The role of attributions in the process of overcoming shame: A qualitative analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: While attributions have been found to play an important role in the experience of shame, little is currently known about attributions that occur as part of shame reparation. This exploratory study investigated the attributions associated with recovery from shame, based on the perspectives of participants. DESIGN: Grounded theory was used in data collection and analysis. This approach has been used extensively for developing understandings of how people construct meaning, interpret events, and act on the basis of their beliefs and interpretations. METHODS: The participants were nine women and four men between the ages of 24 and 70. Data came from interviews in which the participants recalled a distressing shame experience and described how they recovered. Emphasis was on the participants' subjective perspectives, meanings, and interpretations. RESULTS: Shame involved global and stable dispositional attributions where the entire self was regarded as flawed and unattractive, and participants perceived themselves as powerless to change an unwanted identity. Internal causal attributions and self-blame were present in most but not all shame experiences. Recovery involved a movement towards specific and unstable attributions that enhanced self-concept and maximized a sense of power and control over the future. Shared and external factors that contributed to the event were also identified. CONCLUSIONS: When applied to psychotherapy for shame-related distress, these findings point to the importance of exploring clients' attributions related to specific shame events and using interventions that promote attributional change. Directions for further research are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".