Survey instruments examining the perspective of HIV infected people were coded for items measuring enacted stigma, anticipated stigma, and internalized stigma. Items were coded as enacted stigma if they measured perceived experiences of prejudice and/or discrimination. These items spanned a wide range of experiences, including discriminatory actions (e.g., “At the hospital/clinic, I was left in a soiled bed” [11 (link)]), verbal abuse (e.g., “Someone told me HIV is what I deserve for how I lived” [9 (link)]), and social rejection (e.g., “I feel some friends have rejected me because of my illness” [8 (link)]). Items were coded as anticipated stigma if they measured the expectation of experiencing future prejudice and discrimination. Some of these items referenced discriminatory behaviors (e.g., “Most employers would not employ me because I am HIV+” [50 (link)]) while others measured the anticipation of dislike by others (e.g. “My neighbors would not like living next door if they knew I had HIV” [50 (link)]). Finally, measures were coded as assessing internalized stigma if they measured the application of shame and/or negative beliefs associated with HIV/AIDS to the self. Items assessing shame (e.g., “I feel ashamed that I have HIV” [50 (link)]), guilt, (e.g., “I feel guilty because I have HIV” [9 (link)]), and worthlessness (e.g., “I felt completely worthless” [11 (link)]) were common examples.
Shame
It is a complex social emotion that can have profound impacts on an individual's mental health and behavior.
Shame is often associated with experiences of social rejection, public humiliation, or the failure to meet societal expectations.
This MeSH term provides a comprehensive overview of the psychological, physiological, and behavioral manifestations of shame, as well as its role in various mental health conditions and interpersonal dynamics.
Reserachers can leverage this description to enhance their understanding of shame and its implications for scientific inquiry and clinical practice.
Most cited protocols related to «Shame»
In order to determine convergent validity for the MISS-HP, the 17-item Expressions of Moral Injury Scale (EMIS-M) was utilized (Currier et al. 2018 (link)). This scale was originally developed to assess symptoms of MI in former or current military personnel. For the purposes of this study, the wording of items on the EMIS-M was modified by Currier so that the statements would apply specifically to healthcare professionals (EMIS-HP). Each of the 17 items is rated on a Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) with all items worded in the same direction. Higher total scores indicate the number and severity of MI symptoms, reflecting maladaptive behaviors and internal experiences associated with the moral challenges involved in delivering clinical care. The EMIS-HP includes only the psychological symptoms of MI. The internal reliability α of the EMIS-HP in the current sample was 0.93.
Stigma-related terms: stigma*, labeling, prejudice, social acceptance or social approval, social discrimination, social perception, stereotyped attitudes, shame, discrimination or disability discrimination, judgment, fairness, health services accessibility, treatment barriers.
Mental health-related terms: mental disorders, psychiatric patients, psychiatric symptoms, recovery disorders, relapse disorders, work-related illnesses, mental health, well-being.
Workplace-related terms: occupations, employment history, occupational adjustment, occupational tenure, personnel, professional personnel, working women, employment status, employability, reemployment, supported employment, occupational health, industrial and organizational psychology, working conditions, unemployment, personnel termination, downsizing, workplace*, quality of work life, occupational stress, organizational climate.
Program evaluation-related terms: mental illness (attitudes toward), mental health program evaluation or mental health programs, community mental health training or mental health inservice training or inservice training or professional development, program development, program evaluation, health promotion, health education or health knowledge or health literacy or social marketing or client education, structured clinical interview or interviews or psychodiagnostic interview or interviewers or interviewing or qualitative research or questioning or narratives or life review or narrative therapy or storytelling or health attitudes or attitudes or disabled (attitudes toward) or employee attitudes or employer attitudes or health personnel attitudes, or occupational attitudes or public opinion or work (attitude toward) or attitude measurement or attitude measures, campaign or initiative or aware or program or train or intervene or workshop or seminar or curriculum or booster session or strategy or implement or course or symposium or coach or mentor or blitz or policy or policies or guideline or recommendation or standard, questionnaires or mail surveys or surveys or telephone surveys.
