Social Functions of Guilt Flashcards
(6 cards)
When guilt arises (self-judgement, hurt another, standards)
Self-judgements. When self perceives to have hurt another, and to have fallen short of their own or society’s standards.
Overview of function (communal norms, respect w/o self-interest return, symbolically affirm relationships, manipulation interpersonal for pwrlss
Interpersonal emotion arising from self-judgements. When the self perceives to have hurt another, and to have fallen short of their own or society’s standards, i.e. it focuses on the individual’s behaviour. Self-appraisal of control and motivation to make amends. Helps enforce communal norms that prescribe mutual concern, respect, and positive treatment in the absence of self-interest return. It promotes behaviours that benefit relationships and symbolically affirms the bond. It may also operate as an interpersonal influence technique that allows even a relatively powerless person to get their way.
Self-punishment or prosocial motivator? –>dynamic (Amodio, Devine, Harmon-Jones, 2007). 1st = -ve reinforcement cue, dec. approach motivation. 2nd inc. a-m behaviour when opportunity for reparation. White, multiracial faces- EEG. bogus anti-black feedback = inc. guilt + reduced cortical asymmetry of dec. approach motivation. Gult predicted interest in prejudice-rejuction opportunity engagemnt (eval. magazine articles, rate desire to read, some abt racial sensitivity –> assoc. w/ approach-related shift in asymmetry.
Theory of guilt has been traditionally split mostly into those who believe it to be a self-punishment cue, or a prosocial motivator. Amodio, Devine, & Harmon-Jones (2007) proposed a dynamic model of guilt. Guilt functions to first provide a negative reinforcement cue associated with reduced approach motivation, which transforms into approach-motivated behaviour when an opportunity for reparation prepares itself. They tested this hypothesis in the context of racial prejudice. White subjects viewed a multiracial series of faces while an EEG recorded cortical activity. Following bogus feedback indicating anti-Black responses, subjects reported elevated guilt which was associated with changes in frontal cortical asymmetry indicating reduced approach motivation. - Participants informed experiment finished 20 min. early
- Asked if for those 20 min., they’d help evaluate stimuli for use in a future (unrelated) study (all agreed).
- Shown magazine article titles, rate on desire to read. Record asymmetric frontal cortical activity EEG.
- Interspersed amongst filler titles were titles pertaining to prejudice reduction (e.g. “Improving your inter-racial interactions”).
When subjects were presented with an opportunity to engage in prejudice-reducing behaviour, guilt predicted greater interest in prejudice reduction, which in turn was associated with an approach-related shift in frontal asymmetry. This supports the aforementioned dynamic model.
Dyadic emotional distress redistribution, transgressor vs. victim. Commitment, indicative of caring/intimacy/affeciton, also not repeat offence/make amends/acknowledge nonspecifci debt
It redistributes emotional distress within a dyad: during the transgression, the transgressor may enjoy whatever benefits there are while the victim suffers, but if the victim can induce guilt in the transgressor, the transgressor’s state becomes less pleasant while the victim’s state improves. They feel better because the transgressor’s guilt affirms commitment, an indication of affection, caring, and intimacy. It may also be seen as an implicit commitment to not repeat the offence, to make amends, or acknowledge a nonspecific debt towards the victim. However, it can also arise when individuals do not feel personally responsible for another’s negative situation, for example in cases of guilt by association, and survivor guilt, the latter case when the person did not commit any transgression but feels culpable owing to life circumstances beyond their control.
autobiographical narrative studies utility. Tangney (1992): interpersonal (exc. diet). Baumeister, Stillwell, Heatherton. (1994): Comp. guilt-inducing transgressions to non-guilt. Compared incidence of making others guilty vs being made to feel (both easy to recall). Sign of interpersonal causation (manipulation). Feel guilt and comply with inducer, even if disagree w/ appraisal. Freq. cite discrepancies own standards & others. Single largest category = failure to sufficiently atetend to partners. Inequity repeatedly implicated –> invested more than other
Especially useful for studying topics like guilt in which ethical/pragmatic concerns limit what can be done in a laboratory. This way one can be certain that one is dealing with actual subjective experiences of guilt, at least as it’s understood by the person. Guilt is overwhelmingly interpersonal with very few solitary/victimless transgression (the exception to which is breaking a diet, but this is can be argued to be a social phenomenon as well. Baumeister Stillwell, and Heatherton (1994) found that people had no problem recalling incidents in which they induced guilt in other people, or when other people induced guilt in them. Powerful sign of interpersonal causation, where guilt is used to manipulate people. Some people reported feeling guilt and complying with the wishes of the inducer, even if they disagreed with the other person’s appraisal of the situation and resented their manipulations. When people describe how others made them feel guilty, they frequently cite discrepancies between one’s own standards/expectations and those of others. Single largest category of guilt inductions = failure to pay sufficient attention to relationship partners. Inequity repeatedly implicated, pointing out that one had done or invested more than the other. These may be unattended transgressions.
Irony of survivor’s guilt. HIV (“spared at random”; Wayment, Silver, Kemeny, 1993). Reducing survivor’s guilt.
The irony of survivor’s guilt often surfaces in victims of oppression and misfortune such as survivors of the Holocaust and Hiroshima. More recent evidence of survivor guilt has been found among homosexual men who have tested negative for HIV, and so feel that they have been spared “at random” (Wayment, Silver, & Kemeny, 1993). Survivors guilt is reduced by maintaining a strong social network and maintaining community intregration.
