Violence and Victims, Vol. 10, No.

2, 1995
1995 Springer Publishing Company
The Role of Shame and Guilt in the
Intergenerational Transmission of
Abusiveness
Donald G. Dutton
Cynthia van Ginkel
Andrew Starzomski
Department of Psychology
University of British Columbia
Shame-proneness has been f ound to be related to anger arousal and a tendency to exter-
nalize attributions for one's own behavior, both common features of men who assault
their wives. The present study examined a potential origin of a shame-prone style by
analysing reports of shaming experiences by ones' parents as reported by a population
of assaultive males. Signif icant relationships were f ound for recollections of shaming
actions by parents on adult anger, abusiveness (as reported by the men's wives), and a
constellation of personality variables related to abusiveness in prior research. These
associations maintained even after corrections were made for response sets such as social
desirability. These shaming actions were largely comprised of recollections of parental
punishment that were public, random, or global. The role of shame experiences in dis
turbances of self-identity and rage is discussed.
Men who assault their wives experience high levels of chronic anger (Dutton, 1994a, 1995),
high levels of chronic trauma symptoms (Dutton, 1995b), a tendency to externalize the
cause of their violence (Dutton, 1986; Sonkin, 1985, 1995; Starzomski & Dutton, 1994)
and an admixture of shame and guilt about their violence (Dutton & Hemphill, 1992). In
the latter study, the authors argued that underreporting of violence inf luenced by social
desirability in an abusive population may be indicative of "shame or guilt regarding reported
behaviors" (Dutton & Hemphill, p. 31).
Dutton (1994a) also f ound that abusive men demonstrated disturbances of the self some-
times referred to as borderline personality organization (BPO) (Oldham et al., 1985), and
indicating disturbances of identity, transient psychotic experiences, and the use of "prim-
itive defenses" such as splitting and projection. Dutton (1994a) and Dutton & Starzomski
(1993) f ound BPO to be signif icantly related to the f requency of anger in intimate rela-
tionships, to chronic trauma symptoms, and to abusiveness. Furthermore, abusive men who
scored high on BPO demonstrated a tendency to project or externalize blame (Dutton 1994a;
Starzomski & Dutton, 1994).
121
722 D. G. Button et al.
In related studies (Dutton, 1994b; Dutton, Starzomski & Ryan, in press) both BPO and
chronic anger were f ound to be related to experiences in the family of origin; specifically,
parental coldness and rejection. Using a measure of recollections of parental treatment called
the EMBU, after its original Swedish name (Ferris, Jacobsson, Lindstrom, von Knorring,
& Ferris, 1980), strong and signif icant correlations were f ound between features of abuse,
direct measures of abuse, and recollections of parental treatment. These associations per-
sisted after corrections for socially desirable reporting tendencies and did not seem to rep-
resent a response style (Dutton & Starzomski, 1994). The EMBU assesses, inter alia, rec-
ollections of parental warmth and rejection. Some of the items appear, prima facie, to tap
guilt-inducing and shame-inducing behaviors by each parent, while others tap generally lov-
ing or rejecting actions. Hence, the possibility exists that the recollection of shame-induc-
ing actions by parents may be related to abusiveness and its related features.
Some recent work by Tangney (1991) has detailed chronic shame-proneness as a poten-
tial mediator between the early experiences of assaultive men and their adult experience of
anger and abusiveness. Tangney (1991) differentiates shame-proneness and guilt-proneness
as two moral affective styles, where the former has to do with "global, painful and devastat-
ing experience in which the self, not just behavior, is painf ully scrutinized and negatively eval-
uated" (p. 599). In this sense, shame-inducing experiences which generate a shame-prone style
may be viewed as attacks on the global self and should produce disturbances in self-identity.
Tangney (1991) also speculated that shame-prone ind ivid uals would be more likely to
externalize blame, as any admission of culpability would regenerate shame. Tangney, Wagner
& Gramzow (1989) developed a self-report inventory called the TOSCA (Test of Self
Conscious Af f ect) to assess chronic af f ective reactions to interpersonal events. Based on
TOSCA scores, shame-prone individuals were f ound to demonstrate a high propensity for
anger and self-reports of aggression (Tangney, Wagner, Fletcher, & Gramzow, 1992).
