclosed stamped
return postcard if they had a healthy child and wished to participate. Of
257 families volunteering to participate, 27 served in the pilot phase of
the study, 4 withdrew during the first wave, and 1 was excluded because
of a lack of knowledge of English, leaving 225 families. The recruitment
procedure did not allow the computation of a response rate because it could
not be determined how many families were eligible and how many eligible
families had moved and failed to receive the invitation by the time of the
mailing.
Children were predominantly firstborns (36%) or secondborns (36%),
with 5% being singletons. Parents predominantly were married or cohabiting (90% of mothers, 97% of fathers), were in their 30s or 40s (83% of
mothers, 81% of fathers), had a postsecondary trades or community college
certificate (49% of mothers, 42% of fathers) or a university degree (35%
of mothers, 31% of fathers), and were employed (93% of fathers, 41%
of mothers; 59% of mothers were employed part time). An assessment of
socioeconomic status from education and occupation (Hollingshead, 1975)
indicated that most families (70%) were middle class (skilled worker or
medium business/professional), with 16% being lower (semiskilled or unskilled) and 14% higher (major business/professional). Families that continued to participate at Time 2 (n = 200) did not differ significantly from
those that withdrew (n = 29) on Time 1 measures of parental behavior,
child temperamental inhibition, shame responding, or most demographics,
but participants who continued were higher in socioeconomic status, t(219)
= 3.04, p < .01, had a higher family income, t(215) = 3.71, p < .001, were
more likely to be married or cohabiting, χ2(1, N = 223) = 9.52, p <.01, and
were more likely to have a son than a daughter in the study, χ2(1, N = 225)
= 4.07, p < .05. Mothers in families that continued to participate at Time 3
(n = 162) had a higher level of education than those in families that withdrew (n = 37), χ2(1, N = 196) = 4.31, p < .04.
Shame in Early and Middle Childhood
507
Overview
Parents provided informed consent for their own and their child’s participation in the procedures. At each time point, children came to the
laboratory for a visit, which took place in a playroom equipped with a
remote-­controlled camera operated from behind a one-way mirror. During
a familiarization period following arrival, the experimenter engaged the
child in casual conversation about school and siblings while making things
with Play Doh and doing a jigsaw puzzle together. Then, to measure shame
responding at Time 1 and Time 2, observations were made of children’s
emotion-expressive behavior in response to failure on tasks used in previous work (Geppert, 1986; M. Lewis & Ramsay, 2002; Mills, 2003; Stipek,
Recchia, & McClintic, 1992). During the assessment, the parent completed
questionnaires at a table some distance away and behind the child (Time
1) or in another room (Time 2). At Time 3, children were administered a
series of measures in a structured interview format, one of which assessed
shame proneness. Prior to lab visits, parents had been mailed a package of
questionnaires to complete that included measures of their parenting practices and their child’s temperamental characteristics. Coparents were asked
to complete the questionnaires independently of one another.
Time 1 and Time 2 Responses to Failure
Children’s shame responding in early childhood was assessed by using
failure situations validated in past work on children’s shame-expressive behavior (Alessandri & Lewis, 1996; Belsky et al., 1997; Kelley et al., 2000;
M. Lewis et al., 1992; Mills, 2003). According to functionalist theories,
an emotion state can be inferred from patterns of expressive behavior that
reflect the action tendency associated with it occurring in a context appropriate to it (e.g., M. Lewis & Michalson, 1983). In the present study, shame
responding was assessed from emotion-expressive behavior reflecting the
action tendency of shame (hiding or avoidance; e.g., averting gaze) occurring in response to failing performance tasks that might induce shame by
precipitating a global negative self-attribution about the outcome. Other
potential emotional reactions to failure were also assessed.
Time 1. Children were seated at a child’s table facing a small digital
remote-controlled camera placed in an unobtrusive location about 10 feet
away. The (female) experimenter was seated to the children’s left on the adjacent side of the table. To assess individual differences in shame responding, performance tasks were administered in a fixed order, as follows: (a)
508
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly
two versions of a matching task, the first portrayed as easy (“Most children
your age could finish in time”) and the second as difficult (“Most children
your age could not finish in time”); (b) two versions of a competitive nesting task, the first portrayed as easy and the second as difficult; and (c) two
easy tasks that were demonstrated to be easy but then were surreptitiously
modified to prevent success, the first a simple five-piece puzzle with one
piece replaced by another that had been slightly altered so it would not fit
and the second a set of small cups for nesting that was altered by replacing one cup with another that was the same size as one of the other cups.
The outcome of each performance was controlled to ensure success and then
failure on each version of the matching and competitive nesting tasks, and
failure on each of the impossible tasks, resulting in a total of six failure experiences. Easy tasks were included because shame is more likely to occur
in response to failing an easy than a difficult task (M. Lewis et al., 1992),
because of the greater likelihood of a negative self-attribution about failure
when the task is easy. Difficult tasks were included because they might be
more shame inducing for children highly prone to shame. Success experiences were included to avoid undue distress and to keep children engaged.
After drawing attention to the outcome (e.g., “Time is up, you did not finish
before the bell”), the experimenter remained silent and still for an interval
of time (e.g., 30 sec). Emotional displays observed during this time were
coded to measure emotional responses to failure (see the subsection Coding
of emotion-expressive behaviors). At the conclusion of the impossible tasks,
the experimenter looked through her materials and said, “Oh, no, I made a
mistake. I gave you the wrong pieces for the puzzle and cups. No one can do
the puzzle with these pieces, and the cups won’t fit because two of them are
the same size.” The experimenter then asked whether the child would like
to work on a puzzle or set of cups that would not be impossible to do and
praised the child’s performance. Finally, the experimenter complimented the
child’s performance on the matching and nesting tasks and, to dispel any lingering distress associated with the failure experiences, noted problems with
the timer that could explain why the child had sometimes not finished in time.
Time 2. As at Time 1, children were seated at a child’s table while
facing a digital remote-controlled camera with the (female) experimenter
seated to the children’s left on the adjacent side of the table. They were
given three timed puzzles to complete. Each was an eight- or nine-piece
puzzle of well-known characters doing simple activities (e.g., Barney playing football) that was designed for 3- to 4-year olds. The experimenter set
a time limit for each puzzle, and timed the child with a stopwatch. After
showing the intact puzzle to the child, the experimenter took the pieces
out and said, “You should be able to do this one in 2 minutes, no problem.
