'1}!ng ‘1' 1 .'

.1 "vi?” ' .
“TH-r?” (3') wig-c"

“arr ._
.. 3%“ ..

_ 1-

‘W-gfl .
Vt "J"")(' 1": (shill: L"? $3152. "1;“. "'6; ' ' Rig" N <". -. Z: 335’~”‘L‘ 11:04"
3% It” "M”: V": ' ' ' ' 3.1 ‘1q1.’.{? 3‘
‘x' I" E‘s-1”) U“ ' ‘ ,
_ 1343.311.9121.;L-yfi;

"'44:,

.‘L'
- [XE .'
-— .'
' a

L' 6:.

6

._w c ,1 "Ix-.34. £4
,. ' ~ .2 ' pf» . 4r.
. . m I (’Y‘F,
§ ;,'-;4‘ i-c-z'uwn' ‘ Wee-T33" .
. |I- 1"
.1

. ~ ' I . i "a 'c 0 4 .
n4 _ . . . .Qfig. ‘ ”w T" .333,
~ 31-” 4': «X
, figua‘f. .-;_i
.I‘ N O
.1 ‘ v 4.
«“3" ”"3".

r
‘.r~

' \

flan, :1. 314.": 4
LL u‘ ',
;;#} :‘:"" I¢JLJL 1

"'15..

. . :"é‘r . .
\u ‘1'“ W't'Lc’Fflv“. 3.1" ~' ,
1'13" 3:47

I .
_ 4‘4 .61.“) ‘
"‘_J| ‘1' 1k: '

“JL‘1P “but... wag-‘2' 5'.‘

 

I

 

*uamv
Michigan 8m
Winn-any

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

THE MEASUREMENT AND CONSTRUCT 0F SHAME

presented by

Wesley Novak

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

\_/‘

 

 

 

Ph.D. Ps ch 10
—_degrwin&
Majorprofessor
Date 7/29/86
5
"(III-n-Ak‘w—ml . - r‘ H‘ ’ 0.12771

 

 

_...-.. 1'- ;: '..J£-3-£“- 1-. 3". i".

-WWMW
“WW

.pwh—h—Fa—Q—

 

RASLJ

 

RETURNING MATERIALS:
Place in book drop to

 

 

 

 

   
     
 

LlBRARlES remove this checkout from
—_1-—. your record. FINES will
be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped below.
gtuewfiw '35 W"
17 x2oo _
r1»! :1 ': iii-1M i. i. it] u
srp 2 5 me
We ‘5}7’.“
/0n—.
’ "Md .9”! 0 1‘1!)
We 1 9 197*: 5 >
“m" IEAQWH
_ 3 o' 7! 1‘"

 

 

.h,
T . .
4 IE 5? 3‘

:

 

 

THE MEASUREMENT AND CONSTRUCT OF SHAME

BY

Wesley Novak

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Psychology

1986

ABSTRACT

THE MEASUREMENT AND CONSTRUCT 0F SHAME

BY
Wesley Novak

Whereas shame, the concept and the experience, has been
theoretically explained in a variety of ways, there has been
very little empirical work investigating shame. The purpose
of this investigation was to both theoretically and
statistically discover, through factor analytic techniques,
the dimensionality of shame. It was postulated that
previously constructed shame scales might be meaningfully
grouped into a profile of various clusters or components of
shame. Towards that end, a preconceived profile of shame
clusters, based upon an affect theory of shame was
formulated. The profile model assumed that shame becomes
differentially associated with its source or activator.
Items from existing shame measures (Beall Shame—Guilt Test,
Perlman Attitude Anxiety Survey, and Cook Shame Instrument)
were combined and administered to a college population.
Factor analytic techniques were used to test the
preconceived profile in addition to other measurement models
suggested by the data.

Confirmatory factor analysis indicated that a four
factor model "best fits" existing shame measurement. The
results did not support the theoretically preconceived"
profile. Instead, the data supported a model of three
factors as represented by three general shame states:
feelings of inferiority, extreme self-consciousness, and
fears about exposure of self. Additionally, a fourth factor
indicated that individuals differ in their propensity to
experience shame in "consensually validated" shame

Wesley Novak

situations. This shame vulnerability factor merits further
empirical work, since the qualitative nature of the shame
reaction of the respondents remains unclear.

Present shame theory fails to adequately elucidate the
model found in existing shame measures. The measurement
model which fits the data requires further conceptual
thought, particularly the relationship between feelings of
inferiority and feelings of exposure (self-consciousness).
One path model which fits the data is presented and
discussed. Additionally, this investigation indicated that
though there is a rich range of states described in
association with the construct of shame, current shame
measurement appears limited in its "tapping" of this domain.
It is suggested that the domain of existing shame measures
be expanded to include more of the states of shame described
in the literature.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My work on this investigation involved much self—
examination and personal growth. Upon completion, it is the
process of interaction, both with self and others, rather
than the product, which I most value. Along the way, there
were many contributing persons, whose impact, support,
guidance, and assistance I wish to acknowledge.

A special thanks to the two members of my committee
with whom I worked most extensively, Professors Gershen
Kaufman and John Hunter. It is through my dialogue with Dr.
Kaufman that I became interested in studying the experience
of shame. Gersh, you were instrumental in getting this
project (as well as my self) off the ground. Your
generosity with your time, as well as your respect and
support for my autonomy in constructing this project are
greatly appreciated. John, the opportunity for an ”ex-
jock" such as myself (I'm not so sure about the "ex") to
engage with a ”true scholar” was certainly a privilege. I
know your challenging engagement with my ideas and work,
helped me to "discover my brain”. I deeply appreciate and
enjoyed your full engagement with this project. Your
involvement with this research far exceeded that expected of
a committee member. Your critical readings of my written
work, while at times frustrating, made for a better final
product. I would also like to extend thanks to the other
three members of my committee: Dr. Bert Karon, Dr. Gary
Stollak, and Dr. Andrew Barclay.

I spent many hours with my friend John Pepple
discussing ideas about shame, sharing our tribulations and
triumphs in the dissertation process as well as ”Celtic" and

"Spartan” games, and disclosing our inner conflicts and

ii

relational struggles. This was not only enjoyable and
enriching, but was critically supportive of my personal
growth. I look forward to sharing the years ahead.

I'd also like to express my gratitude to two teachers,
Dr. Len vanderJagt and Dr. Sam Plyler, whose strong support
and respectful understanding made the dissertation
experience less isolating. Sam, your emotional honesty,
integrity and wholeness as a male role model is quite rare.
Thank-you for the sharing and compassionate listening, it
has strengthened me. Len, I deeply appreciate your belief
and support of me as a clinician, particularly during the
troubled times when I had "too much" dissertation on the
brain.

Whereas, time to spend with special caring friends was
all too sparse, I want to thank Art (Myers), Sara (Wood-
Kraft), Lisa (Blank), and Andrea (Solarz) for their
supportively sharing some of my hardships as well as the
joys along the way. A special thanks to my friend Beth
(Woodard). The love and affection we were able to share
(during a most difficult period in both of our lives), while
bringing conflict and frustration, also energized and
gratefully opened me up to previously shameful aspects of
myself. Thank-you also for your deep respect for my
professional talents, as well as thoughtful listening to my
verbalized worries, goals, and dreams. I hope we can share
mmre in the near future.

One big thanks to Suzy Pavick. Your competence as a
typist (I'd still be hacking away at those tables) and
effectiveness as ”unofficial” department administrator made
getting through the beaurocratic "hoops” (pardon the
blasphemous use of the term) much easier. I'd also like to
thank my friends Mary (Reinhart) and Rand (Gottschalk) for
their helpful consultations on statistical analyses early in
the project. As for the correct use of the term ”hoops",
thanks to the Friday morning basketball crew, both as a safe

iii

outlet for pent-up aggression and as a consistent source of
male comradery over the years.

I also wish to acknowledge the support of my family.
Whereas I have been distant from you for many years, both
geographically and emotionally, I appreciate your interest
in and strong desire to support me. I am hopeful and look
forward to our continued reinvolvement.

Finally, I wish to acknowledge the many clients and
clinical supervisors whom have shared their lives with me in
my professional work as a therapist. These interactions
have repeatedly confounded and clarified my understanding of
"shame".

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LIST or FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3535323223 Eigeiié’blim. I ’ ° ° '

Competence Shame . . . 1 I I I
Appearance/BodyiShame

Rejection/Rela onship°Shame.
Character Shame . . . . . . . .
Affect Shame . . . . . . .

Moral Ethical Shame .

Socia Inappropriateness/Embarrass e

Shame Awareness . . . .
Research Design and Objective . . .
METHODOLOGY 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Participants . . .

00800000000
00:000....

Procedure . I . : : . . . I I I
Testing. Instruments . . . . . . . . .

Cook Shame Instrument. . . I I I I I I
Explanation of Em irical Investigation .
Statistical Proce ures . . . . . . . . .