All of Tangney's research involved undergraduate populations, and no attempts were made
to assess potential shame-inducing experiences in the f amily of origin of these subjects. The
objective of the present study is to assess recollections of shaming experiences in a sample
of men in treatment for wife assault. By recalculating the EMBU into specific categories for
shame and guilt-inducing actions and actions which made the respondent feel unloved, the
present study examines the relationship of the recollection of specific affect-generating par-
enting actions to the TOSCA, to associated features of abusiveness (anger, chronic trauma
symptoms, borderline personality) and to abusiveness itself, as reported by the men's female
partners.
METHOD
Testing and assessment included:
Recollections of Early Experiences
The Egna Minnen Betraffande Uppfostran (EMBU: Memories of My Upbringing) (Ferris
et al., 1980) scale was used to provide a quantitative measure of the respondents' memo-
ries of their upbringing, scored separately for mother and father. The EMBU was originally
developed in Sweden and has been translated and widely used with English-speaking sub-
jects (Gerslma, Emmelkamp, & Arrindell, 1990). It is an 80-item scale that assesses mem-
ories of parental rearing behavior. The psychometric properties of the English version were
developed by Ross, Campbell, and Clayter (1982). The relationship of EMBU scores to
adult abusiveness is reported by Dutton, Starzomski, and Ryan (1994). For purposes of the
Shame, Guilt, and Abuse 123
present study, subscales were abstracted from the EMBU that assess shame, guilt, and feel-
ing unloved.
a) Shame Scale: The 22-item Shame scale (11 items for each parent) was developed by
aggregating reports of parental actions that fit one of three criteria theoretically related to
shaming. These involved recollections of (a) public humiliation by the parents (e.g., "As a
child I was physically punished or scolded in the presence of others"), (b) random punish-
ment (e.g., "My parent beat me for no reason"), and (c) parental treatment that affected the
whole self (e.g., "My parent treated me in such a way that I felt ashamed"). Resulting EMBU
Shame scale items meeting these d ef initional criteria were 4, 8, 13, 16, 18, 22, 26, 29, 33,
35, and 40. Factor analysis revealed a Reliability alpha for the Shame scale of the EMBU
of .93. Item total correlations ranged from +.52 to +.69.
b) Guilt Scale: The 8-item Guilt scale contained items of projected guilt (e.g., "I felt my
parent thought it was my f ault when he/she was unhappy"). EMBU Guilt scale items were
3, 11,18 and 28. Reliability alpha on the Guilt scale was .81. Item total correlations ranged
from +.46 to +.68.
c) Unloved Scale: The 22-item unloved scale (11 items per parent) involved recollections
of f eeling unloved and/or unsupported by a parent. The scale included items of direct parental
liking ("My parent showed with words and gestures that he/she liked me, my parent wished
I had been like somebody else"), interest ("My parent showed an interest in my own inter-
ests and hobbies"), physical af f ection ("My parent hugged me") and support ("If things went
badly for me, my parents tried to comfort and encourage me"). Unloved scale items were
1 (reversed), 9 (reversed), 15 (reversed), 17,19(R), 24(R), 34(R), 38(R), 41,42(R), and 43(R).
Item 6 was dropped as its correlation with the scale total was just +.38. The unloved scale
had a reliability alpha of .94. Item-total correlations ranged from +.56 to +.75.
The Self-Report Instrument for Borderline Personality Organization
This is a 30-item instrument derived through factor analysis of a 130-item questionnaire
designed by the authors. (Oldham et al., 1985) The thirty item scale retains items with the
strongest factor loadings for each of the three subscales of identity dif f usion, primitive defenses,
and reality testing.
The f irst subscale, id entity d if f usion, measures a poorly integrated sense of self or of
signif icant others. Identity d if f usion is assessed by ascertaining dif f iculties in describing
one's own personality or the personalities of others, uncertainty about career or goals, con-
tradictory behaviors, and instability in intimate relationships. The second subscale mea-
sures primit ive def enses. Items were written to cover defenses of splitting, idealization,
d evaluation, omnipotence, d enial, projection, and projective identif ication.
