Vicarious Shame and Guilt

By Brian Lickel, T. Schmader, Mathew Curtis, Marchelle Scarnier, D. Ames. 2005

313 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Social Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/5b5895dc33dbe090f6c43910a6cf2e9956184c0d

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Social Psychology

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Moral emotions and moral behavior. (2007, unknown): “As with personal guilt experiences, group-based or make amends (Iyer et al. 2003, Lickel et al 2005, Swim & And as with personal shame experiences, vicarious group-based shame (but not guilt) has been linked to a desire to distance oneself link between anger and shame is evident when considering…”
Cross-Domain Effects of Guilt on Desire for Self-Improvement Products (2015, background): “…leading to preferences for self-improvement products are restricted to a vicariously in Eastern cultures because research has demonstrated that people experience vicarious guilt in contexts where they perceive interdependency—high interpersonal interaction—with a wrongdoer (Lickel et al. 2005).”
Off-Field Behavior of Athletes and Team Identification: Using Social Identity Theory and Balance Theory to Explain Fan Reactions (2009, background): “of team identification are more likely to attend games, pay more for tickets, buy team sponsors’ products, and purchase more team merchandise (Madrigal, 1995; Wakefield, 1995; Wann & Branscombe, 1993). Wann and Branscombe (1993) reported that fans higher in identification had higher expectations for”
Group-Based Shame and Guilt: Emerging Directions in Research (2011, unknown): “Feeling guilty for the negative actions of one’s ingroup predicts greater support for affirmative action policies (Boeckmann & Feather, 2007), apology on behalf of the group (Doojse et al., 1998; Lickel et al., 2005), and reparations for past wrongs (Brown, González, Zagefka, Manzi, & Čehajić, 2008;”
How Perspective-Taking Helps and Hinders Group-Based Guilt as a Function of Group Identification (2009, background): “Turning to the behavioral consequences, research has so far clearly demonstrated that group-based guilt can elicit a desire to repair the harm done by the ingroup (Doosje et al., 1998; Lickel et al., 2005; McGarty et al., 2005).”
Atoning for Colonial Injustices: Group-Based Shame and Guilt Motivate Support for Reparation (2010, background): “As with essence shame, participants may sub-categorize the perpetrators or disidentify with the ingroup (Lickel et al. 2004; Lickel et al. 2005).”
The Roles of Entitativity and Essentiality in Judgments of Collective Responsibility (2006, background): “In particular, guilt motivates apology and reparations, shame motivates distancing from the wrongdoer, and ingroup directed anger motivates confrontation and punishment of the ingroup wrongdoer (e.g. Doojse et al., 1998; Iyer, Schmader, & Lickel, 2005; Lickel et al., 2005).”
Emotion in inter-group relations (2008, background): “For example, the term vicarious emotion appears to be specific to situations where an individual feels an emotion as a result of their inter-personal relationship to another individual who shares a group membership with them (Lickel et al., 2005).”
The Approach and Avoidance Function of Guilt and Shame Emotions: Comparing Reactions to Self-Caused and Other-Caused Wrongdoing (2006, methodology): “Drawing on past research (Lickel et al., 2005), shame was assessed as the average of " ashamed, " " humiliated, " disgraced, " and " embarrassed " (α = .86) and guilt as the average of " guilty, " " regret, " " sorry, " and " remorse " (α = .83, rated from 1: Not at all, 9: Very intensely).”