RESULTS 0 O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Overview . . . .
Defining the Structure: Unidimensionality. .
Substan ive Findings: Inter- cluster Correlations.

Path Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
DISCUSSION 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
Apriori Profile Contrasted with Findings

Discrete Traits of Inferiority .
Affect Shame . . . . . . .

Shame Awareness . . . . . . . .
Social Inappropriateness . . . . . .
Moral Shame . . . . . . .
State- ~Trait Distinction . . . . . . .
Contrasting Theoretical Models of Sha
Findings: Four Factor Model . . . . . . .
OVEIView O O O O O O O O
Situational Shame . . . . . .
Fear of Exposure . . . . .
Embarrassment . . . . . . . . . . . .
Inferiority . . . . . .
Correlations between Final Scales . . . .
Shame Theory: Self- consciousness Contr as ste
‘ Inner Deficiency . . . . . .
Directions for Future Research . . . . .

Problem of Lan uage
Expanding the omain of Shame Items

V

S
0

90.00.0000

0 o o o to o o o
H
o o o 0 ff. 0 o o

3'

vii
viii

HHHHHHPHHH
mqqmmbmwnmm H

N NNNHHHH H
U‘ wHommmm \0

“COMM
0030“”

uh
uh

$650501 UIU'IMMU‘U'U'Ul-bab-bubhbb
U'hbubN mammunwomamqmob

The Inner Experience of Shame . . . . . . . .
Methodological Problem: Defenses Against Shame

APPENDICES O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0
APPENDIX A - Instruments. . . . . . . . . . . . .
APPENDIX B - Tables 0 O O O O O O O I O O O O O 0
APPENDIX C - Figures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

REFERENCES 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

vi

Table

Bl.
82.

B3.

B4.

LIST OF TABLES

Tables in Body

Means, Standard Deviations, of the Shame Items
Grouped by Factor . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cluster Means Standard Deviations, and
Reliabilities . . . . . .

Correlations between Nine Clusters Corrected for
Attenuation . . . . . . .

Correlations between Seven Clusters Corrected for
Attenuation . . . . . . .

Inter-correlations of Situational Shame, Fear of
Exposure, and Inferiority . . . . . .

Test of the Path Model Shown in Figure 1.

Tables in Appendix B
Correlations Among 131 Shame Items . . . . . . .

Results of the Exploratory Factor Analysis of the
131 Shame Items . . . . . . . .

Summary of the Results of the Confirmator Factor
Analysis for Nine Clusters: Correlat ons
between the Items in Each Cluster . . . . .

Summary of the Results of the Confirmatory Factor
Analysis for Nine Clusters: Correlations
between Items and Factors . . . . .

vii

Page

27
35
37
38
40
42
96

105

110

116

Figure

1.

C1.

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figures in Body

A causal model of the relations between feelings
of inferiority, vulnerability to embarrass-
ment, fear of exposure, and vulnerability to
situational shame . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Cross-tabulation of apriori clusters and final
clusters for 131 shame items . . . . . . . 45

Figures in Appendix C

Items grouped by factor for fourteen clusters . 122

viii

Introduction

Very little research attention has been paid to the
concept of shame as an important dynamic in personality
formation. Lynd (1958) has attributed the neglect of shame
to the lack of clarity about the meaning of the word, which
she claimed has often been used interchangeably with, or
subsumed under the heading of "guilt". Erikson assserted
that: ”shame is an emotion insufficiently studied because in
our civilization it is so clearly and so easily absorbed by
guilt" (Erikson, 1950, p. 252). Fisher (1985) has suggested
that the frequent substitution of ”guilt" for "shame”, in
both common usage and in otherwise precise psychological
descriptions, provides at least circumstantial evidence of
the avoidance of the terrible pain of shame; "simply put, no
one wants to talk about it" (p.4). What has been written
has failed to yield a consensus as to its nature.

Shame, the concept and the experience , has been
understood in a variety of ways. The plethora of theoretical
"lenses" used to investigate the shame experience has
resulted, in this author's view, in much confusion about the
primary events (both inner and outer) and psychological
meaning (significance) of a ”shame” experience, as well as
the definition of the term/concept shame. The term shame has
been used to describe: a primary affect or discrete emotion
(Tomkins, 1963; Izard,1977; Kaufman, 1985); a specific form
of anxiety about contemptuous rejection (Wurmser, 1981); a
basic attitude (way of experiencing accessible to _
introspection, ways of behaving observable to others, and
unconscious inner states) arising from a specific
developmental epoch (Erikson, 1959); a complex

phenomenological state with specific affective and cognitive
features (Lewis, 1971); an affective experience intimately
linked with identity, narcissism, and sense of self
(Erikson, 1950, 1968; Lichtenstein, 1963; Kinston, 1980,
1982); a component of or defense against the sexual instinct
(Freud, 1894, 1905, 1926; Abraham, 1913; Fenichel, 1946;
Jacobsen, 1964; Kohut, 1971); a trait (Wurmser, 1981); a
specific form of conscience (Anderson, 1977); a basic form
of unpleasure (Broucek, 1982); a specific cognitive and
affective 'signal experience' associated with conformity
(Kinston, 1983);‘a~neurotic symptom (shyness, bashfulness

 

and self-effacement) (Wurmser, 1981), and a specific form of
social anxiety (Buss, 1980). Theoretical confusion continues
to exist for a host of reasons. Most authors have ignored
the phenomenology of shame. Most make no attempt to compare
their observations/interpretations with those of their
colleagues.

Another problem has been clearly distinguishing shame
from guilt. The symbols of "shame” and ”guilt” have been
used to depict a range of diverse inner experiences. The two
phenomena have been contrasted on various dimensions
depending upon the sensitivity and theoretical orientation
of the particular theorist. Foci for differentiating the two
constructs have included: phenomenology (feelings of /
inferiority versus_fgelings of responsipllitY/wrongdoing)‘//I

 

(Izard, 1977; Lewis, 1971), types of activators or content
of the experience (what it is which one feels shame or guilt
about) (Lewis, 1971; Tomkins, 1963; Kaufman, 1985), source
of disapproval (primarily one's self or other persons)
(Lewis, 1971; Erikson, 1968; Freud, 1950; Benedict, 1934;
Buss, 1980), the "target" of negative evaluation or
aggressive behavior (Lewis, 1971; Wurmser, 1981), aspect of
Freudian super-ego activated (either the forbidding or goal-
creating aspect) (Piers and Singer, 1953; Lewis, 1971),

nature of negative affect directed against one's self
(contempt, fear, distress, hatred, rage) (Kaufman, 1984;
Wurmser, 1981), unconscious fears with which the experience
is associated (rejection/abandonment vs. punishment) (Piers
and Singer, 1953; WUrmser, 1981), nature of inner comparison
(compare self to global diffuse image of perfection vs.
compare deed or misdeed or thought of deed/misdeed to
standards or ethical codes of behavior (Wurmser, 1981;
Izard, 1977, Lynd, 1958, Fisher, 1984), and characteristic
defenses (Lewis, 1971; Wurmser, 1981). Additionally, various
approaches have asserted that the same situation may give
rise to both shame and guilt (Lewis, 1971; Lynd, 1958), that
shame and guilt may alternate with and reinforce one another
(Lynd, 1958; Lewis, 1971), and that a particular situation
may be experienced by an individual as shame or guilt or
both according to the nature of the person, and/or the
nature of his/her relation to other persons who may be
involved (Izard, 1977; Lynd, 1958; Lewis, 1971; Anderson,
1977). Lynd (1958) has emphasized that shame and guilt are
in no sense antitheses, or at opposite poles from each
other. Rather they involve different foci, modes, and
stresses. Most recently, Tomkins (in press) has viewed guilt
as a specific type of shame, which he defines as a specific
affect auxiliary. He states "shame is experienced as guilt
when positive affect is attenuated by virtue of moral
normative sanctions experienced as conflicting with what is
exciting or enjoyable" (p. 22).

The development of a meaningful and shared definition yr
of the construct shame has been further confounded by
theorists neglect to differentiate the central phenomenon
called "shame” from perceived variants of it. Wurmserngggij

//has differentiated ”shame anxietyf from fshame affeggq

 

; ”a, -Hfiwfi 4___ I __

g proper". ”Shameflgnxiety" is not the actual experience

 

i “shame affect proper” but is rather the cue that serves to

help avoid a shame-inducing event or escape from shame that
is already being experienced.

Lewis (1971) has differentiated two variants of shame
experience depending upon the availability or overtness of
affect. In "overt, unidentified shame” shame affect is
overt (to an observer) but the person experiencing it either
will not or can not identify it. An observer may see it as
shame, but the person is unable to communicate. He/she
often states that he/she feels "lousy", or "tense", or
"blank". In what Lewis has called "by-passed shame" an
individual is aware of the cognitive content of shame-
connected events, but experiences only a ”wince”, ”blow", or
"jolt”. The person's experience proceeds smoothly, except
for a peripheral, nonspecific disturbance in awareness which
serves mainly to note the shame potential in the
circumstance. Ideation involves doubt about the self's
image from the other's viewpoint.

Buss (1980) has differentiated four variants of what he
labels "social anxiety” (shame, embarrassment, audience
anxiety, and shyness). All four forms of social anxiety
begin with acute public self-awareness, in which the
individual is aware of him/herself as a social object.
”Shame" and ”embarrassment" are reactions in which the
parasympathetic part of the autonomic system is in dominance
and self-blame is present. Shame is viewed as being a more
severe (intensity) and persistent affective state than
embarrassment. An "embarrassment" reaction consists of
blushing, a "silly” smile, and a nervous giggle or laugh.
The "embarrassed” individual feels foolish, ridiculous, and
uncovered due to impropriety, lack of competence, _
conspicuous, breaches of privacy, or overpraise. Buss states
that shame may have many of the same observable reactions as
embarrassment, but it does not involve blushing. Severe
shame looks like depression- the individual's gaze is

averted and s/her face is covered with his,hands. The
primary fۤ;:?n s in shame are self-disgustygnd self-
disappointment (the "shamed" individual verbally attacks
his/her self and/or feels let down by his/her self). Shame
consists of intense feelings of regret or mortification,
which are hard to verbalize. "Audience anxiety" and
”shyness" are traits in which the sympathetic nervous system
is dominant. Disorganization, conspicuousness, evaluation,
and fear are present in both, but more intense in audience
anxiety. In shyness, defined as a relative absence of
expected social behavior, the individual averts eye contact
with a tendency to shrink back, and communication is
restrained. Affectively the individual feels naked and
revealed, and worries about what might happen (apprehensive
about being seen as ill-mannered, clumsy, intrusive, or too
loud, saying wrong thing, appearing foolish, being ignored,
or rejected), as contrasted with embarrassment and shame in
which the person reacts to events that activate acute public

[’self-awareness. In audiencedanxiegy, defined as fear,

 

tension and disorganization by an individual in front of an
audience, the person may worry about being evaluated as
performing poorly and failing (evaluation anxiety) and/or
being rejected as a person (whether he/she will be liked and
appreciated).

Another problem with elucidating the shame experience
as well as reaching consensual definition for the term shame
may be the nature of the shame experience itself. various
theorists have noted the isolating, alienating, and
incommunicable nature of the experience of shame (Kaufman,
1980; Tomkins, 1963; Lynd, 1958; Piers and Singer, 1963).
There is no readily expressive language of shame, no
accepted form by which these experiences can be
communicated. In attempts to understand diffused experiences
of which shame is one example, the development of a language

that can express such experiences becomes of great
importance. There are obvious advantages for certain kinds
of scientific precision of a language that concentrates on a
limited exactness which demands elimination of ambiguity and
complexity. The danger is that such concentration and
language usage may lead to the neglect of significant
experiences that may be of special relevance for the
understanding of people's experience. A language that is
confined to labeling rather than describing, to denotation
at the expense of connotation, does not have the means of
expressing experiences whose nature may include ambiguity
and surplus meaning. Thus, theorists have used metaphoric
language and ambiguous terms in describing the inner
experience of shame.

Though most of us can agree on the existence of
subjective states of shame, theorists are still attempting
to find a dynamic definition of the construct. The view
that guided this research is that shame is an innate affect
(Tomkins 1963; Kaufman, 1985) Other theoretical perspectives
could also apply, so that this research is not valid as an
empirical test of ”affect theory”. An affect is defined as
a complex process with neurophysiological (electrochemical
activity in the nervous system), neuromusculature (physical
expression of affect in face), and phenomenological
(subjective feeling) aspects. Affects are triggered at
subcortical centers where specific "programs" for each
distinct affect are stored, programs which are innately
endowed and have been genetically inherited. The shame
response proper is the dropping of the eyes, face, and head
and the conscious experience of its resulting feedback.
According to Tomkins, it is highly probable that the adult
will modify the shame expression because it is not socially
desirable for him to express shame too openly, too
intensely, or too often.

In subjective experience affects do not occur in "pure"
form, so that the ”feeling” of shame will vary according to
the total complex of affect(s), source(s), and response(s)
(Tomkins, in press). Kaufman (1985) has asserted that it is
a sudden unexpected feeling of gxppsure and accompanying
pelf-consciousness that characterize the essential nature of
the affect of shame. In shame the self "feels" exposed
(either to one's own self or others) in a diminished or
degegtive sense. Tomkins (1963) has emphasized the
ambivalent nature of shame affect; the shame response is "an
act of facial communication in which excitement or enjoyment
is only incompletely reduced...there is some serious
impediment to communication which forces consciousness back
to the face and the self... Self-consciousness is heightened
by virtue of the unwillingness of the self to renounce the
object” (p. 137). According to Tomkins, in shame, the object
(either internal or external) from which we are alienated is
one in which we still sustain some positive cathexis
(interest). If one stands judged and inadequate before one's
"better” self, one still possesses and maintains interest in
”living up to” or "pleasing" that ”better” self. It is
Kaufman's description of the root experience of shame
(exposure of self in diminished or defective sense) which
guided this research. It is important to note though, that
Tomkins' and Kaufman's descriptions of the core shame affect
are not incompatible; it is possible that what activates the
”sudden feeling of exposure" (Kaufman's focus) could be the
”incomplete reduction of interest/enjoyment” (Tomkins'
focus).

The affect of shame may be activated in a variety of
situations. It can be primarily situationally aroused}
(shame as amplifier, according to Tomkins) or can become
more entrenched within the self, so that the perception and
interpretation of environmental events becomes biased in the

direction of activating shameful feelings and the individual
”lives in" a more chronic state of shame or vigilant
defensive state escaping and/or avoiding experiencing shame.
Kaufman (1985) refers to the latter as "internalized shame"
whereas Tomkins (1963) refers to the latter as ”magnified"
shame.

Shame has been postulated to be the source of many
complex and disturbing inner states: depression, alienation,
self-doubt, isolating loneliness, paranoid and schizoid
phenomenon, inferiority, perfectionism, and inadequacy and
failure (Tomkins, 1963; Kaufman, 1985); clinical depression
(Lewis, 1971), borderline personality disorder (Fisher,
1984), chemical dependency (Wurmser, 1977), narcissistic
personality disorder (Broucek, 1982), eating disorders
(Kaufman, 1985), physical and sexual abuse (Kaufman (1985),
alcohol and other addictions (Kaufman, 1985). While such a
view highlights the perceived importance of shame in the
development of psychopathology, its validity awaits a more
precise understanding/definition of what shame is as well as
its dynamic relationship with other affects and the other
sub-systems of personality (homeostatic, drive, perceptual,
cognitive, and motor).

One objective of this study was to investigate the
extent of shame found in various clinical and normal
populations. To do so, it is necessary to differentiate
various types of shame. Items from previously estabished
shame scales might be meaningfully grouped into a ”profile”
of various sources and/or activators of shame. Thus
particular sources of shame for an individual or group could
be identified.

Statement of Problem

Systematic attempts to measure shame have used ”global”

 

:it from guilt. Perlman (1958) constructed the "Attitude
Anxiety Survey" with which he achieved some success in
discriminating between guilt anxiety and shame anxiety. His
results were replicated much later by Negri (1978),
establishing with some confidence that the two constructs
can be differentiated empirically. Beall's "Shame-Guilt
Test" (1971) was designed to measure tendencies towards the
two affects directly. Shortened versions of the ”Shame-Guilt
Test” (Smith, 1972; Korpi, 1977; J. Jones, 1980; D. Jones,
1981) have been used with positive results in more recent
studies. Two other scales, the Revised Stanford Shyness
Survey (Pilkonis, 1977) and the Cattell Embarrassing
Circumstances Test (1960), have been used to systematically
measure shyness and social embarrassment. Shyness has been
hypothesized by both Kaufman (1985) and Tomkins (1963) as a
variant of shame- shame in the presence of a stranger while
embarrassment has been hypothesized as shame resulting from
being seen in some way as socially_inappropriate'(Kaufman,
1985). Such definitions make shyness and embarrassment non-
mutually exclusive variants of shame. Most recently, $225
(1985) has been developing a measure designed to
systematically assess ”internalized" feelings of shame. That
is shame affect that has been magnified in frequency,
duration, and intensity such that the individual suffers
enduring mortification by shame. So far no attempt has been
made to consolidate and refine the shame aspects of these
instruments into a profile including various ”types" of
shame. It is the intent of this investigation to
theoretically and statistically develop through factor
analytic techniques such a shame profile. There is some

 

10

research and theoretical support for such an endeavor.

