Recognizing the Role of Defensive Processes in Empirical Assessment of Shame

The empirical assessment of shame rests on self-report measures of shame- and guilt-proneness. One important limitation has been ignored—self-report measures do not assess unacknowledged or hidden shame, whether it is overt and undifferentiated or bypassed. It is assumed that low scores on shame subscales signify low shame (-proneness). However, among individuals who score low, some are really low in shame (those with genuine low shame) and some defensively deny it (and struggle with shame). Measure scores alone cannot distinguish between them and should not be taken at face value. Possible consequences of ignoring hidden shame are discussed, and suggestions for moving beyond the limits of self-report measures are offered. The role of clinical methods as the “gold standard” in shame assessment is emphasized. A variation of a word-association test based on 2 commonly used self-report measures is proposed and the possibility of obtaining more information from self-report measures if one examines more than a simple shame score is examined. Defensive processes could impact the variability of answers related to shame, the time needed to respond to shame-related items, and sensitivity to the increased intensity of shame-inducing situations. Hence, examining the pattern of responses, in addition to a simple shame score, could help in identifying individuals whose self-reported low shame score hides a large portion of shame that hurts too much.