Causes and Correlates: The Contribution of Parenting and Attachment Patterns to Shame and Psychopathology

According to the theoretical work of Mills (2005), the trauma of rejection by the primary attachment figure, as well as insecure attachment (characterised by a caregiver who is

consistently emotionally inaccessible and does not promote affect regulation in the infant) has long-term implications for the individual’s mental health (Mills, 2005). In Miller’s (1985) theoretical work, she argues that ideally, there needs to be a bond of affection, protectiveness, and appreciation for the child, and the caregiver should encourage the child to experience intimacy and identification with the caregiver, and facilitate him or her to live up to realistic expectations. This protects the child’s self-esteem and self-confidence (Miller, 1985). Actual or perceived sibling favouritism has been identified as a risk factor for a shame-prone

emotional style (Mills, 2005). In her review of the developmental literature, Mills (2005) identifies parental overcontrol, through treating the child as weak and incapable, and through fostering a perception of uncontrollability and inefficacy in the child, as a contributor to shame-proneness (Mills, 2005). Certain types of family environments also contribute to dispositional shame. In Mills’ (2003) empirical study, authoritarian parenting by both parents when the child was aged three years, for example, predicted shame in these children at five years.

Theoretical work by Patterson, DeBaryshe and Ramsey (1989) and Mills (2005) suggests that coercive interaction cycles, in which child and caregiver continually attack and counter-attack each other, may in part be determined by shame-rage. Mills (2005) argues that caregivers with

poor self-esteem may tend to feel vulnerable in difficult caregiving situations, and so inclined to respond harshly or coercively to the child in an attempt to regain control or power over the situation. Although there is no empirical support for this conjecture, Mills (2005) proposes that such parents may be vulnerable to feeling shame in situations where they feel a sense of low power, and they counter these feelings with interactions characterised by rage and hostility. In such family environments, it is also likely that hurtful caregiver messages will be communicated, including shaming messages, which are likely to engender a disposition towards shame (Mills, 2005). In addition, in families where children’s failures are frequently attributed to their inner traits (global, stable, internal attributions), and successes to external events, they may develop a depressogenic, helpless and pessimistic emotional style that contributes to shame-proneness (Mills, 2005). Excessive praise may also elicit shame, particularly if it conveys either low expectations of capability or unreasonably high

expectations, or when it implies that the child’s value or worth is dependent on performance (Mills, 2005). According to Mills (2005), it undermines motivation, may facilitate a sense of contingent self-worth and helplessness, and evoke self-consciousness which can disrupt performance.

On the basis of his clinical experience, M. Lewis (1998) argues that children may also experience shame when being disciplined for failing to meet accepted standards, rules and goals. Problematic disciplinary styles include those which involve high levels of blame, where there is a great deal of anger, contempt and disgust, and punitive attitudes are upheld (M. Lewis, 1998). Facial expressions of disgust and contempt, which are used to humiliate or shame the child out of the behaviour s/he is engaging in, tends to communicate a rejection or dismissal of the whole self (communicating the message “you are disgusting/contemptible”), and so results in internal, global attributions, which produce shame (M. Lewis, 1992). Optimal disciplinary strategies (such as reasoning with the child about the cause of his/her problem), which do not contribute to a shame disposition, are those in which only mild

negative affect is elicited that is short in duration due to effective interactive repair (M. Lewis, 1992; Mills, 2005). Those disciplinary techniques which involve power assertion and which are intensely negative not only contribute to the development of shame, but force children’s attention away from the content of the message, and thus render them incapable of reparation (M. Lewis, 1992).

A recent large eight-year longitudinal study (n = 363 time 1; n = 286 time 2; n = 297 time 3) illuminated the relationships between harsh parenting, sexual abuse and exposure to domestic

violence in childhood and parental rejection and parental warmth during adolescence (Stuewig & McCloskey, 2005). These variables, in turn, were then expected to have

associations with shame- and guilt-proneness, which was hypothesised to predict depression and delinquency in late adolescence. Results of the path models developed indicate that harsh parenting in childhood related to shame-proneness in adolescence, and that this association was mediated by parental rejection and lack of warmth in adolescence. Those young people who had cold, rejecting parents were more shame-prone and less guilt-prone than other youth. In addition, shame-proneness was related to higher levels of depression, and guilt-proneness was associated with lower levels of delinquency in late adolescence, a relationship that was attributed to the role played by heightened empathy in guilt-prone individuals. It is interesting that exposure to sexual abuse and domestic violence did not relate to shame- or guilt-

proneness in adolescents. Stuewig and McCloskey (2005) speculate that perhaps it is because psychological maltreatment (implied in parental rejection and lack of warmth) plays a more significant role in the development of a shame-prone emotional style than other forms of abuse.

Poor parental bonding has also been associated with shame. Specifically, in Lutwak and Ferrari’s (1997) study involving 264 women and 140 men (young adults), shame was associated with memories of parents being demanding, over-controlling and non-nurturing during childhood. In addition, in this study, fear of negative social evaluation, social anxiety and interpersonal avoidance were identified as significant predictors of shame in young adulthood (Lutwak & Ferrari, 1997).

In Bradshaw’s (2005) theoretical formulations, he argues that shame within families is often intergenerational because it remains unconscious. The internalisation of shame as an identity involves at least three processes: 1) identification with unreliable and shame-based models which is the source of “carried” shame from one generation to another; 2) the trauma of abandonment, which severs the “interpersonal bridge” (Kaufman, 1993, p. 33) and the binding of feelings, needs and drives with shame; and 3) the interconnection of memory imprints, which forms collages of shame. Thus, one of the most significant determinants of shame is abandonment (Bradshaw, 2005). This may take the form of the actual physical absence of the caregiver, through emotional abandonment and narcissistic deprivation by the caregiver (which often leads to role reversal between caregiver and child), through the

creation of a fantasy bond (enmeshment), abandonment through the neglect of developmental dependency needs, or abandonment through abuse (Bradshaw, 2005). These processes all lead

to disorganised attachment styles, which persist from childhood to adulthood (Fonagy, 2011; Steele, 2011).

On the basis of Mills’ (2005) theoretical review of the developmental literature on the role of families in the lives of children, she argues that families’ socialisation of emotions is

important in the development of shame. In particular, children of caregivers who face and validate emotions (as opposed to ignoring or denying them) in themselves and their children, and view their child’s negative emotions as an opportunity for learning how to label emotions and tackle and solve the problems that arise from them, are less likely to develop a disposition to shame. She argues that it has repeatedly been demonstrated in the recent literature that discussion of emotions plays an important role in developing emotional awareness and affect regulation (Mills, 2005).

Based on M. Lewis’ clinical experience, and Mills’ (2005) theoretical work, these authors postulate that shaming family environments, which include those in which caregivers themselves are prone to shame and children chronically experience “empathic shame” and model self-blaming attributions, may facilitate the development of a disposition to shame (M. Lewis, 1992; Mills, 2005). M. Lewis’ (1992) clinical work suggests that early trauma, such as parental depression, addictions, or conflict tend to produce more empathic behaviour in children because of the child’s attempts to help his/her parents – s/he typically blames him/herself globally for failure, which leads to shame. He also suggests that in general, individuals who tend to make internal attributions also tend to be more shame-prone (M. Lewis, 1992). Thus, any family environment which encourages internal, global attributions for failure, are likely to foster a shame-prone emotional style (M. Lewis, 1992). This has been shown in Mills, Arbeau, Lall and De Jaeger’s (2010) empirical study, in which child shame responding, parental shaming, and child temperamental inhibition were assessed at time 1 (n = 225, aged 3-4 years), shame responding was reassessed at time 2 (n = 199, aged 5-7 years), and shame-proneness was assessed at time 3 (n = 162, aged 7-9 years). Results indicated that higher mother shaming, and associated promotion of internal, global negative self-

attributions, predicted increased shame in low inhibition girls between pre-school and school- going age, and high inhibition boys at the same age (although father shaming only contributed to boys’ shame in preschool). Interestingly, there are also notable gender differences in

parents’ socialisation practices. This may be why some studies have found that girls show more shame than boys (Mills et al., 2010).

Parentification (the reversal of parent and child roles which occurs because the parent’s own needs for acceptance, nurturance and support were not met during childhood) also plays a role in the development of shame. Parentified children develop a false self in response to

unreasonable parental demands and conditional love, and become split off from their true needs, values and wishes, and begin to value themselves only for their abilities to be intuitive and meet others’ needs (Wells & Jones, 2000). On the basis of a large-scale study involving 197 undergraduate students, Wells and Jones (2000) found that parentification demands a premature identification with the parental expectations and needs, at the expense of the development of the child's own strengths and talents, tending to leave the child feeling

ashamed of the true or authentic self's unrewarded strivings. In this study, parentification was related to shame-proneness, but not guilt-proneness, supporting the notion that parentification involves the internalisation of unreasonable parental expectations which is accompanied by shame about the “real” or true self (Wells & Jones, 2000).

Finally, it is important to consider the theoretical work by N. K. Morrison. Although the role played by biological factors in schizophrenia is significant, the trauma of early rejection by parents has been associated with the pervasive experience of shame that is characteristic of schizophrenia (N. K. Morrison, 1987). These individuals are excessively prone to shame; a reaction that is traced back to repeated shame experiences perpetrated by important parental figures. Early rejection is thought to facilitate repeated rejections in later life, which leads to individuals with schizophrenia avoiding social interaction and affectionate feelings. It is the habitual nature of early shaming that is considered most damaging. People with schizophrenia are prone to emotional engulfment, which is attributed to extreme sensitivity to interpersonal interactions. Individuals with schizophrenia also tend to be particularly sensitive to fears of exposure. They typically fail to achieve psychological differentiation and integration – this failure at integration in particular leads to the feeling that aspects of the individual’s character or personality are unacceptable, and s/he tends to feel intense shame about them. These aspects of the self are often projected onto others. Paradoxically, individuals with

schizophrenia also tend to experience an exaggerated sense of responsibility, and tend to see themselves as to blame for situations which are not objectively their fault, which leads to intense feelings of shame (N. K. Morrison, 1987).

It is interesting to note that people with schizophrenia may either have a paranoid or schizoid personality organisation (N. K. Morrison, 1987). Schizoid individuals are aloof, often

fantasy, particularly fantasies of omnipotence which can be understood as an escape from experience of shame. It is argued that they desire attachments, but tend towards detachment as a defense against extreme sensitivity to shame. Unlike paranoid individuals, the schizoid person takes on the experience of shame (and personal responsibility for it) without question. In paranoia the individual reacts to shame as if it is a premeditated assault on the integrity of the self, and consequently s/he feels indignant, righteous anger. It is relevant to draw attention to the split typically experienced in the shame reaction (the vicarious experience of the

shaming other, and the [shamed] experience of the self) that makes the paranoid individual’s frequent belief that others are watching him/her, and that others are attempting to control him/her by putting thoughts in his/her head, more understandable (N. K. Morrison, 1987).