The theoretical underpinnings for a shame profile stem
from the work of Tomkins (1963) and Kaufman (1985). Both
theorists view shame as an innate affect, with Kaufman
observing that the root of shame is the feeling of exposure V'
of self (either to one's own self or to others) in a painful
or diminished sense. The affect can be triggered by various
activators, which can be meaningfully distinguished from one
another, as well as become internalized. Tomkins (1963) has
delineated four general sources of shame affect:

 

 

 

interpersongl relations, the body (both movement and
appearance), work, and the self. Both Kaufman (1985) and
Tomkins (1963) have hypothesized that seemingly diverse
experiences such as shyness in front of a stranger,
self-consciousness in talking before a large group, social
embarrassment, and guilt for immorality or transgression,
while phenomenologically felt as distinct experiences, are
variants of shame affect. Both theorists have carefully
described the impact and interaction of shame affect with
three other motivational systems: affect (Tomkins, 1963;
Kaufman, 1990), nggg (Kaufman, 1980), and drive (Tomkins,
1963; Kaufman, 1980). Shame's interaction and subsequent
”binding" with any or all of these other sub-systems result
in its internalization. In short, their theory indicates
that shame can more meaningfully be understood as a profile
of activators and/or sources rather than as a unitary
construct. Another significant distinction made is that

 

 

between partial, temporary shame (shame as amplifier) and

 

 

more chrgnic, enduring shame (magnified shame). An affect

 

 

“acts" as an amplifier by extending the duration and impact
of whatever triggers it. By being immediately activated and
”co-assembled” with its activator, affect as amplifier

”makes conscious" the events which activated it. Magnified
affect results from the interconnection of one affect-laden

11

scene with another affect- laden scene. Psychological
magnification necessarily presupposes affective
amplification of sets of connected scenes.

With the conceptualization of shame as an innate
affect, which can be activated in seemingly disparate
situations with consequent diverse phenomenological
experiences, the author examined the instruments currently
used in the measurement of shame. It was hypothesized that
shame items might be meaningfully organized into separate
content categories. Such a reorganization/consolidation of
shame instruments might result in a clearer understanding of
the prevalence of shame, as well as its impact and outgrowth
on human functioning. Mirman (1981), in his dissertation
research, did a post hoc analysis of 17 items of the Korpi
Shame Scale. Raters (well-acquainted with the concept of
shame ) placed each of the seventeen items into one of five

 

categories of shame activators. These categories were:

a)task competencef-lack of competence at work or in a task

’./‘

 

of some sort; (b) social incongruity or inappropr_iaten_ess
_______ __flw___‘_:.

 

(clbody-shame--shame about some aspect of one' s own body;

 

 

(d)relationship shame--interpersonal incompetence or
failure, or shame-producing relationship needs, interests,

attitudes or activities; and (e) feelings-- shame about

 

 

 

one's experience or expression of feelings. Results

 

 

indicated, that although these scales were generally
moderately inter-correlated, subjects did indeed respond
differentially to the items in these scales. In addition,(
both the presence of sex differences along with the fact
that the correlations between the scores on these scales and
that of other measures varied among the subscales, suggested
that these subscales were tapping different phenomena.

The following hypothesis is under investigation: there
exists a shame profile with shame differentially associated
with clusters of self experience.

12

flypgghegized Egogile

QQQQetgnce ghame

The person with competence shame experiences him or herself
as incompetent. It tends to focus on one of two areas: 1)
physical abilities (e.g. muscular strength, agility, and
coordination), and 2) mental abilities (intelligence and
creativity). There is a keen sense of "being without”,
without essential talent and ability, without skills to be
proud of, and without redeeming strengths and qualities. In
its most intense form, the self is experienced as a failure,
worthless, enormously stupid and incapable. The individual
sees others as endowed with greater skills and abilities and
is constantly comparing him/herself and concluding that
others are more agile and intelligent.

Joffe (1984) has postulated an association between
competence shame and various clinical problems. Unresolved
feelings of competence shame frequently result in problems
of work and performance. Work activities progokeufeelings of
shame, and usually a pattern of procrastination evolves.

xéompetence shame is also associated with test anxiety, math
anxiety and performance anxiety in general. The fear is fear
of exposure of shame. Competence shame is often associated
with problems of career choice, as the individual shows a
tendency to misrepresent his or her strengths and abilities.
The avoidance of shame affect can also lead to a pattern of
underachievement (Joffe, 1984). White's (1959) postulate
that shame always includes incompetence is consistent with
this particular category of shame. v/

A subcategory of competence shame is performance shame,

 

in which shame affect is moreAgituationallysdetermined, as
Opposed to representing a characterlogical basis of
competence shame. This subcategory of shame occurs when one

13

fails to_do what one ”should” be able to do, or igucaught
unprepared for an assignment. For example, the individual
—who after a semester—of adequate or better performance in
the classroom, fails miserably on the final examination
(Vong,l984). Tomkins' (1963) focus on sources of shame
stemming from work is also located within this category.

earance ame

The individual experiences him/herself as physically
unpresentable and lacking in physical appeal and
attractiveness. In its most intense form, the self is
experienced as ugly, offensive to look at, freakish in
appearance. The focal issue tends to be centered on one or
more body parts. Common themes include being too short, too
tall, too thin, too fat, or having a scar. Others are seen
as physically perfect or lacking in significant flaws. A
person with body shame feels that other people are judging
him/her on the basis of his/her physical appearance (Joffe,
1984).

Appearance shame has been hypothetically associated
with a wide range of problems related to social and romantic
intimacy (Joffe, 1984). The person finds it difficult to
enter into romantic relationships, as courtship encounters
are filled with anxiety and depression. Once in a romantic
relationship, appearance shame is often associated with
difficulties in being vulnerable and feeling close, because
the individual feels unworthy. There is a tendency to act
out one's feelings of abandonment and limit one's contacts
with others. Two common presenting complaints are social
isolation and lonliness-based depression. Appearance shame
is also associated with eating disorders. The focal issue is
either body weight, or more specific body parts, such as the
thighs or stomach. In the natural attempt to control these
feelings, the person may become locked in an obsessional

14
struggle with body weight.

e t Relati n hi Shame
The person with rejection shame experiences him/herself as
unloveable; there is a keen sense of not belonging, of being
unwanted and left out. There is a tendency to blame oneself
for being rejected. The individual reports that there is
something wrong with him/her, he/she is flawed and
objectionable. For the most part rejection shame does not
lead to a centering on a specific flaw; instead what is
reported is a free-floating anxiety that one is awful and
unlikeable. The individual with rejection shame believes
that other people do not care for him/her. There is paranoia
that other people do not hold him/her in high regard, that
he/she is either discounted or held in contempt. '

 

In general, unresolved feelings of rejection shame have
been hypothetically associated with problems of social and
romantic intimacy (Joffe, 1984). Unresolved feelings of
rejection shame can lead to a pattern of unassertivenss and
dependency. Connections with others are experienced as
tenuous and easily broken. Friends are chosen more in an
attempt to meet security needs than for genuine
compatibility. For example, considerably younger or older
friends are chosen in order to avoid the risk of rejection.
A pattern of dependency may develop in which the
individual's primary motivation for being in a relationship
is one of preventing rejection. Unresolved feelings of
rejection shame can also lead to a pattern of social
isolation. Social contacts are kept to a minimum, which is
also often accompanied by a large amount of resentment aimed
at one's supposed rejectors (Joffe, 1984).

15

hara er ame //' ‘
The person with(character shame experiences him/herself as
weak, unstable and hopelessly flawed. The presence of a
serious flaw threatens to ruin his/her life. Strong feelings
of self-doubt/and self-disgusE/are reported. Ubrds like
sick, ugly, and stinks are used to describe the self.
Feelings of character shame tend to be centered on one of
two themes: (a) either the self is experienced as overly
emotional, irrational, immature and out of control or (b)
the self is experienced as weak, spineless and without inner
substance. Other people are seen as stronger and more mature
than him/herself and in possession of true character and
inner fiber (Joffe, 1984).

Developmentally, character shame has been hypothesized
to interfer with the acquisition of a healthy relationship
with one's feelings (Joffe, 1984). Emotions are viewed as
an enemy, something to be controlled. A person with a
history of character shame often knows less than the average
person about what he/she is feeling and why. They can become
emotionally overcontrolled and exhibit the range of problems
associated with overcontrol. Emotions that undermine one's
sense of self-control are particularly prone to becoming
bound by shame. A person with character shame often projects
an unreal image of strength in an attempt to prove to both
self and others that one is strong and capable. As control
fails, and emotions leak, the individual resorts to drugs
and alcohol in order to fend off unwanted feelings of
helplessness and maintain an inner feeling of control.
Individuals with unresolved character shame may act out
their felt lack of control. They often alternate between
trying to hide their weaknesses and seeking reassurance that
someone cares for them. Sometimes individuals with character
shame appear hysterical. Kaufman's (1980) character with a
”shame-based identity", Wurmser's character with "warps" in

16

the ”perceptual-expressive zone”, Fisher's (1985) borderline
patient with an ”identity of two”, and Broucek's (1983)
”narcissistic types” are all descriptions of character

shame.
Affect Shame

This type of shame is activated when events occur which
would normally result in the experiencing and/or expression
of any of the other primary affects. For example, when an
individual loses an important relationship either through
death, separation, or altercation, one would expect the
individual to experience/express sadness through crying, the
affect of distress. The individual with affect-shame would
instead feel shame. Whereas affect shame is a precursor to
internalized shame, it is more specifically focused on a
delimited part of self. Affect shame may be specific to any
one of the primary emotions or combinations thereof. In its
most extreme form, all experiencing of affect is ”cut-off“.
Consequently, the individual does not express/experience any
of the primary affects. Freuqently, such an individual can
be identified through his/her public mask of a ”stone-face”.
Individuals with affect-shame have difficulty
experiencing and expressing their feelings. Affect

 

expression is viewed as a sign of inner defficiency. Affect
shame is frequently found in individuals with character
shame.

