Shame-Coping and the Big Five Personality Traits Jeff Elison, Ph.D. Adams State University Initial Interest: Harter, school shootings. Role of humiliation and bullying.

Personality & Emotion-regulation Emotionality is a stable aspect of personality structure Emotionality influenced by characteristic emotion-regulation strategies (Bonanno & Burton, 2013) Shame-coping reflected in personality and psychopathology (Nathanson, 1992) Shame-regulation strategies are relatively stable traits of personality (Elison, Lennon, & Pulos, 2006) Replication of Elison (2000) / further validation

Shame-focused Coping: “The Compass of Shame” Withdrawal Attack Other Attack Self Avoidance SCE Shame Family: At the center… an instance of S, G, E, H Applies to all of these emotions. Briefly describe each Nathanson, 1992

Attack Self Feeling: “bad,” anger at self, self-disgust Thought: “I’m stupid / I hate myself” Motive: acceptance by others Behavior: deference, improve Example: A perfectionist student who gets a B+ says “I’m worthless” but studies twice as hard next time.

Withdrawal Feeling: “bad” Thought: acceptance of low status Motive: reduce emotional pain by minimizing exposure to others Behavior: withdraw, hide Example: A student who is picked last for a team decides to leave the game rather than play.

Attack Other Feeling: outward-directed anger Thought: others’ faults or status Motive: bolster own rank Behavior: blame others, put others down Example: A student who gets a C on the test mocks someone for their D.

Avoidance Feeling: “fine” Thought: no consciousness of feeling “bad” Motive: avoid feeling emotional pain Behavior: disavow goal, turn to distractions, focus attention on strengths Example: A failing student makes a joke of her grade and then changes the subject to her new car.

Adaptive Feeling: variable levels of shame Thought: why / what does this mean? Motive: make things “right” / stay connected Behavior: self-evaluate, improve, make amends, seek social support Example: After criticism, a student goes to friends for support and to help evaluate its legitimacy.

Personality – Big Five Model Neuroticism: tendency to experience negative affects & emotional instability Extraversion: sociable, active, talkative Agreeableness: altruistic, sympathetic, helps others Conscientiousness: planned, organized, reliable Openness: curious, independent, question authority

Hypotheses AS WD AO AV AD N E A C O +Large -Small -Mod +Mod -Large

CoSS: Compass of Shame Scale 58 items – 4 subscales w/ 12 items each, plus Adaptive (10 items); Elison et al., 2006 Rated on frequency of use Example: When I feel others think poorly of me: 1 2 3 4 5 I soothe myself with distractions. (AV) 1 2 3 4 5 I think of myself as flawed. (AS) 1 2 3 4 5 I want to be alone. (WD) 1 2 3 4 5 I get angry at other people. (AO) 1 2 3 4 5 I try to understand why. (AD)

NEO-FFI: Big Five Model (Costa & McCrae, 1992) 60 items – 5 subscales w/ 12 items each Likert scale: 1 (SD) to 5 (SA) Examples: Neuroticism: I often feel tense and jittery. Extraversion: I really enjoy talking to people. Agreeableness: I try to be courteous to everyone I meet. Conscientiousness: I keep my belongings clean and neat. Openness: I often try new and foreign foods.

Subjects N = 154 undergraduate students Females: 42%, Males: 58% Age: M = 21.7 White, non-Hispanic: 58%, Hispanic: 29%; Black: 8%

Reliability Attack Self: α = .91 Withdrawal: α = .85 Attack Other: α = .84 Avoidance: α = .73 Adaptive: α = .80 Neuroticism: α = .85 Extraversion: α = .77 Agreeableness: α = .69 Conscientiousness: α = .77 Openness: α = .77

Results AS WD AO AV AD N E A C O .57** +L -.26** -S -.04 -.06 -.03 .63** +L -.45** -M -.01 -.11 .03 .32** +M -.17* -.28** -L -.18* -S -.11 -.04 .30** .02 -M -.02 .17* -.15 -S .44** +S .32** .17* .27** * p < .05 ** p < .001

Conclusions / Implications Shame-coping styles reflected in personality traits Neuroticism : strong correlations with AS, WD, AO demonstrate the maladaptive nature of these shame responses their importance in understanding psychological adjustment Evidence for CoSS validity (AD)