Shame in Early and Middle Childhood
509
Ready, set, go!” When the child was within two pieces of completing the
puzzle, the experimenter pressed the stop button and announced “Time’s
up.” Two puzzles were administered this way. To alleviate distress, a third
puzzle was done with the time limit set so that the child would succeed.
Then, the experimenter checked her notes, discovered that she had been
setting time limits way too short, apologized, and said, “No one could do
these puzzles that fast. I’ll bet you could’ve done all of them in time if I’d
given you the right amount of time.”
Coding of emotion-expressive behaviors. Children’s emotion-­expressive
behaviors occurring during the interval following task failure were coded
moment by moment for facial or bodily cues relevant to shame. At Time
1, two other potential emotional reactions to failure—sadness and anger—
also were coded to assess the specificity of the emotional responses to failure. Based on previous work (Barrett et al., 1993; Geppert, 1986; Izard,
1979; Keltner, 1995; M. Lewis et al., 1992; Tracy & Matsumoto, 2008;
Tracy, Robins, & Schriber, 2009), shame was assessed from gaze averted
or lowered (not attributable to a meaningful event), head tilted forward and
down, body collapsed or slumped (shrinking or compression of trunk), and
hiding of one’s face (moving one’s hands to cover the face or part of the
face, or moving the face or head to cover the face). Sadness and anger were
defined on the basis of prototypical facial cues, any one or more of which
could signify the emotion (Cole, Barrett, & Zahn-Waxler, 1992; Cole,
Zahn-Waxler, & Smith, 1994; Izard, 1979). For sadness, the cues were lip
corners turned down, eyelids drooped, inner brows raised and/or lowered
(/ \), and head dropped and tilted to the side. For anger, the cues were eyes
narrowed, brow furrowed, mouth set with lips pressed/tightened, and teeth
clenched (lower teeth visible). The initial occurrence of each cue was rated
on a 3-point intensity scale: 0 = not clearly visible or absent; 1 = mild to
moderate intensity; 2 = extreme intensity.
Coders were the first author and three advanced graduate students
unaware of the goals of the study and without knowledge of the specific
signs that would be used to score each emotion. Coders were trained to a
high level of reliability on ratings, conducted reliability checks regularly,
and resolved disagreements through discussion. Ratings of each cue were
averaged across failure experiences to create a single overall rating. Reliability was calculated based on 20% of the actual cases. Intraclass correlations yielded interrater agreement estimates for shame cues ranging
from .86 to .96 at Time 1 and from .84 to .99 at Time 2. Time 1 sadness
and anger cues occurred infrequently, and intraclass correlations could
not be calculated. Percentage agreement for these cues ranged from .87
to .98 for sadness and from .83 to .98 for anger. A measure of shame at
510
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly
each time point and measures of sadness and anger at Time 1 were computed by averaging the ratings for the component cues (possible range,
0–2) and computing the mean across failure experiences to create a single
overall score for each emotion.
Time 1 Parenting
Parents were asked to independently complete the Parenting Styles and
Dimensions Questionnaire (PSDQ; Robinson, Mandleco, Olsen, & Hart,
1995, 2001) by reading each statement and rating on a 5-point scale the
frequency with which their spouse, and then they themselves, exhibited
the behavior described in the statement: 1 = never; 2 = once in a while; 3
= about half of the time; 4 = very often; 5 = always. The PSDQ was developed with parents of preschool-age and school-age children. It yields three
global factors (authoritative, authoritarian, permissive) and internally consistent subscales for both mothers and fathers. It has good factorial validity
and predictive validity as indicated by relations with child social behavior
outcomes (Russell et al., 1998). Parental shaming was measured by the 12
items of the authoritarian factor assessing verbal hostility, physical punishment, and punitiveness (alphas were .78 for mother self-reports, .75 for
father self-reports, .82 for father reports about mother, and .82 for mother
reports about father). These reliabilities were comparable to those found in
previous research (Robinson et al., 2001; Winsler et al., 2005).
Agreement between self-reports and spouse reports was assessed by
computing intraclass correlations between parents’ self-reports and their
partners’ reports about them. Correlations were .52 and .68 for self-reports
and spouse reports of mother shaming and father shaming, respectively.
Correlations between parents’ self-reports and reports on their partner
were .75 and .78 for mother shaming and father shaming, respectively. It
appeared that parent ratings of self and partner were highly concordant,
suggesting some confounding between self-perceptions and partner perceptions. Given the relatively low agreement between self-reports and
spouse reports for mother shaming, analyses were done with self-reports
and spouse reports separately.
Time 1 Child Temperament
Child temperamental inhibition was assessed by using the Children’s Behavior Questionnaire (CBQ; Rothbart, Ahadi, & Hershey, 1994; Rothbart,
Ahadi, Hershey, & Fisher, 2001), a parent-report measure comprised of
Likert-scaled items describing children’s reactions to situations. Parents
Shame in Early and Middle Childhood
511
indicate how well each statement describes their child by using a 7-point
scale: 1 = extremely untrue of your child; 2 = quite untrue; 3 = slightly
untrue; 4 = neither true nor false; 5 = slightly true; 6 = quite true; 7 = extremely true. The CBQ yields internally consistent scales that are stable
over time and have convergent validity as indicated by parental agreement
(Rothbart et al., 2001). Temperamental inhibition was assessed by averaging the items belonging to the fear, shyness, and discomfort subscales
(Kochanska et al., 1994); alphas were .89 for mothers and .86 for fathers.
Mother and father reports were correlated, r(127) = .64, p < .001, and were
averaged to create a single overall measure.
