Contextualizing Shame: The Importance of Culture and Discrimination in the Study of Self-Conscious Emotions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Within Western psychology, shame is often seen as a maladaptive and hard to regulate selfconscious emotion. Yet, there is some emerging evidence that our knowledge of shame, and the emotion itself, are deeply influenced by cultural assumptions. I first start by providing a critical review of the literature on shame, highlighting differing, culturally-informed conceptualizations of shame in the West and in China and Taiwan. This review also highlights the potential role of social threats and discrimination in the social construction of shame for individuals. Study One then qualitatively explores the beliefs about shame and coping strategies used by Pakistani immigrants to Canada, without imposing a Western lens. Study Two tests two common assumptions about shame (i.e., shame and guilt are two distinct, separate emotions; past experiences of discrimination do not need to be systematically included) present in Western psychology in a Canadian (i.e., Western) sample. While shame is an innate emotional experience, findings suggest that shame and guilt may not be two fully distinct and separate emotions, and that past experiences of discrimination are positively associated with feelings of inferiority present in state shame.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".