Reality testing items were written to cover external versus internal origins of percep-
tions, evaluation of own behavior in terms of social criteria of reality, dif f erentiation of self
f rom non-self , internal reality testing, and the cognitive process of reality testing. Oldham
et al. (1985) report on the scale's intrascale consistency, interscale relationships and rela-
tionship to BPD dif f erential diagnosis, and the application of the scale to differing theories
of Borderline Personality Organization and its DSM-III-R Axis 2 d ef inition. Cronbach's
alpha for Id entity Dif f usion is .92. Dutton (1994a) and Dutton & Starzomski (1994) f ound
the BPO scale to be strongly associated with abusiveness.
Anger
The Multid imensional Anger Inventory (MAI) (Siegel, 1986) is a 38-item self-report scale
assessing the f ollowing dimensions of anger response: frequency, duration, magnitude, mode
124 D. G. Dutton et al
of expression, hostile outlook, and range of anger-eliciting situations. Siegel reports the
results of a factor analysis of this scale and the reliability of its subscales (alphas equal to
.51 to .83) and the scale as a whole (alpha equal to .84 and .89 for two separate samples).
The scale was validated by correlation with other conceptually similar anger inventories.
Dutton (1994a) and Dutton & Starzomski (1994) f ound the MAI to be strongly associated
with abusiveness.
Abusiveness
a) Physical Abuse: The Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) (Straus, 1979) is a standardized scale
designed to measure the f requency and intensity of 19 tactics used by couples to resolve
conflict. The scale includes verbal and physical abuse. Respondents report both their own
use of these tactics and their use by a partner. In the current study, subjects reported the
number of times during the past year that various tactics were used. Straus, Gelles, and
Steinmetz (1980) have published population norms for the usage of each tactic in a vari-
ety of intimate relationships.
b) Psychological Abuse: The CTS does not includ e a broad range of nonphysical
aggression. In order to obtain this measure, Tolman's (1989) Psychological Maltreatment
of Women Inventory (PMWI) was included. The PMWI contains 58 items (rated from 1
"never" to 5 "very f requently") which comprise two factors: Dominance/isolation includes
items related to rigid observance of traditional sex roles, demands for subservience, and
isolation from resources. Emotional/verbal abuse includes withholding emotional resources,
verbal attacks, and behavior that degrades women. In the sample considered in this study,
the Cronbach's alpha for the d ominance/isolation subscale was .82, and for the emo-
tional/verbal subscale it was .93.
Trauma
The Trauma Symptom Checklist (TSC-33) (Briere & Runtz, 1989) is a 33-item instrument
that has been shown to discriminate victims of childhood sexual abuse from nonvictimized
respondents for both females (Briere & Runtz, 1989) and males (Briere, 1992). The TSC-
33 contains f ive subscales: Dissociation, anxiety, depression, post-sexual abuse trauma
(PSAT)-hypothesized, and sleep disturbance. The PSAT-hypothesized subscale includes
those symptoms thought to be most characteristic of sexual abuse experiences, but which
may also occur as a result of other types of trauma. Analysis of the f ive subscales' internal
consistency indicated reasonable reliability, with an average subscale alpha of .71 and an
alpha of .89 for the total instrument (Briere & Runtz, 1989).
PROCEDURE
Testing and clinical assessment was done on 140 court-referred and self-referred males
interviewed by the Vancouver Assaultive Husbands Project and the Victoria Family Violence
Institute. All men had prior histories of wif e assault. Self-referred men usually request treat-
ment for their assaultiveness because of an ultimatum from their wives. In order to mini-
mize effects from treatment on test results, all men were assessed during the first 3 weeks
of a 16-week treatment program. Only North American-born men were included in the cur-
rent sample to avoid interpretative problems arising from language dif f iculties or from dif-
ferent culture norms. The demographic profile of this group is as follows: Average age =
Shame, Guilt, and Abuse 125
35 (range 17-65), average level of education = grade 12, average income was $34,285 (63%
self-identified as blue-collar, 37% as white-collar), average assaultiveness in prior year =
11.5 (S.D. = 9.2) acts of physical violence against their wif e (self-reported on the Conflict
Tactics Scale [Straus, 1979]); 56% were still living with the assault victim.