Time 3 Proneness to Shame
Children’s shame proneness was assessed by using the Test of Self-Conscious
Affect for Children (TOSCA-C; Tangney, Wagner, Burggraf, Gramzow, &
Fletcher, 1990), a scenario-based measure comprised of potentially shameinducing and/or guilt-inducing everyday situations (e.g., making a mistake,
damaging someone’s property, failing at something), each followed by
situation-specific phenomenological descriptions of affective, cognitive, or
behavioral responses capturing shame (negative self-feeling or judgment, desire to hide), guilt (remorse, repair), externalization (blaming the other person or the situation), detachment (unconcern), pride in one’s self, and pride
in one’s behavior. Respondents imagine themselves in each situation and rate
the likelihood of each response on a 5-point scale: 1 = not likely; 5 = very
likely; for example, “Your aunt is giving a big party. You are carrying drinks
to people, and you spill one all over the floor: (a) you would think ‘I should
have been more careful;’ (b) you would think ‘my aunt wouldn’t mind that
much’; (c) you would run upstairs to be away from everybody; (d) you would
think the tray was too heavy.” The ­TOSCA-C has good internal consistency
(Tangney & Dearing, 2002; Tangney et al., 1990).
Shame and guilt scores were computed from children’s responses to
10 negative scenarios. Responses were averaged across scenarios; alphas
were .78 and .74 for shame and guilt, respectively. Because shame and
guilt are positively correlated but related in opposite directions to other
variables (Tangney, 1995), they are believed to operate as cooperative suppressors (Paulhus, Robins, Trzesniewski, & Tracy, 2004; Tangney, 1995).
As has been repeatedly demonstrated (Tangney, 1995; Tangney & Dearing,
2002), their power to predict other variables improves when their common variance is removed. To analyze shame unconfounded by guilt, shame
proneness was measured by computing a residual shame score in which the
variance attributable to guilt was removed.
512
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly
Results
Preliminary Analyses
An examination of missing values revealed that the proportion of missing
data was less than 5% for parent reports of child temperament and mother
self-reports of shaming. Higher proportions of missing data were found for
children’s responses to failure (7.6% missing at Time 1, most often because
of withdrawal from the task; 13.3% missing at Time 2), mother reports about
fathers (8.9% because of a small proportion of single-parent mother-headed
families in the sample), and father reports about themselves and their partner
(18.7% missing because of fathers’ lower participation rate). At Time 3, a
substantial proportion of data (32.4%) was missing for the assessment of
children’s proneness to shame. Little’s test of data missing completely at random indicated that the pattern of missing values deviated significantly from
complete randomness by Time 3, ps =.07, .16, and .01 for Times 1, 2, and 3,
respectively. Cases with and without missing data did not differ significantly
on any of the study variables at Times 1 or 2. Cases with missing data for
the assessment of proneness to shame at Time 3 showed less sadness in response to failure at Time 1, t(147.4) = 3.20, p < .01, and lower self-reported
father shaming at Time 1, t(111.6) = 2.10, p = .04. These findings indicate
that missingness was random with respect to all but one of the key variables
of interest. To reduce bias and loss of power because of missing values, the
analyses were performed with missing values imputed. Single imputation
was performed by using maximum likelihood estimation.
Prior to analysis, the variables were examined. Most distributions
were normal. A small number of outlying values were recoded to the
highest or lowest value that was not an outlier (Tabachnick & Fidell,
2001). Mother and father shaming scores were positively skewed and
were subjected to log transformations. Table 1 lists descriptive statistics
for the variables in their original form. There was substantial variation in
the intensity of shame responding, indicating that the shame assessment
measured individual differences in shame responding. Parental shaming
was quite low, occurring on average less than “once in a while” (2 on a
5-point scale).
Emotional reactions to failure. Shame responding at Time 1 was not
strongly related to sadness or anger for girls, rs(95) = .12 and .02, respectively, and was significantly related to sadness but not to anger for boys,
r(126) = .18, p < .05, and r(126) = .03, respectively. Given that failure was
the context in which the emotions were assessed, the low magnitude of the
correlations indicates that shame was the more prominent reaction.
Shame in Early and Middle Childhood
513
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics
Girls
Boys
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Time 2 shame
0.98
0.23
0.89
0.27
Time 1 shame
0.75
0.20
0.73
0.18
Time 1 sadness
0.11
0.09
0.11
0.09
Time 1 anger
0.14
0.09
0.15
0.10
Mother self-report
1.74
0.41
1.82
0.38
Mother spouse report
1.76
0.45
1.75
0.42
Father self-report
1.86
0.41
1.90
0.40
Father spouse report
1.78
0.56
1.86
0.44
3.72
0.70
3.80
0.64
Shame
2.60
0.60
2.24
0.70
Guilt
3.96
0.50
3.63
0.68
Shame proneness (residual score)
0.10
0.55
–0.09
0.60
Responses to Failure
Time 1 Parental Shaming
Time 1 Temperament
Temperamental inhibition
Time 3 Shame and Guilt
Gender differences. At Time 1, girls and boys did not differ significantly in age, t(223) = 0.52 (d = .07), temperamental inhibition, t(223) =
–0.83 (d = .11), or experiences of parental shaming, ts(223) = 1.76 and
1.82, ps < .07 (both ds = .24) for mother reports of self and partner, respectively, and ts(223) = .73 (d = .04) and .03 (d = .00) for father reports
of self and partner, respectively. Girls and boys did not differ significantly
in emotional responding to failure, ts(223) = 0.96, –.08, and –1.37 (ds =
.13, .01, and .19) for shame, sadness, and anger, respectively. Girls showed
more shame responding to failure than did boys at Time 2, t(223) = 2.40,
p < .02 (d = .33), and scored higher than did boys on shame proneness at
Time 3, t(223) = 2.41, p < .02 (d = .33).
Parent differences. Differences between mothers’ and fathers’ perceptions of their own and each other’s parenting were examined. Analyses of
parent self-perceptions indicated that fathers rated their use of shaming
higher than did mothers, t(96) = –2.97, p < .01 (d = .35) for parents of girls
and t(127) = –2.05, p < .04 (d = .22) for parents of boys. Comparisons
between parents’ ratings of themselves and their partner (self-reports and
514
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly
reports about partner) revealed the same differences, with fathers rating
themselves higher on shaming than they did their partner, t(96) = 4.22,
p < .001 (d = .36) for fathers of girls and t(127) = 6.88, p < .001 (d = .48) for
fathers of boys. These findings are in line with previous research (Winsler
et al., 2005) and indicate that mothers and fathers perceive differences between themselves and their partners, viewing mothers as using less shaming than fathers.