Most recents protocols related to «Shame»
Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics
Trait | OCD | HC | p-value* |
---|---|---|---|
38,7 (11,9) | 39,6 (13,1) | n. s | |
Female n, | 19 (61,3%) | 19 (61,3%) | n. s |
Male n, | 12 (38,7%) | 12 (38,7%) | |
Single, n | 17 (54,8%) | 12(38,7%) | |
Married, n | 9 (29,0%) | 19 (61,3%) | p = 0.009 |
Divorced, n | 5 (16,1%) | 0 | |
Current Partnership | |||
- No | 13 (41,9%) | 7 (22,6%) | n. s |
- Yes | 18 (58,1%) | 24 (77,4%) | |
High school, n | 25 (80,7%) | 24 (77,4) | |
Junior high school, n | 3 (9,7%) | 5 (16,1%) | n. s |
Low school., n | 3 (9,7%) | 2 (6,5%) | |
Current employment (Including be a student), n | 22 (71,0%) | 27 (87,1%) | n. s |
No current Job, | 9 (29,0%) | 4 (12,9%) | |
F42.0, n | 5 (16,1%) | / | |
F42.2, n | 26 (83,9%) | ||
mean (SD), years | 23,2 (9,1) | / | |
mean (SD), years | 15,8 (10,8) | / |
*x2-Test/ t-Test; n. s. non-significant, OCD Obsessive–compulsive disorder, HC Healthy controls
Patients and healthy volunteers aged 18–67 years were included. Further inclusion criteria were a verbal IQ > 70, sufficient German language skills and the ability to give informed consent according to the Helsinki and ICH-GCP declarations. Exclusion criteria for the study were: severe somatic diseases; other mental diseases, such as reduced intelligence (ICD10 F70–F70.9), schizophrenia (ICD10 F20–F20.9) or organic brain disorders (ICD10 F06–F06.9, dependence on illegal drugs); acute suicidal tendencies or behaviour endangering others; and lack of informed consent to participate in the study.
Furthermore, psychopharmacotherapy was not an exclusion criterion for patients with OCD. In this respect, 96.8% of the patients (n = 30) received monotherapy, whereby antidepressants from the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor group [e.g. sertraline (n = 21), escitalopram, paroxetine, fluoxetine] but also clomipramine (a tricyclic antidepressant) were predominantly used. Moreover, seven of the patients received a combination treatment (mainly a sedating antipsychotic medication, e.g. promethazine or quetiapine). At the time of inclusion in the study, 12 patients were receiving psychotherapeutic treatment (validation therapy: n = 9; deep psychology: n = 3). Only five of the patients (16.1%) with OCD had not received psychotherapy at the time of study inclusion, either currently or in the past. A detailed anamnesis was taken from all OCD patients and healthy volunteers in a semi-structured interview (duration 45–60 min). The psychometric characteristics, including shame and guilty proneness, were gathered using various questionnaires.
The study was approved by the local Ethics Committee (No. 20–6883) of the Medical Faculty of Ruhr-University Bochum.
The final sample for this study comprised 68 undergraduate students recruited through the university’s online research system, flyers posted around campus, and departmental e-mail listservs. Inclusion criteria were being 18 years of age or older, self-reported English fluency in speaking, reading, and writing, and baseline scores ≥ 65 on the Experience of Shame Scale (ESS; Andrews et al., 2002 (link)). Though there is no established cut-off score on the ESS to indicate clinically meaningful shame, research in an English-speaking undergraduate sample indicated that the mean ESS score was 55.58 (SD = 13.95; Andrews et al., 2002 (link)), suggesting that the 75th percentile of ESS scores falls at approximately a score of 65, which was used as the minimal cut-off score for the current study.
