Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Self-Focused Emotions and Ethical Decision-Making: Comparing the Effects of Regulated and Unregulated Guilt, Shame, and Embarrassment

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Research has examined various cognitive processes underlying ethical decision-making, and has recently begun to focus on the differential effects of specific emotions. The present study examines three self-focused moral emotions and their influence on ethical decision-making: guilt, shame, and embarrassment. Given the potential of these discrete emotions to exert positive or negative effects in decision-making contexts, we also examined their effects on ethical decisions after a cognitive reappraisal emotion regulation intervention. Participants in the study were presented with an ethical scenario and were induced, or not induced, to feel guilt, shame, or embarrassment, and were asked to reappraise, or not reappraise, the situation giving rise to those emotions. Responses to questions about the ethical case were evaluated for the quality of ethical sensemaking, perceptions of moral intensity, and decision ethicality. Findings indicate that guilt, shame, and embarrassment are associated with different sensemaking processes and metacognitive reasoning strategies, and resulted in different perceptions of moral intensity. Additionally, cognitive reappraisal had a negative impact on each of these factors. Implications of these findings for ethical decision-making research are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Amabile, T. M., Barsade, S. G., Mueller, J. S., & Staw, B. M. (2005). Affect and creativity at work. Administrative Science Quarterly,50, 367–403.

    Google Scholar 

  • Angie, A. D., Connelly, S., Waples, E. P., & Kligyte, V. (2011). The influence of discrete emotions on judgement and decision-making: A meta-analytic review. Cognition and Emotion,25, 1393–1422.

    Google Scholar 

  • Babcock, M. K., & Sabini, J. (1990). On differentiating embarrassment from shame. European Journal of Social Psychology,20, 151–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bagdasarov, Z., Thiel, C. E., Johnson, J. F., Connelly, S., Harkrider, L. N., Devenport, L. D., et al. (2013). Case-based ethics instruction: The influence of contextual and individual factors in case content on ethical decision-making. Science and Engineering Ethics,19, 1305–1322.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumeister, R. F., Stillwell, A. M., & Heatherton, T. F. (1994). Guilt: An interpersonal approach. Psychological Bulletin,115, 243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bond, F. W., & Bunce, D. (2000). Mediators of change in emotion-focused and problem-focused worksite stress management interventions. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bostyn, D. H., Sevenhant, S., & Roets, A. (2018). Of mice, men, and trolleys: Hypothetical judgment versus real-life behavior in trolley-style moral dilemmas. Psychological Science,29, 1084–1093.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coughlan, R., & Connolly, T. (2008). Investigating unethical decisions at work: Justification and emotion in dilemma resolution. Journal of Managerial Issues,20, 348–365.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, J. A., & Weary, G. (1993). Depression and the impression-formation continuum: Piecemeal processing despite the availability of category information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,64, 636.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberg, N. (2000). Emotion, regulation, and moral development. Annual Review of Psychology,51, 665–697.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ent, M. R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2015). Individual differences in guilt proneness affect how people respond to moral tradeoffs between harm avoidance and obedience to authority. Personality and Individual Differences,74, 231–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ethics and Compliance Initiative. (2018). Global business ethics survey. Retrieved from https://www.ethics.org/knowledge-center/2018-gbes. Accessed 27 June 2018.