Criterion information on the mams abusiveness was supplied by 76 female partners of
men in this study. These women were 31 years of age on average and demographically
similar to their husbands. The women were interviewed as part of a general treatment assess-
ment process.
RESULTS
Mean scores on key variables were as follows for this group: BPO 71.5 (16.6), Anger 81.3
(19.2), Shame 34.5 (12.3), Guilt 15.1 (4.8), Unloved 71.6 (37.6), Marlowe-Crowne 13.8 (4.8).
Table 1 shows correlations between Shame experiences, anger (MAI) and BPO, Trauma
Symptom Checklist scores, and measures of abusiveness (CTS scores and Psychological
Maltreatment of Women Inventory). All reported correlations have been corrected for social
desirability effects (see Dutton & Starzomski, 1994). While all three scales correlated sig-
Table 1. Correlations of Shame, Guilt and Unloved Experiences to Associated Features of
Abusiveness (Anger, Trauma Symptoms and Borderline Scales) and to
Abusiveness in a Population of Assaultive Men (N = 140)
Shame Guilt Unloved
Mother Father Mother Father Mother Father
BPO total
Identity diffusion
Primitive defenses
Reality testing
Anger (MAI)
In
Out
Magnitude
Frequency
Hostility
TSC total
Sleep deprivation
Depression
Anxiety
Dissociation
PSAT
PMWI1
PMWI2
CTS: Man's self report
Wife's self-report
CTS: FOO: DY
MY
.33***
34***
35***
.20*
35***
31***
.14
.33***
32***
33***
27**
.09
29*
.28*
.21*
.18
39***
34***
.38**
.24*
59***
.55***
.54***
45***
.51***
36***
36***
27**
.30**
28**
32***
.17
.15
4]***
.36***
27**
.24*
35***
33***
.31*
.26*
.66***
29**
32***
.30**
.14
27**
.18
.19*
2
5
**
28**
.26**
.25*
.08
.28*
.26*
.20*
.14
33**
32**
.12
.18
50***
.46***
49***
39***
37***
34***
.25**
37***
.26**
.24*
3 j ***
.10
.02
.33**
.30**
.24*
.20*
31 **
30**
.09
.17
4] ***
.24*
.24*
.19*
.23*
.21*
.17
.02
.17
.19*
.21*
29**
.15
.19
.19
.21*
.22*
29***
.10
41***
55***
.11
.20*
.24*
.14
.18
.19*
.20*
-.122
.23*
.12
.09
.17
.01
.34**
.25**
31**
.30**
27**
.08
35***
50***
.36**
MAIMultidimensional Anger Inventory. TSCTrauma Symptom Checklist. BPOBorderline Personal-
ity Organization Scale. PMWI 1Factor 1 of the Psychological Maltreatment of Women Inventory (Domi-
nance/Isolation). PMWI 2Factor 2 of the Psychological Maltreatment of Women Inventory (Emotional
Abuse). CTSConflict Tactics Scale (Physical Abuse only). FOOFamily of origin (Physical Abuse only).
DYDad to You. MYMom to You.
*p<. 05. **/ ?<. 01. ***p<. 001.
126 D. G. Dutton et al.
TABLE 2. The Relationship of Recall of Parental Shaming and
Guilt-Induction to Reports of Parental Abusiveness
Verbal Abuse
Shame
Guilt
By Father
57***
.46***
By Mother
46***
.35**
Physical Abuse
By Father
.61***
45***
By Mother
.52***
55***
**p<. 01. ***p<. 001.
nif icantly with BPO (and its subscales), the Multidimensional Anger Inventory, Trauma
Symptoms and both self- and wives' reports of abusiveness, a Fischer z statistic on the mag-
nitude of the correlations revealed those for shame to be significantly greater (z = 4 3 p <
.05).