Prediction of Shame Responding to Failure in Early Childhood
The hypothesis that shame responding would be associated with parental
shaming, and that child temperamental inhibition would moderate these
associations, was evaluated by using sequential regression for each gender
to determine whether the addition of temperament and parenting × temperament interactions would improve the prediction of shame responding
beyond that afforded by parenting practices. In each analysis, the overall
shame score was predicted from parental shaming (maternal, paternal) entered first (Step 1), followed by the interaction of maternal and paternal
shaming (Step 2), child temperamental inhibition (Step 3), the two-way
interactions between parental shaming and temperamental inhibition (Step
4), and the three-way interaction among mother shaming, father shaming,
and temperamental inhibition (Step 5). To provide for more meaningful
interpretation of the solutions, the predictors were rescaled by putting them
in the form of mean-deviation scores (centering) (Aiken & West, 1991;
Whisman & McClelland, 2005). Where interactions were found, the simple
slopes were tested by following recommended procedures in which the
regression is performed at high (+1 SD) and low (–1 SD) values of the putative moderator variable (Aiken & West, 1991).
As Step 1, zero-order correlations among the variables were computed
(see Table 2). Child age at Time 1 was included to determine whether age
was associated with any of the Time 1 variables and could be confounded
with their associations. There were few significant correlations among the
key study variables. These findings supported the objective of the present
study to examine shame responding in relation to the interactive effects of
child characteristics and parenting. Shame responding showed modest stability from Time 1 to Time 2 for girls, r(95) = .19, p = .057. Child age was
correlated with some variables. For girls, age was significantly correlated
with higher Time 1 shame responding, r(95) = .33, p < .001, but not with
other measures, largest rs(95) = .14, for spouse reported father shaming. For
boys, age was associated with higher self-reported father shaming, rs(126)
= .20, p < .03, spouse-reported father shaming, rs(126) = .18, p < .05, and
.33***
6. T1 Father shaming: self .20*
.05
9. T3 shame proneness
.39***
.23*
–.14
.59***
.04
–.05
.02
–.02
.23**
.14
–.13
.06
7
.54***
.29**
.65***
–.05
–.05
.00
8
–.07
.01
–.01
–.04
–.10
–.24*
–.03
.13
.09
.53***
.69***
.64***
.32***
.11
–.11
–.03
6
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Note. T1 = Time 1; T2 = Time 2; T3 = Time 3. Correlations are above the diagonal for girls and below the diagonal for boys.
–.02
.08
8. T1 Temperamental inhibition .10 .03
–.23**
.09
7. T1 Father shaming: spouse .18* .02
.27**
5
–.05
.33***
.25**
5. T1 Mother shaming: spouse .17 .01
.00
–.02
–.03
–.02
4
–.03
4. T1 Mother shaming: self .06 .05
3. T1 shame responding .15 .07
.19
3
.33***
2
2. T2 shame responding .07
1
1. T1 child age .00
Table 2. Intercorrelations
–.10
–.04
–.22*
–.16
–.23*
–.21*
.11
–.05
9
Shame in Early and Middle Childhood
515
516
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly
Table 3. Concurrent Prediction of Time 1 Shame Responding
Girls
B
SE B
Boys
β
B
SE B
β
–.12
Mother shaming
–.04
.21
–.02
–.25
.19
Father shaming
.35
.23
.16
.68
.18
Mother × Father
.34***
–3.52
2.61
–.14
–1.40
1.94
–.06
Temperamental inhibition
–.02
.03
–.07
.02
.02
.05
Mother × Inhibition
–.17
.32
–.06
.54
.31
.15
Father × Inhibition
.01
.31
.00
–.02
.28
–.01
Mother × Father × Inhibition
–3.93
3.64
–.11
–1.88
3.26
–.05
R² = .17 (adj. = .09)
R² = .17 (adj. = .11)
F(8, 88) = 2.21, p < .03
F(8, 119) = 2.94, p < .01
Note. Analyses are adjusted (adj.) for child age at Time 1 (β = .33, p < .001 for girls; β = .09
for boys).
***p < .001.
spouse-reported mother shaming, rs(126) = .17, p < .05, but not with Time
1 shame responding, rs(126) = .15, p < .10, or self-reported mother shaming, rs(126) = .06. Because of its associations with some variables, child
age was included as a covariate in the analyses.
Concurrent prediction of shame responding at Time 1. Two regressions were performed to assess the concurrent prediction of shame responding at Time 1 from self-reported parental shaming and child temperamental
inhibition. The results after entry of all predictors are listed in Table 3. For
girls, the sole significant associate of shame responding was age, β = .33,
p < .001 (sr2 = .11, indicating 11% unique variance explained). For boys,
the sole significant associate was father shaming, β = .34, p < .001 (sr2 =
.10). The correlation found between boys’ age and father shaming indicates
that age was indirectly associated with boys’ shame responding.
Separate analyses performed by using spouse reports of parenting
yielded several independent or interactive effects of parental shaming.
Girls’ shame responding was significantly associated with father reports
of higher mother shaming, β = .36, p < .001 (sr 2 = .11), mother reports
of lower father shaming, β = –.19, p < .06 (sr 2 = .03), and an interaction between father reports of mother shaming and mother reports of father
shaming, β = –.22, p < .03 (sr 2 = .04). Simple slope tests on the interaction indicated that higher mother shaming as reported by fathers was significantly associated with higher shame responding for girls whose fathers
Shame in Early and Middle Childhood
517
Table 4. Longitudinal Prediction of Time 2 Shame Responding From
Time 1 Predictors
Girls
B
Shame responding
Mother shaming
Father shaming
Boys
SE B
β
.17
.11
.17
.10
.21
.05
–.11
–.27**
B
SE B
β
.10
.15
.07
.29
.30
.09
–.16
.31
–.05
–.29
3.13
–.01
–.25
.24
–7.29
2.71
Temperamental inhibition
–.06
.03
–.23*
.00
.04
.01
Mother × Inhibition
–.33
.32
–.11
.94
.50
.17
Father × Inhibition
.21
.32
.07
.16
.45
.03
Mother × Father × Inhibition
.04
3.75
.00
9.56
5.24
.17
Mother × Father
R² = .19 (adj. = .10)
R² = .08 (adj. = .01)
F(9, 87) = 2.19, p < .03
F(9, 118) = 1.08, ns
Note. Analyses are adjusted (adj.) for child age at Time 1 (β = –.07 for girls; β = .05 for boys).