  • Ferguson, T. J., & Stegge, H. (1998). Measuring guilt in children. A rose by any other name has still thorns. In J. Bybee (Ed.), Guilt and children (pp. 19–74). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaudine, A., & Thorne, L. (2001). Emotion and ethical decision-making in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics,31, 175–187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gross, J. J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integrative review. Review of General Psychology,2, 271.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gross, J. J. (1999). Emotion regulation: Past, present, future. Cognition and Emotion,13, 551–573.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gross, J. J. (2002). Emotion regulation: Affective, cognitive, and social consequences. Psychophysiology,39, 281–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,85, 348.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haga, S. M., Kraft, P., & Corby, E. K. (2009). Emotion regulation: Antecedents and well-being outcomes of cognitive reappraisal and expressive suppression in cross-cultural samples. Journal of Happiness Studies,10, 271–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: a social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108, 814.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haidt, J. (2003). The moral emotions. In R. J. Davidson (Ed.), Handbook of affective sciences (pp. 852–870). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hershey, D. A., Walsh, D. A., Read, S. J., & Chulef, A. S. (1990). The effects of expertise on financial problem solving: Evidence for goal-directed, problem-solving scripts. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,46, 77–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Isen, A. M. (2001). An influence of positive affect on decision making in complex situations: Theoretical issues with practical implications. Journal of Consumer Psychology,11, 75–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jamieson, J. P., Nock, M. K., & Mendes, W. B. (2012). Mind over matter: Reappraising arousal improves cardiovascular and cognitive responses to stress. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,141, 417–422.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johns, M., Inzlicht, M., & Schmader, T. (2008). Stereotype threat and executive resource depletion: Examining the influence of emotion regulation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,137, 691–705.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, J. F., & Connelly, S. (2016). Moral disengagement and ethical decision-making: The moderating role of trait guilt and shame. Journal of Personnel Psychology,15, 184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue-contingent model. Academy of Management Review,16, 366–395.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keltner, D., & Buswell, B. N. (1997). Embarrassment: Its distinct form and appeasement functions. Psychological Bulletin,122, 250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keng, S., Robins, C. J., Smoski, M. J., Dagenbach, J., & Leary, M. R. (2013). Reappraisal and mindfulness: A comparison of subjective effects and cognitive costs. Behaviour Research and Therapy,51, 899–904.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kligyte, V., Connelly, S., Thiel, C., & Devenport, L. (2013). The influence of anger, fear, and emotion regulation on ethical decision making. Human Performance,26, 297–326.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach to socialization. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research (pp. 347–480). Chicago: Rand McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krishnakumar, S., & Rymph, D. (2012). Uncomfortable ethical decisions: The role of negative emotions and emotional intelligence in ethical decision-making. Journal of Managerial Issues,24, 321–344.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leone, L., Perugini, M., & Bagozzi, R. (2005). Emotions and decision making: Regulatory focus moderates the influence of anticipated emotions on action evaluations. Cognition and Emotion,19, 1175–1198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, J. S., & Keltner, D. (2000). Beyond valence: Toward a model of emotion-specific influences on judgement and choice. Cognition and Emotion,14, 473–493.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, J. S., & Keltner, D. (2001). Fear, anger, and risk. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,81, 146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maitlis, S., & Ozcelik, H. (2004). Toxic decision processes: A study of emotion and organizational decision making. Organization Science,15, 375–393.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malooly, A. M., Genet, J. J., & Siemer, M. (2013). Individual differences in reappraisal effectiveness: The role of affective flexibility. Emotion,13, 302–313.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcy, R. T., & Mumford, M. D. (2007). Social innovation: Enhancing creative performance through causal analysis. Creativity Research Journal,19, 123–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • May, D. R., & Pauli, K. P. (2002). The role of moral intensity in ethical decision making: A review and investigation of moral recognition, evaluation, and intention. Business and Society,41, 84–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, R. S., & Leary, M. R. (1992). Social sources and interactive functions of emotion: The case of embarrassment. In M. Clark (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology: Vol. 14. Emotion and social behavior (pp. 202–221). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, R. S., & Tangney, J. P. (1994). Differentiating embarrassment and shame. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology,13, 273–287.

    Google Scholar 

  • Motowidlo, S. J., Dunnette, M. D., & Carter, G. W. (1990). An alternative selection procedure: The low-fidelity simulation. Journal of Applied Psychology,75, 640.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mumford, M. D., Connelly, S., Brown, R. P., Murphy, S. T., Hill, J. H., Antes, A. L., et al. (2008). A sensemaking approach to ethics training for scientists: Preliminary evidence of training effectiveness. Ethics and Behavior,18, 315–339.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mumford, M. D., Connelly, S., Murphy, S. T., Devenport, L. D., Antes, A. L., Brown, R. P., et al. (2009). Field and experience influences on ethical decision making in the sciences. Ethics and Behavior,19, 263–289.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mumford, M. D., Devenport, L. D., Brown, R. P., Connelly, S., Murphy, S. T., Hill, J. H., et al. (2006). Validation of ethical decision making measures: Evidence for a new set of measures. Ethics and Behavior,16, 319–345.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mumford, M. D., Schultz, R. A., & Osburn, H. K. (2002). Planning in organizations: Performance as a multi-level phenomenon. Annual Review of Research in Multi-Level Issues,1, 3–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mumford, M. D., Schultz, R. A., & Van Doorn, J. R. (2001). Performance in planning: Processes, requirements, and errors. Review of General Psychology,5, 213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niedenthal, P. M., Tangney, J. P., & Gavanski, I. (1994). “ If only I weren’t” versus” If only I hadn’t”: Distinguishing shame and guilt in counterfactual thinking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,67, 585.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfister, H. R., & Böhm, G. (2008). The multiplicity of emotions: A framework of emotional functions in decision making. Judgment and Decision Making,3, 5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Redmond, M. R., Mumford, M. D., & Teach, R. (1993). Putting creativity to work: Effects of leader behavior on subordinate creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,55, 120–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rest, J. (1983). Morality. In J. Flavell & E. Markman (Eds.), Manual of child psychology: Cognitive development (Vol. III, pp. 556–629). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rest, J. R. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and theory. New York: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rest, J. (1994). Background theory and research. In J. Rest & D. Narvaez (Eds.), Moral development in the professions (pp. 13–38). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum and Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheppes, G., & Meiran, N. (2008). Divergent cognitive costs for online forms of reappraisal and distraction. Emotion,8, 870–874.