To f urther clarif y the specific relationship of recollections of shaming to adult abusive-
ness, some further analyses were performed. First, we correlated recalled shaming and guilt-
inducing actions with scores on the CTS for parental verbal and physical abuse. Table 2
shows the result. Obviously, memories of shaming and guilt-ind ucing parental actions
were highly associated with reports of parental abusiveness.
Given that reports of parental abusiveness were highly correlated with both shaming
and guilt, we performed a partial correlation for the effects of shaming and guilt on both
BPO and anger scores. These criterion variables were chosen as they constitute the strongest
measures of what Dutton (1994b) has described as an "abusive personality" (p. 181). In
addition, scores on the PMWI completed by female partners were included as a direct mea-
sure of abusiveness. Tables 3 and 4 show the results for direct and partial correlations
between early experience reports and adult abusiveness.
With physical abuse scores on the CTS partialled out, shame scale scores still correlated
signif icantly with BPO scores (.35, P = .004) and with anger scores (.22, p = .05); guilt
scale scores correlated signif icantly with BPO scores (. \9,p = .05) but not with anger scores
(.09, ns). With both verbal and physical abuse scores on the CTS partialled out, shame scores
TABLE 3. Patterns of Correlation Between Early Experiences of Shame and Guilt and Adult
Personality. (N = 140) and Wives' Reports of Men's Adult Abusiveness (N = 76)
Shame
Guilt
(With physical
Shame
Guilt
BPO
.38***
30
***
abuse by parents partialled out)
.35**
.22*
MAI
.32***
.26**
.19*
.09
PMWI1
37***
33**
.03
.09
PMWI 2
34***
32**
.11
.12
(With both verbal and physical abuse by parents partialled out)
Shame .33** .14
Guilt .20* .10
.00
.05
.06
.08
BPOBorderline Personality Organization (self report by man). MAIMultidimensional Anger Inventory
(self report by man). PMWI 1Factor 1 of the Psychological Maltreatment of Women Inventory (Dominance/
Isolation). PMWI 2Factor 2 of the Psychological Maltreatment of Women Inventory (Emotional Abuse).
*p<.05. **/7<. 01. **V<-001.
Shame, Guilt, and Abuse 127
TABLE 4. Patterns of Correlation between Early Experiences of Abuse by
Parents and Adult Personality (N = 140) and Abusiveness (N = 76)
BPO
Verbal abuse .27*
Physical abuse .23*
(With shame partialled out)
Verbal abuse .14
Physical abuse .00
(With guilt partialled out)
Verbal abuse . 1 5
Physical abuse .04
BPO Borderline Personality Organization (self report
Maltreatment of Women Inventory (Dominance/Isolation).
ment of Women Inventory (Emotional Abuse).
V<.05. **p<m
Anger
.24*
.33**
.07
.16
.09
.13
by man). PMWI
PMWI 2 Factor
PMWI
.25*
.35*
.13
.18
.14
.18
1 PMWI 2
.25*
.27*
.13
.11
.15
.13
1 Factor 1 of the Psychological
2 of the Psychological Maltreat-
still correlated signif icantly with BPO scores (.33, p =.003) but not anger (.14, ns). Guilt
scores correlated signif icantly wit h BPO scores (.20, p <.05) but not anger (.10, ns).
Interestingly, when shame scores were partialled out, none of the verbal or physical abuse
scores from the CTS correlated signif icantly with either BPO or anger scores.
DISCUSSION
EMBU Shame and Guilt scale scores correlated significantly with abusiveness, anger, trauma
symptoms, and borderline personality in adult perpetrators of physical abuse. Of the two
EMBU subscales, recollections of shaming were more strongly related to adult problems
than were guilt recollections. Only Shame recollections were signif icantly related to self-
reports of physical abusiveness. Partial correlations suggested that shaming experiences
were more important than experiences of physical abuse in the strength of their relation-
ship to adult abusive personality. .
The present data support the notion that global attacks on the self-concept (to the extent
that the men's recollections were veridical) had signif icant effects on the maintenance of
that self concept in adulthood (Tangney, 1991). In an undergraduate sample, van Ginkel
(1994) f ound significant correlations between the shame and guilt scales on the EMBU and
the corresponding shame and guilt proneness scales on the TOSCA (van Ginkel 1994).
Dutton & Starzomski (1993) f ound that, if anything, assaultive men tend to idealize reports
of parental treatment. Paternal rejection, for example, correlated -.57 with social desirabil-
ity scores in a court-mandated sample. When social desirability was factored out, correla-
tions of adult measures of abusiveness with parental treatment measures tend to increase.
In our clinical group, for example, BPO measures of Identity Dif f usion were significantly
related to recollections of both parental shaming and guilt-ind ucing treatment. Removing
725 D. G. Dutton et al.
social desirability from the assessment of parental treatment strengthens this relationship.
Dutton (1995b) derived a scale to assess the "propensity for abusiveness" by correlating
wif e assaulters' self-descriptors with their wives' reports of abuse victimization. The result-
ing scale, called the Propensity for Abusiveness Scale (PAS) has 29 items, of which 10
derive f rom the EMBU. Of these, six are shame scale items.
Furthermore, partialling out physical and verbal abuse by parents does not alter the sig-
nif icant correlation between recollections of shaming and BPO or anger. Recollections of
shaming experiences correlated signif icantly with BPO scores, even after recall of both
physical and verbal abuse by parents was partialled out. One interpretation of this result is
that shaming experiences, which attack the global self, are most directly related to forma-
tion of borderline personality organization. Since the signif icant correlation of shaming
experiences to abusiveness disappears with parental abusiveness partialled out, it may be
that parental abusiveness provides the modeling component through which borderline per-
sonality manif ests itself in adult relationships. The shaming experiences contribute to the
personality formation, and the parental abusiveness to the modeling of behaviors to express
the borderline anger.
Since both parental shaming and abusiveness are naturally confounded (see Table 2),
most boys experience both the shaming attacks with their consequences for abusive per-
sonality and the physical abuse on which they model behavior. This interpretation is sup-
ported by the f ind ing that partialling out shaming diminishes the significance of reports of
parental abuse to BPO self-report scores. Hence, recollections of shaming may be more
important than recollections of physical abuse in shaping what Dutton (1994b) has termed
"the abusive personality" (p. 181). Conversely, when shaming and guilt experiences did
not occur, parental abusiveness has no signif icant correlation with adult abusiveness. These
data may be accounted for by a two-step model where shaming and guilt develop the abu-
sive-prone personality, a necessary but not suf f icient precursor of abusive behavior. Modeling
of abusive behavior is the required second developmental step. In most abusive families,
both steps occur concomitantly. The current data however, being retrospective from a self-
selected group, can only be suggestive of this model. We are currently assessing nonabu-
sive men from dysf unctional families to further elucidate this model.
The abusive personality is characterized, inter alia, by high chronic anger and an attri-
but ional tend ency to ext ernalize blame (Dut t on, 1994b; Starzomski & Dutton, 1994).
Tangney (1991) f ound shame-proneness measured on the TOSCA to be related to both anger
and externalizing tendencies. Van Ginkel (1994) f ound that shame and guilt-proneness on
the TOSCA were signif icantly related to both shame and guilt experienced in the family
of origin. These recollections of early experiences of shame and guilt bore signif icant cor-
relations to a chronic af f ective style characterized by Tangney (1991) as shame-proneness,
which may be the motivational source of externalizing.
Miller (1985) and others (e.g., Lewis 1987; Lewis 1992; Retzinger, 1991; Scheff, 1987;
Tangney, Wagner, Fletcher, & Gramzon, 1992; Tompkins 1987; Wurmser, 1981) have com-
mented on the relationship of shame to anger, which Scheff calls "the shame-rage spiral"
(p. 111). In general, these analyses derive from Helen Block Lewis' description of "humil-
iated f ury" (Lewis, 1971, p. 68). Tangney et al. (1992) f ound signif icant correlations between
TOSCA shame-proneness and hostility, anger arousal, and tendencies to blame others for
negative events. Novaco (1976) described anger as serving the f unction of overriding less
acceptable emotions. Shame and guilt would appear to be two such emotions. Shame-prone-
ness, as Tangney described it, was a tendency to experience global attacks on the self.
Since such af f ective experiences are aversive, shame-prone ind ivid uals attempt to ward
Shame, Guilt, and Abuse 129
them off by externalizing cause for negative events, thereby avoiding personal responsi-
bility which they experience as shameful.
The present data reveal three possible sources of shame-proneness in assaultive males.
These are public scolding, random punishment, and generic criticism. All three, it appears,
generate experiences of shame in terms of global attacks on the self. Random punishment,
for example, does not allow the punished child to dif f erentiate the actions which led to the
punishment from more global aspects of themselves; hence, the effect generalizes to the
entire self, to a sense of "badness." Recollections of shaming experiences are correlated
with adult anger and tendencies to project blame. This projection may serve the function
of warding off the re-experience of this sense.
Given the tendency of shame-prone individuals to attempt to ward off personal respon-
sibility, the abusive male is faced with a dilemma as a result of his abusive behavior. Most
abusive men f ind their abusiveness personally unacceptable (Button, 1986; Dutton &
Hemphill, 1992). It violates their self-standards. Faced with the reality of their mistreat-
ment of their wives, which itself induces shame, most abusive men resort to denial or min-
imizing. Surprisingly, little has been written about the treatment ramifications of shame-
proneness in assaultive men. Wallace & Nosko (1993) argue that shame is associated with
anxious attachment in batterers and that shame drives the contrition phase of the abuse cycle
(Walker, 1979). Our current data are consistent with this notion. Wallace & Nosko (1993)
advocate group therapy as an effective technique for working with shame-prone individu-
als because of the safety and co-confessional aspects of groupwork. Before this advantage
can be realized, however, hurdles must be crossed. Having to attend a group, and the require-
ment of the group that members reveal past transgressions, can itself be shame-inducing.
The exercise of confession, typical in most treatment groups can allow men to overcome
their shame through what the authors call "vicarious detoxification"; listeners encounter
their own shame as each member of the group confesses. Projective identification permits
men to encounter parts of themselves otherwise split off through hearing other men's con-
fessions, and sets the stage for working through shame issues. Furthermore, the require-
ment that each man confess builds group solidarity. Eventually, anger, rage and violence,
the original defenses against shame, no longer become necessary.
REFERENCES
Briere, J. (1992). Child abuse trauma. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Briere, J., & Runtz, M. (1989). The trauma symptom checklist (TSC-33): Early data on a
new scale. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 4, 151-162.
Dutton, D. G. (1986). Wife assaulters' explanations for assault: The neutralization of self
punishment. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 18, 381-390.
Dutton, D. G. (1994a). Behavioral and af f ective correlates of Borderline Personality
Organization in wif e assaulters. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 17, 265-
279.
Dutton, D. G. (1994b). The origin and structure of the abusive personality. Journal of
Personality Disorders, 8, 181-191.
Dutton, D. G. (1995a). A scale for measuring propensity for abusiveness. Journal of
Family Violence, 70(2).
Dutton, D. G. (1995b). The domestic assault of women: Psychological and criminal jus-
tice perspectives. Vancouver, Canada: University of British Columbia Press.
130 D. G. Dutton et al.
Dutton, D. G. (1995c). Trauma symptoms and PTSD profiles in perpetrators of abuse.
Journal of Traumatic Stress, 8(2), 299-315.
Dutton, D. G., & Hemphill, K. J. (1992). Patterns of socially desirable responding among
perpetrators and victims of wife assault. Violence and Victims, 7, 29-39.
Dutton, D. G., & Starzomski, A. (1993). Perpetrator characteristics associated with women's
reports of psychological and physical abuse. Violence and Victims, 8, 327-337.
Dutton, D. G., & Starzomski, A. (1994). Psychological differences between court-referred
and self-referred wif e assaulters. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 21, 203-222.
Dutton, D. G., Starzomski, A., & Ryan, L. (in press). Antecedents of abusive behavior and
abusive personality in wif e assaulters. Family Violence.
Fincham, F., & Bradbury, T. N. (1992). Assessing attributions in marriage: The Relationship
Attribution Measure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 457-468.