*p < .05. **p < .01.
were low in shaming according to mother reports, β = .53, p < .001, but not
for girls whose fathers were high in mother-reported shaming, β = .17, ns.
Boys’ shame responding was significantly associated with father reports of
higher mother shaming, β = .24, p < .01 (sr 2 = .05).
Longitudinal prediction of shame responding at Time 2. Two regressions were performed to assess the prediction of Time 2 shame responding longitudinally from Time 1 shame responding, self-reported parental
shaming, and temperamental inhibition. The results after entry of all predictors are listed in Table 4. Girls’ shame responding was predicted by
lower temperamental inhibition, β = –.23, p < .03 (sr 2 = .05), and by a twoway interaction between mother and father shaming, β = –.27, p < .01 (sr 2
= .07). Slope tests on the interaction indicated that higher mother shaming
predicted increased shame responding by school age if father shaming was
low, β = .33, p < .04, but not if it was high, β = –.24, ns. Thus, for girls,
lower temperamental inhibition, or higher mother shaming occurring in
conjunction with low father shaming, predicted increased shame responding at school age.
Boys’ shame responding was predicted by a marginally significant twoway interaction between mother shaming and temperamental inhibition,
β = .17, p = .061 (sr 2 = .03). Planned slope tests on the interaction revealed
518
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly
that mother shaming predicted increased shame responding at school age for
high-inhibited boys, β = .25, p < .07, but not for low-inhibited boys, β = –.12.
The analyses were also performed by using spouse reports of parenting
rather than self-reports. No significant effects were found by using spouse
reports for either girls or boys.
Prediction of Shame Proneness in Middle Childhood
Two regressions were performed to assess the prediction of Time 3 shame
proneness from Time 1 shame responding, self-reported parental shaming,
and their two- and three-way interactions. The results of the analyses after
entry of all predictors are shown in Table 5. Girls’ shame proneness was predicted by a two-way interaction between shame responding and father shaming, β = .22, p < .06 (sr 2 = .03), and a three-way interaction among shame
responding, mother shaming, and father shaming, β = –.29, p < .01 (sr 2 =
.06). Slope tests on the three-way interaction are shown in Figure 1. Higher
shame responding at preschool age predicted lower proneness to shame in
middle childhood for girls with low-shaming mothers and fathers, β = –.50,
p < .01, and to a lesser extent, higher proneness to shame for those with highshaming fathers but low-shaming mothers, β = .57, p = .071. Slopes were far
from significant for girls with high-shaming mothers and fathers, β = –.24,
and girls with high-shaming mothers but low-shaming fathers, β = –.14.
Boys’ proneness to shame in middle childhood was predicted by lower
father shaming, β = –.19, p < .06 (sr 2 = .03), and by an interaction between
mother and father shaming, β = .22, p < .05 (sr 2 = .04). Simple slope tests
on the interaction showed that mother shaming predicted higher subsequent
proneness to shame for boys whose fathers were high shaming, β = .32, p <
.01, but not for those whose fathers were low shaming, β = –.11, ns (Figure 2).
Separate analyses performed by using spouse reports of parental
shaming yielded a significant interaction effect for girls between shame
responding and mother-reported father shaming at preschool age, β = .28,
p < .03 (sr 2 = .05), indicating that greater shame responding at preschool
age predicted lower proneness to shame in middle childhood when fathers
were low in mother-reported shaming, β = –.36, p < .01, but not when they
were high in mother-reported shaming, β = .06, ns. There were no significant effects for boys involving spouse-reported shaming.
Discussion
The goals of this study were to examine individual differences in proneness to shame in early childhood and assess their predictive relations with
F(8, 88) = 2.57, p < .01
β
–.29**
–.06
.22
–.11
–.17
–.16
–.08
*p < .05. **p < .01.
.45
.44
B
34.18
5.75
2.68
3.08
.50
.53
.26
SE B
Boys
F(8, 119) = 2.59, p < .01
R² = .15 (adj. = .09)
26.91
13.03
–1.22
2.91
–.97
Note. Analyses are adjusted (adj.) for child age at Time 1 (β = –.03 for girls; β = –.19, p < .03 for boys).
R² = .19 (adj. = .12)
6.65
35.91
–3.63
–91.31
Mother × Father
Shame responding × Mother × Father
3.72
3.06
7.18
.58
.53
–3.07
–.97
Father shaming
Shame responding × Father
–.83
Mother shaming
.30
SE B
Girls
Shame responding × Mother
B
–.19
Shame responding
Table 5. Prediction of Time 3 Shame Proneness From Time 1 Predictors
β
.08
.22*
–.04
.09
–.19
.08
.17
Shame in Early and Middle Childhood
519
520
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly
1
High MS, High FS
Time 3 Shame Proneness,
0.9
High MS, Low FS
0.8
Low MS, High FS
Low MS, Low FS
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Low
High
Time 1 Shame Responding
Figure 1. Girls’ Time 3 shame proneness as predicted by a three-way interaction
among Time 1 shame responding to failure, mother shaming, and father shaming.
MS = mother shaming; FS = father shaming.
proneness to shame in middle childhood. Girls showed more shame than
boys by school age. For girls, being older was associated with more shame
responding at preschool age. Girls who were low in inhibition or experienced higher shaming specifically by mother showed increased shame
responding between preschool age and school age. For boys, father shaming was associated with more shame responding at preschool age. Highinhibited boys who experienced higher mother shaming tended to show
increased shame responding between preschool age and school age. Girls
who showed more shame responding at preschool age were less shame
prone in middle childhood if both parents were low shaming, and these
girls were inclined to be more shame prone if they experienced high father
shaming. Boys who experienced more mother and father shaming at preschool age were more prone to shame in middle childhood.
Shame in Early and Middle Childhood
521
Time 3 Shame Proneness
2.5
2
1.5
1
Low Father Shaming
0.5
High Father Shaming
0
Low
Mother Shaming
High
Figure 2. Boys’ Time 3 shame proneness as predicted by a two-way interaction
between mother and father shaming.
The findings confirm the existence of gender differences in the development of shame responding. Girls’ shame responding at preschool age was
strongly age related, suggesting that this was a period of rapid development
of shame. This is consistent with the notion that shame is valued in girls and
is promoted early. Increases in shame responding as girls reached school
age were predicted by low inhibition, perhaps because of a developmental
lag in low-inhibited girls. Higher mother shaming was another predictor of
increased shame responding in girls. This finding is consistent with attributional perspectives suggesting that certain child characteristics and parenting practices will facilitate internal attributions and promote global negative
self-attributions about behavior (e.g., Dienstbier et al., 1975; Kochanska,
1991; Kochanska et al., 1994; Kochanska, Gross, Lin, & Nichols, 2002).
Parental shaming is likely to promote global negative self-attributions by directly or indirectly conveying messages of hostility and blame, and girls may
be particularly susceptible to messages that promote self-attributions, such
that mother shaming by itself was sufficient to promote increased shame
responding. Interestingly, the relation between higher mother shaming and
522
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly
increased shame responding was found only in conjunction with low father
shaming. High shaming by both mother and father was associated with girls’
lower shame responding. These findings seem to suggest that when girls are
low shame responders both parents use more shaming.
Boys’ shame responding at preschool age was associated solely with
father shaming. Given that fathers used more shaming with older boys, it
appears that fathers’ developmental expectations for their sons may have
contributed to their use of shaming. In light of the finding that fathers used
more shaming than mothers, it seems likely that fathers’ use of shaming
plays an important role in promoting boys’ shame responding at preschool
age. At school age, boys who had been high in behavioral inhibition and
exposed to more mother shaming showed a greater increase in shame responding than other boys. As attributional perspectives suggest, parenting
practices that promote global negative self-attributions are more likely to
do so in the context of certain temperamental characteristics. When both
temperament and parenting were conducive, boys’ shame responding was
more likely to increase by school age, suggesting that high inhibition may
have served to magnify the effect of mother shaming, possibly by increasing negative self-focused attention. That the effect fell short of significance
in the present normative sample is consistent with the idea that boys may
be relatively insensitive to shame induction.
A second objective of the study was to assess predictive relations
between early childhood shame responding and proneness to shame in
middle childhood. Over time, the negative messages conveyed by parental
shaming may engender a bias toward global negative self-attributions leading to a disposition to shame reactions. The present findings are consistent
with such a developmental trajectory and also reveal gender differences.
Girls who had shown more shame responding in early childhood were less
shame prone in middle childhood if both parents had been low shaming
and, to a lesser extent, more shame prone if they had experienced high
father shaming. Thus, shame responding in early childhood appears to be a
protective factor for girls when both mother and father shaming is low, and
it may be a risk factor when father shaming is high. These findings suggest that shame responding is a valued and adaptive characteristic in girls
and hence not by itself a risk factor for subsequent proneness to shame.
For boys, as well, high levels of shaming predicted proneness to shame in
middle childhood, but only when both parents were high shaming. This
finding provides further support for the idea that boys may be relatively
insensitive to shame and hence are likely to become prone to shame only
when both parents are high shaming. Given research indicating that proneness to shame is associated with a wide range of psychological symptoms
Shame in Early and Middle Childhood
523
by middle childhood (Ferguson, Stegge, Eyre, Vollmer, & Ashbaker, 2000;
Ferguson et al., 1999) and potentially earlier (Luby et al., 2009), further
longitudinal investigation is warranted to examine the developmental
emergence of these links and possible differences between girls and boys.
Self-reports and spouse reports of parenting did not yield the same
results. Few effects were found by using spouse reports, and the effects
were primarily for girls. Two of these effects were generally consistent
with the results of analyses performed with self-reports: Mother shaming
predicted greater shame responding in early childhood for girls who had
low-shaming fathers, and early-childhood shame responding predicted
lower proneness to shame for girls who had low-shaming fathers. Other
effects could be interpreted as reflecting perceptions of self rather than of
spouse. For example, boys’ higher shame responding to failure at Time 1
was associated with fathers’ ratings of mother shaming, mirroring the association found with fathers’ self-ratings of shaming. Given the correlations
showing that self-ratings and ratings of partner agreed more closely than
self-ratings and ratings by partner, it appears that parents may have assessed their partners in part on the basis of their own self-perceptions such
that spouse reports were confounded with self-perceptions. To the extent
this was so, the results of the analyses performed by using self-reports may
be more meaningful than those performed by using spouse reports. Analyses using self-reports also yielded more coherent results.
Several limitations of the study should be noted. Given that the results
were based on parents’ self-reports of parenting, the findings may reflect
parents’ perceptions of their parenting rather than their actual parenting.
For example, the finding that mother shaming predicted girls’ shame responding could reflect a tendency for mothers of shame-prone girls to
perceive their parenting practices as somewhat harsh. In future research,
the use of other methods of assessing parenting practices would provide a
more independent measure of parental shaming and help to substantiate the
present findings. Another limitation of the study is some restriction in generalization of the findings, owing to the disproportionate loss of families
with lower socioeconomic status following the first phase of the study and
families with lower shaming fathers by the third phase. Notwithstanding
these limits, the coherence of the results that emerged despite the low levels
of parental shaming in the sample, the mild nature of the shame-induction
procedures in early childhood, and the long time span of the study, lends
credence to the findings. The study contributes new information regarding
the sources of individual differences in shame responding in early childhood and its predictive relations with proneness to shame in middle childhood. First, the data reveal that parental shaming, temperamental inhibition,
524
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly
and gender interact to influence shame responding in early childhood. This
is a novel contribution pointing to several important sources of individual
differences in early childhood shame responding. Moreover, it appears
that both mothers and fathers play a significant role in the development of
shame both for girls and for boys. Second, the data are the first to indicate
that shame responding in early childhood predicts higher or lower proneness to shame in middle childhood, conditional on gender and parenting
factors. As such, they suggest that early childhood shame responding may
contribute to subsequent proneness to shame. Further research is needed
to assess its longitudinal relations with maladaptive outcomes and the role
shame proneness may play in such outcomes (Ferguson et al., 2000; Ferguson et al., 1999; Luby et al., 2009).