    Google Scholar 

  • Small, D. A., & Lerner, J. S. (2008). Emotional policy: Personal sadness and anger shape judgments about a welfare case. Political Psychology,29, 149–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sonenshein, S. (2007). The role of construction, intuition, and justification in responding to ethical issues at work: The sensemaking-intuition model. Academy of Management Review,32, 1022–1040.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stenmark, C. K., Antes, A. L., Wang, X., Caughron, J. J., Thiel, C. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2010). Strategies in forecasting outcomes in ethical decision-making: Identifying and analyzing the causes of the problem. Ethics and Behavior,20, 110–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tangney, J. P. (1991). Moral affect: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,61, 598.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tangney, J. P. (1998). How does guilt differ from shame? In J. Bybee (Ed.), Guilt and children (pp. 1–17). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tangney, J. P., & Fischer, K. W. (1995). Self-conscious emotions: The psychology of shame, guilt, embarrassment, and pride. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tangney, J. P., Stuewig, J., & Mashek, D. J. (2007). Moral emotions and moral behavior. Annual Review of Psychology,58, 345–372.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thiel, C. E., Bagdasarov, Z., Harkrider, L., Johnson, J. F., & Mumford, M. D. (2012a). Leader ethical decision-making in organizations: Strategies for sensemaking. Journal of Business Ethics,107, 49–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thiel, C. E., Connelly, S., & Griffith, J. A. (2011). The influence of anger on ethical decision making: Comparison of a primary and secondary appraisal. Ethics and Behavior,21, 380–403.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thiel, C. E., Connelly, S., & Griffith, J. A. (2012b). Leadership and emotion management for complex tasks: Different emotions, different strategies. The Leadership Quarterly,23, 517–533.

    Google Scholar 

  • Troy, A. S., Shallcross, A. J., Brunner, A., Friedman, R., & Jones, M. C. (2018). Cognitive reappraisal and acceptance: Effects on emotion, physiology, and perceived cognitive costs. Emotion,18, 58–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousands Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science,16, 409–421.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Chanda Sanders, Paul Partlow, Logan Steele, Cassandra Fluitt, Leslie Hindman, and Shelby Douglas for their contributions to the present effort.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, The University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, 73072, USA

    Cory Higgs, Shane Connelly & Michael Mumford

  2. Division of General Medical Sciences, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, 63110, USA

    Tristan McIntosh

Authors
  1. Cory Higgs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tristan McIntosh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shane Connelly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Michael Mumford
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cory Higgs.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix A: Simulation Scenario

Davis, the group’s market research manager, generates reports on drugs’ safety and side effects to be included in any marketing research endeavors, and the work requires review and approval by industry scientists before it can be submitted for advertising consideration. InnoMark objects to this and has offered to negotiate with the drug companies for better terms. So far, Davis has refused on the grounds that he has no problem with the policy and does not want to compromise his reputation with the industry. Plus, it provides funding for his team of first-rate marketing staff and researchers, including you.

You and Jason are assigned with gathering data to determine the potential success of a marketing campaign for a new drug through focus groups and competitor evaluations in a local market. You know that tests of this drug have shown it could be groundbreaking in saving cancer patients’ lives—plus, the entire group stands to profit greatly from this project. Before developing the marketing analysis materials, you were tasked with reviewing Davis’s approved report, which is usually long and technical, to create a summary of the drug’s risks for you and Jason to include when developing your research materials. Although this usually takes several days, you have done this numerous times in the past, so you skimmed the report quickly to generate the shortened document to allow the group to move forward quickly on the marketing research.

A few months later, the data from the market analyses are presented to Davis and representatives of the pharmaceutical company who developed the drug. Everyone is thrilled with the results. The positive reactions to the upcoming availability of the drug, in addition to the drug being a first of its kind in the market, position the drug to be a highly successful, well-received product. Based on this information, the pharmaceutical company decides to develop and launch a nation-wide campaign within the next several months.

As you are writing up the final reports of the marketing analyses, you realize that one of the most critical risks was left off the list that you generated when developing the original focus group studies. You cannot believe that you did this and realize that the focus groups and competitor comparisons could be successful at least partly due to your leaving off an important piece of information. Any actual advertising campaigns would have to include this risk, greatly impacting the potential reception to and success of the drug. In short, the marketing analyses you and Jason did may be highly flawed- you are obviously accountable for this oversight.

You confide in your friend about this issue, and Jason replies candidly about what he learned in his first year—that the industry’s emphasis is on getting results. He points out that if the Davis group does not produce, the project will be turned over to another team that will, and the jobs will follow the money. Plus, he reiterates that Davis has said in the past that marketing research is just as much an art as it is a science, especially in pharmaceuticals, when risks are usually made to sound much more serious by drug companies than they actually are.

You walk away from the conversation unsure how to proceed. Inclusion of the risk in the advertisements may or may not result in a different outcome than the analyses suggest. However, you are not sure about moving forward with a highly inaccurate market analysis that, if discovered, could result in halting the marketing campaign, stopping the sales of the beneficial drug and losing millions in revenue.

Appendix B: Emotion Manipulations

figure a
figure b
figure c
figure d
figure e
figure f
figure g
figure h

Appendix C: Emotion Regulation Manipulation

Managing Your Emotions

figure i
figure j
figure k

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Higgs, C., McIntosh, T., Connelly, S. et al. Self-Focused Emotions and Ethical Decision-Making: Comparing the Effects of Regulated and Unregulated Guilt, Shame, and Embarrassment. Sci Eng Ethics 26, 27–63 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-018-00082-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-018-00082-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation