The dark side of religion, spirituality and the moral emotions: shame, guilt, and negative religiosity as markers for life dissatisfaction.(Report)

Abstract

This study examines the relationship among levels of spirituality, religiosity, shame, and guilt on subjective well-being. A convenience sample that included graduate and undergraduate students (N = 176; mean age = 37) completed a five-factor measure of personality as well as measures of spirituality, religiosity, shame, guilt, and subjective well-being. The more one felt disconnected from God, or had spiritual struggles, the more shame and guilt one experienced. These spiritual struggles also lead to increased congregational conflict and increased negative affect and overall subjective well-being. The higher one's satisfaction with life the more congregational support they experienced thereby decreasing spiritual struggles. One's positive spiritual experiences, private religious practices and congregational support predicted subjective well-being. These findings suggest that spirituality, especially one's spiritual struggles, are related to overall subjective well-being, indicating that these topics are particularly relevant for pastoral psychology.

The Dark Side of Religion, Spirituality and the Moral Emotions: Shame, Guilt, and Negative Religiosity as Markers for Life Dissatisfaction

The moral emotions of shame and guilt have long been thought of as negative and impeding. In fact, as far back as Adam and Eve, with the consequences of partaking in the forbidden fruit, shame and guilt have played dramatic roles ill relationships and well-being (Watts, 2001). The intersection of the constructs of shame, guilt, religion, spirituality and well-being is often intertwined in the psychological and theological literature; the question arises as to what are the processes by which they relate to each other.

Traditionally the field of psychology has been ambivalent about shame and guilt with the emphasis on the negative, believing that these constructs reduced well-being and caused neurosis (Baumeister, Stillwell & Heatherton, 1994; Tangney, 1992, 1995). Consequently clinical work focused on attempting to lessen shame and guilt. The constructs of shame and guilt were often used synonymously in psychological research and treatment. In fact while shame and guilt often overlap, can co-occur, and are both affective reactions to internal and external standards, they do not have the same relationship effects (Baumeister, 1998; Lewis, 1971). Helen Block Lewis (1971) first influenced a change in the traditional view of shame and guilt and began the process of operationalizing them as distinct phenomena. She differentiated guilt as the experience of negative affect after engaging in a specific egregious action, while shame goes a step further to all-encompassing negative feelings about the self. To employ a sporting analogy, guilt follows from violating rules while shame occurs when one falls short of the goal. Guilt, then, involves some transgression, whereas shame relates to the feeling of not measuring up. June Tangney's (2002) empirical work on shame and guilt then provided empirical support for this more nuanced view. Her work suggested that guilt is often prosocial and motivating. At the same time she found that shame predicts decreased well-being. Tangney concluded that shame and guilt are distinctly different from each other cognitively, affectively and emotionally.

Ongoing empirical research shows that guilt can actually be healthy and promote one's interpersonal and intrapersonal relationships. Guilt is deeply tied to interpersonal connections in relationships; it acts to bind and strengthen those bonds while fostering prosocial, reparative behavior and enhancing empathy. Additionally, guilt has been found to be unrelated to psychopathology (Baumeister, Stillwell, & Heatherton, 1995, Tangney, 1992; Tangney, 1995) Shame, however, has been found to correlate with aggression, anger, a lack of empathy, disregard for others, substance abuse and a host of other psychological symptoms, including depression. Shame is less adaptive and affects a sense of self and self-worth in a global and negative manner (Dearing, Stuewig, & Tangney, 2005; Tangney, 1995; Tangney, Wagner, Fletcher, & Gramzow, 1992).

Theology nuances these distinctions even further by viewing each construct as having positive and negative aspects. Watts (2001) espouses the idea of good guilt and bad guilt, good shame and bad shame. His work is seminal in discussing the constructive properties of shame. He notes that,