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting
interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Alessandri, S. M., & Lewis, M. (1993). Parental evaluation and its relation to
shame and pride in young children. Sex Roles, 29, 335–343.
Alessandri, S. M., & Lewis, M. (1996). Differences in pride and shame in maltreated and nonmaltreated preschoolers. Child Development, 67, 1857–1869.
Barrett, K. C. (1998). A functionalist perspective to the development of emotions.
In M. F. Mascolo & S. Griffin (Eds.), What develops in emotional development? (pp. 109–133). New York: Plenum Press.
Barrett, K. C., Zahn-Waxler, C., & Cole, P. M. (1993). Avoiders vs. amenders: Implications for the investigation of guilt and shame during toddlerhood? Cognition and Emotion, 7, 481–505.
Belsky, J., Domitrovich, C., & Crnic, K. (1997). Temperament and parenting antecedents of individual differences in three-year-old boys’ pride and shame
reactions. Child Development, 68, 456–466.
Campos, J. J., Thein, S., & Owen, D. (2004). A Darwinian legacy to understanding
human infancy: Emotional expressions as behavior regulators. Annals of the
New York Academy of Sciences, 1000, 1–26.
Chaplin, T. M., Cole, P. M., & Zahn-Waxler, C. (2005). Parental socialization of
emotion expression: Gender differences and relations to child adjustment.
Emotion, 5, 80–88.
Cole, P. M., Barrett, K. C., & Zahn-Waxler, C. (1992). Emotion displays in twoyear-olds during mishaps. Child Development, 63, 314–324.
Cole, P. M., Zahn-Waxler, C., & Smith, K. D. (1994). Expressive control during a
disappointment: Variations related to preschoolers’ behavior problems. Developmental Psychology, 30, 835–846.
Shame in Early and Middle Childhood
525
Crick, N. R., & Zahn-Waxler, C. (2003). The development of psychopathology in
females and males: Current progress and future challenges. Development and
Psychopathology, 15, 719–742.
Denham, S. A. (1998). Emotional development in young children. New York:
Guilford.
Denham, S. A., Bassett, H. H., & Wyatt, T. (2007). The socialization of emotional
competence. In J. E. Grusec & P. D. Hastings (Eds.), Handbook of socialization: Theory and research (pp. 614–637). New York: Guilford Press.
Derryberry, D., & Rothbart, M. K. (1997). Reactive and effortful processes in
the organization of temperament. Development and Psychopathology, 9,
633–652.
Dickerson, S. S., Gruenewald, T. L., & Kemeny, M. E. (2004). When the social
self is threatened: Shame, physiology, and health. Journal of Personality, 72,
1191–1216.
Dickerson, S. S., & Kemeny, M. E. (2004). Acute stressors and cortisol responses:
A theoretical integration and synthesis of laboratory research. Psychological
Bulletin, 130, 355–391.
Dienstbier, R. A., Hellman, D., Lehnhoff, J., Hillman, J. H., & Volkenaar, M. C.
(1975). An emotion-attribution approach to moral behavior: Interfacing cognitive and avoidance theories of moral development. Psychological Review, 82,
299–315.
Eisenberg, N., Cumberland, A., & Spinrad, T. L. (1998). Parental socialization of
emotion. Psychological Inquiry, 9, 241–273.
Ferguson, T. J., Stegge, H., Eyre, H. L., Vollmer, R., & Ashbaker, M. (2000). Context effects and the (mal)adaptive nature of guilt and shame in children [Monograph]. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 126, 319–345.
Ferguson, T. J., Stegge, H., Miller, E. R., & Olsen, M. E. (1999). Guilt, shame, and
symptoms in children. Developmental Psychology, 35, 347–357.
Geppert, U. (1986). A coding system for analyzing behavioral expressions of selfevaluative emotions (Technical manual). Munich: Max Planck Institute for
Psychological Research.
Gershoff, E. T. (2002). Corporal punishment by parents and associated child behaviors and experiences: A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 539–579.
Hollingshead, A. B. (1975). Four factor index of social status. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Sociology, Yale University, New Haven, CT.
Izard, C. E. (1979). The maximally discriminative facial movement coding system
(Max). Unpublished manuscript, Office of Instructional Technology, University of Delaware, Newark, DE.
Kagan, J., Reznick, J. S., & Snidman, N. (1987). The physiology and psychology
of behavioral inhibition in children. Child Development, 58, 1459–1473.
526
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly
Kelley, S. A., Brownell, C. A., & Campbell, S. B. (2000). Mastery motivation and
self-evaluative affect in toddlers: Longitudinal relations with maternal behavior. Child Development, 71, 1061–1071.
Keltner, D. (1995). Signs of appeasement: Evidence for the distinct displays of
embarrassment, amusement, and shame. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 68, 441–454.
Khaleque, A., & Rohner, R. P. (2002). Perceived parental acceptance-rejection and
psychological adjustment: A meta-analysis of cross-cultural and intracultural
studies. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 54–64.
Kochanska, G. (1991). Socialization and temperament in the development of guilt
and conscience. Child Development, 62, 1379–1392.
Kochanska, G., DeVet, K., Goldman, M., Murray, K., & Putnam, S. P. (1994). Maternal reports of conscience development and temperament in young children.
Child Development, 65, 852–868.
Kochanska, G., Gross, J. N., Lin, M., & Nichols, K. E. (2002). Guilt in young
children: Development, determinants, and relations with a broader system of
standards. Child Development, 73, 461–482.
Lagattuta, K. H., & Thompson, R. A. (2007). The development of self-conscious
emotions: Cognitive processes and social influences. In J. L. Tracy, R. W.
Robins, & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), The self-conscious emotions: Theory and research (pp. 91–113). New York: Guilford Press.
Lewis, H. B. (1971). Shame and guilt in neurosis. New York: International Universities Press.
Lewis, M. (1992). Shame: The exposed self. New York: Free Press.
Lewis, M. (2007). Self-conscious emotional development. In J. L. Tracy, R. W.
Robins, & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), The self-conscious emotions: Theory and research (pp. 134–149). New York: Guilford Press.
Lewis, M., Alessandri, S. M., & Sullivan, M. W. (1992). Differences in shame and
pride as a function of children’s gender and task difficulty. Child Development, 63, 630–638.
Lewis, M., & Michalson, L. (1983). Children’s emotions and moods: Developmental theory and measurement. New York: Plenum Press.
Lewis, M., & Ramsay, D. (2002). Cortisol response to embarrassment and shame.
Child Development, 73, 1034–1045.
Lindsey, E. W., & Mize, J. (2001). Interparental agreement, parent-child responsiveness, and children’s peer competence. Family Relations, 50, 348–354.
Luby, J., Belden, A., Sullivan, J., Hayen, R., McCadney, A., & Spitznagel, E.
(2009). Shame and guilt in preschool depression: Evidence for elevations in
self-conscious emotions in depression as early as age 3. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 50, 1156–1166.
Shame in Early and Middle Childhood
527
Mills, R. S. L. (2003). Possible antecedents and developmental implications of
shame in young girls. Infant and Child Development, 12, 329–349.
Nelson, D. A., Hart, C. H., Yang, C., Olsen, J. A., & Jin, S. (2006). Aversive parenting in China: Associations with child physical and relational aggression. Child
Development, 77, 554–572.
Nix, R. L., Pinderhughes, E. E., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., Pettit, G. S., &
­McFadyen-Ketchum, S. A. (1999). The relation between mothers’ hostile
attribution tendencies and children’s externalizing behavior problems: The
mediating role of mothers’ harsh discipline practices. Child Development,
70, 896–909.
Paulhus, D. L., Robins, R. W., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Tracy, J. L. (2004). Two replicable suppressor situations in personality research. Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 39, 303–328.
Porter, C. L., Hart, C. H., Yang, C., Robinson, C. C., Olsen, S. F., Zeng, Q., et al.
(2005). A comparative study of child temperament and parenting in Beijing,
China and the western United States. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29, 541–551.
Robinson, C. C., Mandleco, B. L., Olsen, S. F., & Hart, C. H. (1995). Authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive parenting practices: Development of a new
measure. Psychological Reports, 77, 819–830.
Robinson, C. C., Mandleco, B. L., Olsen, S. F., & Hart, C. H. (2001). Parenting
Styles and Dimensions Questionnaire (PSDQ). In J. Touliatos, B. F. Perlmutter, & M. A. Straus (Eds.), Handbook of family measurement techniques (3rd
ed., pp. 188–189). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rothbart, M. K., Ahadi, S. A., & Hershey, K. L. (1994). Temperament and social
behavior in childhood. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 40, 21–39.
Rothbart, M. K., Ahadi, S. A., Hershey, K. L., & Fisher, P. (2001). Investigations of
temperament at three to seven years: The Children’s Behavior Questionnaire.
Child Development, 72, 1394–1408.
Russell, A., Aloa, V., Feder, T., Glover, A., Miller, H., & Palmer, G. (1998). Sexbased differences in parenting styles in a sample with preschool children. Australian Journal of Psychology, 50, 89–99.
Russell, A., Hart, C. H., Robinson, C. C., & Olsen, S. F. (2003). Children’s sociable
and aggressive behavior with peers: A comparison of the US and Australia,
and contributions of temperament and parenting styles. International Journal
of Behavioral Development, 27, 74–86.
Saarni, C. (1999). The development of emotional competence. New York: Guilford
Press.
Schore, A. N. (1996). The experience-dependent maturation of a regulatory system
in the orbital prefrontal cortex and the origin of developmental psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 8, 59–87.
528
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly
Stipek, D., Recchia, S., & McClintic, S. (1992). Self-evaluation in young children
[Monograph]. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development,
57(1, Serial No. 226).
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.).
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Tangney, J. P. (1995). Shame and guilt in interpersonal relationships. In J. P. Tangney & K. W. Fischer (Eds.), Self-conscious emotions: The psychology of shame,
guilt, embarrassment, and pride (pp. 114–139). New York: Guilford Press.
Tangney, J. P., Burggraf, S. A., & Wagner, P. E. (1995). Shame-proneness, guiltproneness, and psychological symptoms. In J. P. Tangney & K. W. Fischer
(Eds.), Self-conscious emotions: The psychology of shame, guilt, embarrassment, and pride (pp. 343–367). New York: Guilford Press.
Tangney, J. P., & Dearing, R. L. (2002). Shame and guilt. New York: Guilford
Press.
Tangney, J. P., & Fischer, K. W. (Eds.). (1995). Self-conscious emotions: The psychology of shame, guilt, embarrassment, and pride. New York: Guilford Press.
Tangney, J. P., Wagner, P. E., Burggraf, S. A., Gramzow, R., & Fletcher, C. (1990).
The Test of Self-Conscious Affect for Children (TOSCA-C). Unpublished manuscript, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA.
Tracy, J. L., & Matsumoto, D. (2008). The spontaneous expression of pride and
shame: Evidence for biologically innate nonverbal displays. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences, USA 105, 11655–11660.
Tracy, J. L., Robins, R. W., & Schriber, R. A. (2009). Development of a FACSverified set of basic and self-conscious emotion expressions. Emotion, 9,
554–559.
Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Whisman, M. A., & McClelland, G. H. (2005). Designing, testing, and interpreting interactions and moderator effects in family research. Journal of Family
Psychology, 19, 111–120.
Winsler, A., Madigan, A. L., & Aquilino, S. A. (2005). Correspondence between
maternal and paternal parenting styles in early childhood. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 20, 1–12.
Yang, C., Hart, C. H., Nelson, D. A., Porter, C. L., Olsen, S. F., Robinson, C. C.,
et al. (2004). Fathering in a Beijing, Chinese sample: Associations with boys’
and girls’ negative emotionality and aggression. In R. D. Day & M. E. Lamb
(Eds.), Conceptualizing and measuring father involvement (pp. 185–215).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.