Gerlsma, C., Emmelkamp, P. M. G., & Arrindell, W. A. (1990). Anxiety, depression and
perception of early parenting: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 10, 251-
277.
Kasian, M., & Painter, S. (1992). Frequency and severity of abuse in a dating population.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 7, 350-364.
Lewis, H. B. (1971). Shame and Guilt in Neurosis. New York: International Universities
Press.
Lewis, H. B. (1987). Shame and the narcissistic personality. In D. Nathanson (Ed.), The
many faces of shame (pp. 233-255). New York: Guilf ord.
Lewis, M. (1992) Shame: The exposed self. Hillsdale, NJ; Erlbaum.
Miller, S. (1985). The shame experience. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Novaco, R. (1976). The f unction and regulation of the arousal of anger. American Journal
of Psychiatry, 133, 1124-1128.
Oldham, J., Clarkin, J., Appelbaum, A., Carr, A., Kernberg, P., Lotterman, A., & Haas, G.
(1985). A self-report inst rument for Borderline Personality Organization. In T. H.
McGlashan (Ed.), The borderline: Current empirical research, (pp. 1-18). Washington,
DC: American Psychiatric Press.
Perris, C., Jacobsson, L., Lindstrom, H., von Knorring, L., & Perris, H. (1980). Development
of a new inventory for assessing memories of parental rearing behaviour. Acta Psychiatrica
Scandinavica, 61, 265-274.
Retzinger, S. M. (1991). Violent emotions: Shame and rage in marital quarrels. Newbury
Park, CA:Sage.
Ross, M. W., Campbell, R. C., & Clayter, J. R. (1982). New inventory of measurement of
parental rearing patterns. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 66, 499-507.
Scheff, T. J. (1987). The shame-rage spiral. A case study of an interminable quarrel. In H.
B. Lewis (Ed.), The role of shame in symptom formation (pp. 109-140). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Siegel, J. (1986). The multidimensional anger inventory. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 51, 191-200.
Sonkin, D. (1985). The male batterer: An overview. In D. Sonkin (Ed.), The male batterer:
A treatment approach (pp. 33-58). New York: Springer Publishing Co.
Starzomski, A., & Dutton, D. G. (1994). Attachment style, anger and attribution in the inti-
mate context. Unpublished manuscript, University of British Columbia, Vancouver,
British Columbia, Canada.
Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring f amily conflict and violence: The conf lict tactics scale.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41, 75-88.
Shame, Guilt, and Abuse 131
Straus, M. A., Gelles, R. J., & Steinmetz, S. (1980). Behind closed doors: Violence in the
American family. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press.
Tangney, J. (1991). Moral affect: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 61, 598-607.
Tangney, J., Wagner, P., Fletcher, C., & Gramzow, R. (1992). Shamed into anger? The rela-
tion of shame and guilt to anger and self-reported aggression. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 62, 669-675.
Tangney, J., Wagner, P., & Gramzow, R. (1989). The test of self-conscious affect. Unpublished
test. George Mason University, Fairfax, VA.
Tolman, R. M. (1989). The development of a measure of psychological maltreatment of
women by their male partners. Violence and Victims, 4, 159-177.
Tompkins, S. S. (1987). Shame. In D. Nathanson (Ed.), The many faces of shame (pp. 128-
137). New York:Guilford.
van Ginkel, C. (1994) Two measures of shame in undergraduate males. Unpublished man-
uscript, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Walker, L. (1979). The battered woman. New York: Harper, & Row.
Wallace, R., & Nosko, A. (1993). Working with shame in the group treatment of male bat-
terers. International Group Psychotherapy, 43, 45-61.
Wurmser, L. (1981). The mask of shame. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Acknowledgment. This research was implemented through grants f rom the Solicitor General of Canada
and Health and Welfare Canada.
Offprints. Requests for of f prints should be directed to Dr. Donald G. Dutton, Department of Psychology,
University of British Columbia, 2136 West Mall, Vancouver, B. C., V6T 1Z4, Canada.
Reproducedwith permission of thecopyright owner. Further reproductionprohibited without permission.