Demographic characteristics of the sample are displayed in Table
Demographic and baseline clinical characteristics of sample (n = 68)
Intervention Group (n = 29) | Control Group (n = 39) | Statistical Test | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean or n | SD or % | Mean or n | SD or % | ||
Age (M, SD) | 20.29 | 2.26 | 20.59 | 3.62 | t(65) = -0.39 |
Female (n, %) | 25 | 86.2 | 30 | 76.9 | χ2(1) = 0.93 |
Gender minority (n, %) | 1 | 3.4 | 3 | 7.7 | χ2(1) = 0.54 |
Sexual orientation minority (n, %) | 13 | 44.8 | 17 | 43.6 | χ2(1) = 0.004 |
Racial identity (n, %) | χ2(3) = 1.09 | ||||
Black/African American | 2 | 6.9 | 6 | 15.4 | – |
Asian | 5 | 17.2 | 7 | 17.9 | – |
White | 17 | 58.6 | 23 | 59.0 | – |
Other (e.g., mixed race) | 3 | 10.3 | 3 | 7.7 | – |
Missing or not reported | 2 | 6.9 | – | – | – |
Ethnicity (n, %) | χ2(1) = 1.81 | ||||
Hispanic | 5 | 17.2 | 3 | 7.7 | – |
Non-Hispanic | 21 | 72.4 | 35 | 89.7 | – |
Missing or not reported | 3 | 10.3 | 1 | 2.6 | – |
Concurrent treatment (n, %) | 9 | 31.0 | 18 | 46.2 | χ2(1) = 1.59 |
Change in treatment (n, %) | 3 | 10.3 | 3 | 7.7 | χ2(1) = 0.66 |
Average # letters written | 8.17 | 6.18 | – | – | – |
ESS | 79.17 | 9.54 | 77.56 | 9.44 | t(66) = 0.69 |
OAS-2 | 18.83 | 7.16 | 18.72 | 5.44 | t(66) = 0.07 |
FSCRS-IS | 23.55 | 6.15 | 22.97 | 6.35 | t(66) = 0.38 |
SCS-SF | 28.66 | 7.71 | 27.95 | 6.75 | t(66) = 0.40 |
PHQ-9 | 13.17 | 6.47 | 13.77 | 5.17 | t(66) = -0.42 |
GAD-7 | 12.72 | 5.04 | 12.05 | 4.49 | t(66) = 0.58 |
Gender minority = gender identity other than cisgender; sexual orientation minority = sexual orientation other than heterosexual; concurrent treatment = receiving psychotherapy or psychotropic medication at the time of beginning the study; change in treatment = change in psychotherapy or psychotropic medication over the course of the study; average # letters written = the average number of completed days of the intervention; ESS Experience of Shame Scale, OAS-2 Other As Shamer Scale-2, FSCRS-IS Forms of Self Criticizing/Attacking and Self-Reassuring Scale, Inadequate Self Subscale, SCS-SF Self-compassion Scale-Short form, PHQ-9 Patient Health Questionnaire-9, GAD-7 Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item Scale. None of the tests were statistically significant
Top products related to «Shame»
More about "Shame"
This social emotion can have profound impacts on an individual's mental health and behavior.
Shame is often associated with experiences of social rejection, public humiliation, or the failure to meet societal expectations.
Researchers can leverage this understanding to enhance their inquiries into the psychological, physiological, and behavioral manifestations of shame, as well as its role in various mental health conditions and interpersonal dynamics.
Synonyms and related terms for shame include embarrassment, mortification, humiliation, and ignominy.
Abbreviations such as SH may be used to denote shame in research contexts.
Key subtopics include the neurological and physiological correlates of shame, the role of shame in the development and maintenance of mental health disorders like depression and social anxiety, and the interpersonal and cultural factors that influence shame experiences.
Analytic tools like SPSS (versions 21, 26, and 27), Stata 12.0, and NVivo qualitative software can be leveraged to investigate shame-related phenomena.
Biochemical assays like the DNAzol reagent, X-gal, and Quantitative colorimetric calcium assay kits may also provide insights into the biological underpinnings of shame.
Additionally, the Mouse ProInflammatory 7-Plex Ultra-Sensitive Kit could be used to examine the cytokine profiles associated with shame-inducing experiences.
By integrating these multidisciplinary approaches, researchers can deepen our understanding of shame and its implications for individual well-being and interpersonal dynamics.
This knowledge can ultimately inform more effective interventions and strategies for addressing the challenges posed by this complex emotional experience.