Horalzgthicgl Shame

This type of shame results from either transgressing or
failing to live up to moral, ethical, and religious codes.
Moral shame may occur as readily and as frequently from
omission as from commission, from failure to feel, think, or
act, in a prescribed way at a certain time, as well as from
actual feelings, thoughts, or acts that violate moral codes

17

or beliefs. The codes may be explicit or implicit and
accepted intuitively. Almost everyone has an ethical
framework which guides his/her interpersonal and social
behavior, but very few people carry the structure and
details of this framework in consciousness all the time.
Moral shame arises when one's own acts or one's failures to
act, are exposed to censure (by others or self), either
overtly or imaged by the self. This category of shame is
quite prevalent in our society, and arises from the value
systems which each of us has developed through parental,
educational, and religious strictures. The severity of
breach from ”accepted“ behavior varies from smaller ”ethical
lapses" (accepting ”too much” change from a cashier,
revealing a confidence) to acts which are considered so
wrong or sinful that even their contemplation brings deep
shame (murder, marital infidelity, child abuse) (M. Wong,
personal communication, August, 1984).

ial na r r t es r a rassment ame
The individual in embarrassment shame "feels seen” in some

 

 

 

waymas socially inappropriate; This can happen in various

 

 

ways, when the individual fails to appear as he "should" and
is caught in a compromising position. Embarrassment arises
not from a lack of intellect, character, competence, or

 

u-..

,1" which the individual has littlewgrwngmgontrol. Yet the

.-_.-. .m... u -w w r‘u

individual feels shame in that he/she believes that he/she
should have anticipated the possibility and made the

preparation, but is due to totally unexpected circumstances; i)

 

 

appropriate correction. Individuals may also experience
embarassment shame when they commit a social gaffe, such as
over-dressing, using incorrect table manners, or talking at
inappropriate times when in the presence of others. These
are all examples of mistakes in social judgment.

We. —,_t._,
MW—r‘“

18

ghame Awareness

The individual who scores high on this cluster of shame is
conscious of the phenomenological experience of shame affect
proper. It is expected that individuals who are sensitive
to the experience of shame (and can self-report the
experience) are more likely to have internalized the affect,
that is suffered from more chronic, enduring shame. Thus,
individuals who score high on this scale would be expected
to report high on character, relationship, and affect shame
scales.

gesearch Design and Objective

To date no attempt has been made to consolidate and
refine existing shame measures. It is hypothesized that
previously constructed shame scales might be meaningfully
grouped into a profile of various ”clusters” or "components”
of shame. It is the purpose of this investigation to both
theoretically and statistically discover , through factor
analytic techniques , the dimensionality of shaww, Items
from existing shame measures will be combined and
administered to a college population. A preconceived
profile of shame clusters will be tested for its ”fit” to
the data through factor analytic techniques. Additionally,
other measurement models suggested by the data will be
tested in an attempt to determine statistically the factor
structure of shame.

Methodology

Participants

The participants were 310 introductory psychology
students at Michigan State University who were given extra
credit for their participation in this study. The final
total sample was composed of 220 females and 90 males.

We

The measures were administered in a group setting with
groups composed of approximately fifty to seventy-five
students. They each were provided with a testing packet
within which were: the SGT (a questionnaire consisting of
shame items from both the Perlman Attitude Anxiety Survey
and the Beall Shame-Guilt Test) and the Cook Shame
Instrument. The two testing instruments were administered
with their order counterbalanced across all participants.

Testing Instruments

SGT

The SGT is a combination of items from the Beall
Shame-Guilt Test (Beall, 1972) and the Perlman Attitude
Anxiety Survey (1958). Beall developed the "Shame-Guilt”
test to measure tendencies towards the two affects directly.

The instrument is a 103 item Likert format test which

19

20

presents situations and requires the respondent to evaluate,
on a one to five scale, how upsetting each would be for him
or her. Beall developed her item pool and then had several
clinicians rate each item as either shame-inducing or
guilt-inducing to establish content validity. Shame_i§em§,
were defined as situations that implied exposure of self,
failure to live up to an ideal, self-deficiencies, and
embarrassment of self. Beall's test was the basis for two
subsequent revisions: the 36-item Korpi Shame-Guilt Test
(Korpi, 1977), and the 40 item Smith Shame-Guilt Test
(Smith, 1972). “one of these three tests have been
published, and only the Beall Test has been cited in
published research (Wood, Pilusuk & Uren, 1973). Perlman
(1958) constructed the Attitude Anxiety Survey, in which he
attempted to discriminate between guilt anxiety and shame
anxiety. The survey consists of 52 Likert-type items in
which the respondent is asked to rate how ”disturbed” most
people would feel in a particular situation. The survey
includes 25 shame anxiety items. For inclusion in the SGT J
the Perlman shame anxiety items were modified : (1) proper
nouns were changed to personal pronouns, (2) respondents
were asked to rate their own reaction to particular
situations rather than to rate how ”most people” would feel,

 

(3) respondents were asked to rate how ”anxious” they would
feel rather than how "disturbed”.

Cook (1985) has been developing a scale designed to
measure the extent to which individuals experience shameful
feelings about themselves. Initially, the scale consisted of
childhood (23 items) and adult subscales (48 items). A later
version of the instrument has combined the two subscales.
into a single forty item scale. Because the revised edition
of the ”Cook Shame Instrument" did not arrive until the
completion of testing, the earlier version of this test was
used in this study. Only the 48 items included in the adult

21

subscale were included in the analysis of the data because
the childhood items asked the respondent to ”recall” how
he/she felt in their family of origin which was not
consistent with the "present-oriented” status of the other
items included in the SGT. Only 8 of the items from the
childhood scale are included in the updated version of the
"Cook Shame Instrument". The test presents the respondent
with a list of statements describing feelings or experiences
and requires that the respondent indicate the frequency with
which he/she finds him/herself experiencing what is
described in the situation. At present, Cook is attempting
to develop norms, as well as begin to examine the
relationship of shame to chemical dependency and abuse. The
scale is specifically designed to measure debilitating or
dysfunctional levels of shame;/,

Ex lanat on o m irical nve i ation

The analysis begins with a content based theory of how
shame items should be partitioned and then proceeds to test
that theory empirically. The empirical analysis of responses.
to the items may provide evidence which supports alternative
theories about shame. The meaning of some of the items as
perceived by the item writer may be different from the
meaning of these items as perceived by the respondents. The
researcher may disregard "subtle” features of content which
are perceived as important by the respondents. For example,
an item writer focused on one idea may not realize that a
certain word is ambiguous, that it is open to a different
interpretation. The people responding to the item have no
such bias and may thus generate answers that are irrelevant
to the assessment of the desired trait. These item failures
will be detected by the statistical analysis since these
items will not be "parallel" to the other items in their

22

cluster. The preconceived clusters may fail for reasons
other than a few poorly written items; there may be very
different dimensions determining the responses than those
imagined by the investigator. That is there may be an
entirely different way of clustering the items which is more
appropriate to the dimensions which actually determine the
responses. This could be determined by submitting the data
to an exploratory factor analysis (Hunter and Gerbing,
1982).

Two major areas of~concern were addressed in an attempt
to provide structure to the construct/concept of shame.
First, is the issue of adequacy, which primarily has to do
with the initial item selection. If the factor structure to
be derived is to be a reflection of the domain of shame, the
pool of items to be selected must be representative. The
researcher sampled from several shame instruments (Perlman,
1959; Beall, 1972; and Cook, 1985) each puported based upon
different approaches to the construct shame. The Perlman
Atitude Anxiety Survey attempts to differentiate anxiety
related to the funtioning of guilt from anxiety related to
the functioning of shame. The Beall Shame-Guilt Test
attempts to differentiate the affect of shame from the
affect of guilt. The ”Cook Shame Instrument” attempts to
assess more chronic, enduring shame than the other two shame
measures included in this study. Initially the researcher
planned to include some original shame items (stemming from
Tomkins (1963) and Kaufman's (1980) shame theories),
postulating a need to expand the domain of shame being
assessed. It was subsequently decided to limit this study to
an assessment of existing shame measures, before attempting
to expand the domain of shame measurement.

The second area of concern has to do with the
meaningfulness of the factor structure derived from the
analysis. In order to demonstrate that the clusters of shame

23

items derived in this investigation measure meaningful and
unique dimensions of shame, a test of dimensionality of the
concept of shame was undertaken. That test, as described by
Hunter and Gerbing (1982) and Hunter, Gerbing, and Boster
(1982), measures the degree of external parallelism or
external consistency shown by the shame clusters. Basically,
external consistency holds that if the shame clusters are
alternate measures of the same underlying, unidimensional
concept of shame, they will each have the same pattern of
correlations to other clusters or traits. Conversely, if the
shame clusters truely represent different dimensions of
shame, the clusters will have different patterns of
correlations with the other clusters.

Statistical Prgcedures

The data were analyzed as follows:

One-hundred and thirty-one items were selected from
previous shame measures (Perlman, 1958; Beall, 1972; Cook,
1985) and were arranged in clusters each of which appeared

._-—-—- M‘J ._._.___. _ - .m- rvr a.-

to measure a single underlying dimension. The proposed

wad-”a..- - W’— -3“...

 

m.. "1..“ - .,
--~..a..._~....—4c thug-WW“ HM” 1

theoretical structure of each scale was submitted to a
formal confirmatory factor analysis. The confirmatory factor
analysis used the classic least squares estimation procedure
called either oblique groups factor analysis (Hunter, 1977)
or the group-centroid method (Nunnally, 1978). To implement
the cluster analysis, correlations were computed between all
items. The correlations for factors were corrected for
attenuation to provide an estimate of what the true
correlation would be if the variables were perfectly
reliable (Gillmore, 1970; Nunnally, 1967). Three corrections
for attenuation are needed for a cluster analysis and were
implemented through the PACKAGE program (Hunter and Cohen,

24

1969): 1) intercorrelations among clusters need to be
corrected for the different amounts of measurement error
caused by having clusters of different sizes; 2) the
correlations between an item and the cluster to which it
belongs must be corrected downward to eliminate the spurious
inflation caused by a common error of measurement; (3) the
spuriously low correlation between an item and a cluster to
which it does not belong, due to the error associated with
each cluster, must be corrected. This procedure eliminated
the distortion caused by having clusters with different
amounts of error.

The data (correlation matrix of 131 shame items) were
also submitted to anéexploratory factor analysig using the
PACKAGE subprogram FACTOR (Hunter and Cohen, 1969). Factor
is an exploratory factor analysis of the inter-item
correlation matrix-- a principal axis factor analysis with
communalities followed by a varimax rotation. For each
factor a corresponding cluster is defined. The items are

WWW“-
n-_r

 

assigned to clusters on the basis owf their factor loadings.

”ecu-”7‘"--.

 

mwm——m ”- - ,1 - . em“.. 1 y. sp~W Wasn‘t-Au:

Each cluster is made up of those items whose highest
loadings are on the corresponding varimax factor. An oblique
multiple groups cluster analysis was performed and the

 

 

 

H..._. v“#' a." -—"'——" ~F“~.——-v we.” DW 4-...

, >.§/;c1usters were revised,until the following criteria for

)3”

1W //,f homogeneous clusters were met : 1) Internal consistency- the

—-44--M‘V‘

////// ; items within a cluster must be relatively highly correlated
i with each other; 2) External parallelism- all items within a

.\\\

 

cluster must have relatively similar patterns and magnitudes
of correlations with items and other factors outside the
cluster; 3) homogeneity of item content- items in a cluster //
must share a similar ideational content. 2///

 

/

f

Results

Overview

The initial step in the analysis was the computation of
the inter-correlations among the 131 shame items (Table 81
in Appendix B). These 131 shame items were partitioned into
eight preconceived (content-based) clusters and submitted to
an oblique multiple groups factor analysis. The results of
this analysis were abandoned in favor of deriving factors
stemming from an exploratory factor analysis (Table 32 in
Appendix B ), because the ”blind” factor analysis revealed
dimensions outside the apriori shame profile.

The examination of the exploratory factor analysis
suggested a confirmatory factor analysis with fourteen
clusters. Figure Cl (Appendix C) contains the items grouped
by factor for the fourteen clusters. Further refinement of
this measurement model suggested a confirmatory factor
analysis with nine clusters.

ngininq the §tructure: Unidimensionality

 

The actual analysis of unidimensionality consists of
evaluating each of the clusters according to three criteria:
(a) internal consistency, (b) parallelism or external
consistency, and (c) homogeneity of content (shared
meaning). Failure to meet any one of these criteria is
grounds for dropping an item from a cluster; each of these
criteria are necessary but none are sufficient properties
for an item to be accepted as an alternate indicator of the
underlying trait (Hunter and Gerbing, 1979).

The examination of the preliminary anglxanawstemming

25

26

Int-rt m

confirmatory factor analysis with nine clusters. Table 1
presents the shame items clustered according to this
confirmatory factor analysis which fits the data. The means
and standard deviations of these items grouped by factor can
be found in Table 1. Each cluster was given a name depicting
the common meaning across the items. The selection of the
term ”embarrassment” is partially confounded in its
connotation with its use in the apriori theoretical profile
(see Introduction), as ”Social Inappropriateness or
Embarrassment Shame”. The shared meaning of the items in
the cluster labeled ”embarrassment” is the experience of
intense negative affect (shame) along with the impulse to
hide. This is what was labeled in the apriori hypothesized
profile as "Shame Awareness" (see Introduction). The
cluster labeled ”rejection” is meant quite differently from
the label "Rejection/Relationship Shame” as used in the
apriori hypothesized shame profile. The prior use of the
term ”rejection” depicted a particular type of inferiority,
where one experiences him or herself as unloveable and
flawed. Aposteriori, "rejection” is used to depict
situations where an individual finds him/herself rejected by
others. Further discussion of the comparison in meaning
between the hypothesized profile and the present findings
will be addressed in the discussion section.

The test for ”internal consistency" uses the
correlations between items in the same cluster. There are
two basic patterns for unidimensional matrices. First, if
all the items have equal quality (the same correlation
within sampling error to the cluster true score) than any
two items will have the same correlation (within sampling
error). In this case, the correlation matrix is said to be
"flat”. Second, if the items within a cluster do not have

uniform quality, then the correlation can be arranged so as

27

Table l

leans, Standard Deviations, of the Shams Items

Grouped by Factor

 

 

M SD Clusters and Items
EMILE—9111183.

3.6 1.0 67. You become aware that you have mistreated another

person.

4.2 .9 101. You intend to give a friend a playful swat, but he/she
moves just as you swing and you cause severe injury.

4.1 1.0 102. A man has been convicted of burglary on the strength of

your eye-witness testimony. Later 1 is proved that he
was innocent.
W

4.0 1.0 51. You give a poor speech in front of the class and people
are aughing and making fun of you.

4.0 1.0 77. You overhear your friends making fun of you.

3.6 1.0 09. You are not asked for (or are refused) a date to your
group's big dance.

4.4 .9 65. 'You are in a relationship with an intimate lover. One
day, Your lover tells you that he/she is having an
af air with another person and is leaving you or
her/him.

/

3.5 .9 72. After arriving at your destination, you discover that
you are improperly dressed for the occasion.

3.8 1.0 59. You're trying out for the high school basketball team in
front of a lar e crowd. You attempt a fancy shot and
trip, missing he backboard altogether.

3.3 1.0 06. You feel that you look awkward in a bathing suit and
you receive an invitation to a beach party.

3.5 1.0 44. You show up in casual dress at a party where everyone
else is wearing their finest.

3.5 .9 62. You're supposed to be a good tennis pla er. In a tourna-
mfing you are so jittery hat you make w 1d and stupid
s o s.

3.8 1.0 93. You've been asked to go on local TV and talk about an

event your organization is planning. The big day arrives,
and you have a huge cold sore on your lip.

(table continues)

4.1

1.1

1.1

1.0

1.0

28

 

 

 

/

64. You forget your lines in a play on opening night.

97. You enter a restaurant you go to guite re ularl during
a busy dinner hour, and the propr etor ca is on halfway
across the room that your have a bad check, and demands
payment.

46. You are unbelievabl awkward tr in to la a new a ort.
Your friends are trging to teach ygu ans you feel a: if
you are all arms an legs.

37. You are trying to appear more knowledgeable than you are
on a subject. An expert starts pointing out your miscon-
ceptions and exposes your ignorance.

56. You're an adolescent showering after gym class. You feel
acutely self-conscious about undressing in front of the
rest o the group.

W

91. Your immediate supervisor has gust been praising you, in
your presence, to the head of he firm. he boss asks
you a simple question, and youwdraw 2"52591233 blank,

02. You are criticised in front of your peers.«”'

76. You are sharply criticised for your mistakes.V/”

73. You discover that you have failed miserably in what you
are trying to accomplish.

71. You see that you have failed to make a good impression
on your boss.

03. You are criticised in front of your subordinates..

79. You make poor progress in your job.

w-_wfl.--- * K

90. You find that you are the only member of your group that
did not make t e honor society. -

07. You are shown up as a fraud.

81. Your husband/wife confronts you with your failures.

36. Your boss has lanned a big meeting where your presenta-
tion is to be he highligh . You fail to 1 ve up to
expectations and your company loses the account.

mm

104. You hear your son come in long past his curfew and dart
out, clad only in our underwear, to scold him. Too late
you discover hat e has a guest (opposite sex) with him.

103. You have been muttering to yourself as you struggle with
a serious problem, and you suddenly become aware that
someone you don't know very well has been listening.

96. You've described a very unpleasant encounter with a
person in a downtown s ore to a fellow employee. Later
you meet the two of them together. They are obviously
quite close.

63.

You're getting out of the swimming R°°1 after diving and
suddenly notice that your swimsui as slipped down.

(table continues)

1.0

1.2

1.2

1.1

1.3

1.0

1.0

1.0

29

109. You recognize a friend from behind and sneak up to try to
scare him/her. When the person turns you see you were
mistaken.

95. You run into an old friend you haven't seen for years.
After warm greetings, sou ask about his her s ouse. Your
friend informs you col 1y that they've en d vorced for
several years.

05. You are ignored by an old friend in a chance encounter.

100. k childhood friend, who is now your new boss, fails to
remember you, even when reminde .

60. You meet a friend whose name you have forgotten.

105. You are singing along loudly, with your car radio when
you suddenly realise that the driver of the car in the
next lane is staring at you.

106. Your four-year-old is chastised by your mother for using
' d language“. The child replies, But that's what
Daddy/Mommy says!“

96. You're enthusiastically describing the sexual attractive
ness of a person you just saw. You learn later that the
person you were talking to is married to the person you
were ta king about.

94. You are a teacher, and Johnny Smith's mother pays a
visit. You address her as Mrs. Smith, and she corrects
you, since she has a different last name.

52. You're in the middle of a very involved discussion.

You have an imgortant point to make and you can't
open sour mout because you're afraid you'll sound
s upi .

54. You find yourself in a situation where you're asked to
venture an opinion that you're afraid may be wrong, about
a subject where you know very little.

66. You discover that even by running, you will be at least
ten minutes late for class.

107. An acquaintance comes into the room when you are crying
over a touching commercial.

50. You are caught unexpectedly by someone talking to
yourself.

99. You see an attractive and fit young couple at the beach,
and realise that ou're Keying more attention to the one
of your own sex t an to is/her mate.

55. You're usually very calm when discussing h ated subjects.
All of a sudden you hear your own voice an realise that
you're almost shouting.

74. You are the manager of a losing bowling team in a
tournament.

W

57. Iver one in your nei hborhood takes pride in keeping the

neig borhood clean. ou're unwrapping a gacka e and you
forget and casually toss the wrapper on he s reet.

(table continues)

1.0

30

42. Your mother angrily asks you if you ate the last dessert
she was savin for our father. You blandly say no, as
you swallow t e las bits.

43. You feel a na 1 worr that on are not doin what ou
should to helggsggve sogial prgblems. g y

53. You finish a small project and your boss compliments you.
You feel silly being so proud over such a minor
accomplishmen .

56. You're reading an old diar and can't believe on wrote
such nonsense. You feel ri iculous to have wri ten down
such things.

40. You are driving by someone who has just had an accident
and is obvious a n trouble. You pass by because you are
in a hurry and on't want to become involved.

36. Your friend tells you in confidence that she/he is
secretly fond of someone. Later, in passing you tell
him/her.

W

122. I worry about making foolish mistakes, and wonder what
other people would hink.

115. I worry that others might think some of my ideas are
I'crasy."

125. I often worry that I might do something inappropriate in
a social situation.

114. I keep secrets and worry that they might be discovered.

129. I worry about giving myself away.

116. I am very concerned about the impression I make on
others.

117. I feel silly about some of my irrational fears.

126. I have a tendency to make up excuses to avoid situations
that would make me uncomfor able.

119. Uhen I get angry I feel silly or uncomfortable because I
can't justify my anger. I feel I have no reason to
angry.

120. I feel I have to be able to justify most of the things I
do, even little pleasures.

127. It bothers me that apparently trivial things can upset me
so much.

124. I often deceive others into believing things about me
that aren't so.

110. I geel like an lmposter and worry that people will find
on .

W

30. I would like to shrink away when I make a mistake.

(table continues)

1.0

1.1

1.1

.9
.8

.9
1.0

1.0
.9
1.0

1.0
.9
1.1

1.0
O.

31

31. When I become embarrassed , I would like to go hide in
the corner.
13. When I am embarrassed, I wish the earth would open and
swallow me.
14. when I am embarrassed, I feel like I could sink into the
ground.
17. In certain situations I feel like melting away.
21. Sometimes I feel like I am about one inch tall and I
want to hide.
29. ta::.1 immobilised when I think about doing an unfamiliar
24. Sometimes I feel like there are 1,000 eyes staring at me.
20. It is hard for me to maintain eye contact with other
people.
W
10. I feel intensely inadequate and full of self doubt.
7. I think that people look down on me.
3. I see mnyself as not being able to measure up to other
people.
12. I see myself as being very small and insignificant.
1. I feel like I am never quite good enough.
9. I as to myself, 'how could anyone really love me or care
abou me'?
25. I scold and put myself down.
27. I feel somehow left out.
33. When I compare myself to others, I am just not as
important.
22. I believe that I am mocked and laughed at by my friends.
26. It is difficult for me to accept a compliment.
6. I see myself striving for perfection only to continually
fall short.
19. I have an overpowering fear that my faults will be
revealed in front of others.
16. I think others are able to see my defects.
5. I know people look at me and think I am worthless.
4. I see myself as being a bad person.
6. I!feel inadequate when I do not achieve what is expected
0 '0
111. I feel funny about my physical appearance.
26. I feel I am someone or something to be dumped on a

garbage heap.

(table continues)

2.1
2.6
4.1

1.0

1.0

2. I could beat myself over the head with a club when I make
a mistake.
mm

11. It is hard for others to get close to me and for me to
get close to others.

15. I am cautious when it comes to trusting others.

16. I am a very sensitive person, easily hurt by others
comments.

23. I think I should be all things to all people.

32. Sometimes I become enraged when people criticise me.

34. You co letel forget your s ech in front of an audience
and jus ate there awkwar ly, unable to recall where
you were.

35. You walk onto a bus and after walking all the way to the
back someone suddenly points out that you have a huge
rip in the front of your clothes.

39. You falsify some information on a job application in
order to get a job.

41. You are finally intimatel involved with someone on have
seen as attrac ive but un nterested in you. You f nd
yourself suddenly unable to become sexually aroused.

45. You're having an affair with a friend's spouse and, while
you avoid the friend you are often around mutual friends.

47. You find out just before ou are to be married that you
are sterile (male)/infert 1e (female).

46. You're telling a oke and suddenly realise that you are
the only one who s laughing.

49. You're in high school. Your mother goes through our
coat ockets before sending your clo hes to the c eaners
and f nds some contraceptive devices and confronts you.

60. You have a mild case of epilepsy. You forget to take your

ills and have a convulsion before friends who didn't
now.

61. You are sick to your stomach and don't quite make it to
the bathroom.

64. You're not very successful in relating to the opposite
sex but in xgur dreams you always con emplate fa ry-tale
romances. part of a small group experience you talk
about these romantic fantasies.

66. You belch in public.

69. You suddenly realise that you are unable to cope with \n‘
your own problems.

70. You realise that you have not acted as effectively in a
business deal as you would have liked.

75. You let off gas in public.

76. You lose an important game.

32

(table continues)

.9
1.3
1.0

.0.

92.

100.

112.
113.

118.

121.

123.
126.
130.

131.

33

In a game, you see that you have made some foolish
mista ea.

You have your first apartment. Your mother drops in for
an unannounced visit, and catches you making love with
someone.

You're an adolescent and for the first time ou're
engaged in 'heavy petting.“ Your father catc es you.

I have a feeling others don't take me seriously.

I am more worried when I have done something wrong about
being caught than about being punished.

I blush when someone notices something about me that I
wasn't aware of. -

I am very modest about my body, especially about being
seen naked.

I can't stand to see others' feelings hurt.
I hate to cry in front of anyone.

Ihen I've done something awful, I feel I can't talk to
anyone.

I have trouble knowing when others are serious.

34

to show a ”strong-weak gradient". If the items are ordered
in terms of their comunalities (true score correlation) than
the highest correlations will be in the upper left-hand
corner and the lowest correlations will be in the lower
right-hand corner. Sampling error will produce chance
deviations from these two types of correlation matrices.
Table 83 in Appendix 8 presents the shame items clustered
according to the confirmatory factor analysis which fits the
data (nine factors). Inspection of this table shows the
private transgression, embarrassment, and inferiority
clusters approximate (within sampling error) a strong-weak
gradient. The harm to others, rejection, success, faux pas,
and fear of exposure clusters are flat matrices. Thus, the
clusters meet the criteria for internal consistency.

The criteria of parallelism specifies that items in a

 

unidimensional cluster have similar patterns of correlations
with items in other clusters. Table 84 in Appendix B
presents the correlations between each of the items and the
nine factors defined. Inspection of Table 84 shows that the
items in each cluster are parallel in their correlations
with the other factors. The rejection, audience exposure,
and success clusters appear to be highly intercorrelated.
This suggests a probable grouping of these three clusters
into one factor.

Table 2 presents the cluster means, standard
deviations, and reliabilities of the nine clusters which fit
the data. As can be seen from Table 2, the ninegclusters

 

have high standard score alphas, except for the harm to
others, rejection, and private transgression scales.’ These
three scales have the lowest reliabilities because they were
measured by the fewest number of items: harm to others (3
items), rejection (4 items), and private transgression (7

items).

Cluster Means, Standard Deviations, and

35

Table 2

Reliabilities (N = 310)

 

 

 

Standard Alpha
Cluster Mean Deviation Reliability
Harm to Others 4.09 .73 .65
Rejection 3.98 .69 .69
Audience Exposure 3.55 .61 .83
Faux Pas 3.06 .57 .88
Success 3.62 .61 .86
Private Transgression 2.44 .58 .66
Fear of Exposure 2.63 .56 .81
Embarrassment 2.32 .66 .85
Inferiority 2.29 .61 .92

 

36

Substantive Findings: Inter-cluster Cgrrelatigns

Table 3 presents the inter-cluster correlations
(corrected for attenuation) for the nine cluster solution.
The initial six scales (harm to others, rejection, audience
exposure, success, faux pas and private transgression) are
highly correlated with one another, while the last three
scales (fear of exposure, embarrassment, inferiority) are
also highly intercorrelated. The very high correlations
among the rejection, audience exposure, and success clusters
suggested combining them into one cluster.

Table 4 presents the inter-cluster correlations
(corrected for attenuation) after combining the rejection,
audience exposure, and success clusters into one cluster,
termed social competency (alpha = .90) The correlation
matrix for the first four clusters approximate a Guttman
simplex. The meaning of this finding will now be discussed.
A Guttman simplex indicates a non-linear relationship among
the clusters which form the simplex. The Guttman simplex
suggests that the certain apparently different scales
actually measure the same thing but nonlinearly. The range
of trait scores (cluster true scores) on a scale can be
broken into intervals. The people in each interval Operate
as a type with respect to the Guttman scale ; they are
indistinguishable in terms of any particular cluster. For
each "type of person” there is a characteristic pattern of
responses to the items comprising the Guttman scale. A
Guttman simplex satisfies a product rule for causal chains,
such that when the clusters are ordered by probability of
saying "yes” (in a Likert type item or scale as in this 2
study, it is actually the likelihood of reporting higher on
a designated continuum), the correlation between any two
items is the product of the intervening adjacent
correlations. A Guttman simplex suggests a typology of

37

 

 

 

 

oofi .nn. mm mm mm Hm NH HH xumcowrmecu
Nu ooH .«o mN Hm mN mm mm oH acmsmmmrcmnEu
on an ace. mm we we Hm me Hm mszmoaxm to tame
mm mm um ooH mm mm mm on Na commmmcmmcmc»
mum>wcq
ma an me me OOH; Na ..mw, mm. as w , was xsea
mm mm we mm mm ocH .mmx co”, cm W mmmuusm
Hm am am mm mm mm ooH om Hm mszmoaxm
mucmwuz<
as mm me om ms OOH so OOH ,emsm eoesuanam
HH oH Hm Ne so \; sstl, azawm: . mm oofi mrmguo on are?
in- aiiigf F
apwcowcmecfi “scammecrmnsm mcamoaxm commmmsm. mes nmmmuusm/Eamon)“/=oSooau~_/mcmfio

mo Lewd (waste xamu M mucmpca< o» .;

mum>wcal fl agar. pp

(W14...) c. _.

Aonu zv copumzcmuu< com umuomccou mcwamzpu maez;eommwmm» coo

m spam»

38

 

 

ooH mm on mm mm 5N HH Aumcoecmecm
um ooH em mm Hm mm oH newsmmesceasm
mu em ,oofi um we Ne Hm mrzmoaxm so some
mm mm mm ooH me me Ne cowmmmcmmcmc»
mum>wts
mm Hm me me ooH on Ho was xamd
RN mm me me as ooH mu wocmumasoo
meoom
HH ofi Hm me He :;; ooH mcmguo on sea:
xwwcowcmwcH acmsmmeccmnEM wramoaxw cowmmmcm, was quucmuoneouxy mcmguo
to tame -mcmrp xamd / Pmeoom .x op
mum>wre xxx, .:x\. are:

 

\U‘

AOHm u zv COmeaucmHH< Lonv UwHUmLLOU mLmum: _.U cm>mm :mmzfimn mcomngmLLOU

e spam»

39

respondents (in this study, most probably based upon their
vulnerability to shame) across the four types of situations
as represented by the four scales (cluster scores). The
probability of saying "yes" was highest for harm to others,
somewhat lower for social incompetence, lower still for faux
pas and lowest for private transgression. This suggests
that those who say "yes” to situations of private
transgression, may be a subset of those who say ”yes” to
situations of faux pas who may in turn be a subset of those
who say ”yes” to situations of social incompetence, who may
in turn be a subset of those who say ”yes” to situations of
harming others.

The moderately high inter-cluster correlations and

i>initial four clusters into one variable, which was labeled

 

 

 

 

I situational shame (alpha = .65). Table 5 presents the//»
correlations among situational shame, fear of exposure,

embarrassment, and inferiority.

Path analysis

The four variables defined by the shame inventory were
subjected to a causal analysis. One path model which fits
the data is shown in Figure 1. This model assumes that
people who develop feelings of inferiority tend to become
vulnerable to embarrassment and tend to develop a fear of
exposure. those who have a fear of exposure tend to become
vulnerable to situational shame.

The test of the path model is presented in Table 6.
The first section of the Table 6 presents the actual
correlations between the four variables. The second section
presents the correlations reproduced or predicted by the
path model of Figure l. The third section of Table 6

presents the errors; i.e. differenceflof_agtualfiminusm

“1,-..

V.._.

 

40

Table 5

Inter-correlations of Situational Shame.
Fear of Exposure, Embarrassment, and

Inferiority (N = 310)

 

 

 

Situational Fear of
Shame Exposure Embarrassment Inferiority
/Situational 100 'hsg 28 26
{Shame '*
Fear of Exposure 49 100 64 76
Embarrassment 28 64 100 77

Inferiority 26 5763 :”77,? 100

 

41

77
76

Embarrassment

Fear of
Exposure

 

Situational

Shame

 

Figure 1. A causal model of the relations between feelings of
inferiority, vulnerability to embarrassment, fear of
exposure, and vulnerability to situational shame

42

Table 6
Test of the Path Model Shown in Figure 1

 

 

 

I E F S

Actual correlations:

Feelings of Inferiority I 100

Vulnerability to Embarrassment E 77 100

Fear of Exposure F 76 64 100

Vulnerability to Situational Shame S 26 28 45 100
Reproduction correlations:fi

Feelings of Inferiority I 100

Vulnerability of Embarrassment E 77 100

Fear of Exposure F 76 59 100

Vulnerability to Situational Shame S 34 26 45 100
Errors:

Feelings of Inferiority I -

Vulnerability to Embarrassment E 0* -

Fear of Exposure F 0* 5. -

Vulnerability to Situational Shame S -8 2 0* -

 

*Constrained to be 0 by the estimation process.

43

predicted correlations. None of the three differences free
to vary are individually significant. The overall chi- ‘>

square is 1.36 with 3 degrees of freedom and is not‘
significant. k/

./J —

/.

There are other models which would fit this same data.
Three such models are: First, a model in which
embarrassment is prior to inferiority which is prior to fear
of exposure which is prior to situational shame. Second, a
model which assumes that fear of exposure is prior to
inferiority and situational shame and assumes that
inferiority is prior to embarrassment. Third, a model which
assumes that situational shame is prior to fear of exposure
which is prior to inferiority which is prior to
embarrassment. The model selected here was chosen on
substantive grounds rather than on the basis of difference
in fit.

1‘ -k Sit"). 1“. 2
f ‘v..) — l_,. V

Discussion

0 n ra te w th F in s
Qisgrete Traits of Inferiority (bodyl characterl
relationship, and gompetence)

Figure 2 presents the crosstabulation of apriori
clusters by final clusters for the 131 shame items. An
examination of Figure 2 reveals ”successful" predictions for
four of the eight apriori clusters: character (relabeled in
findings as inferiority), social inappropriateness
(relabeled in findings as faux pas), competence (relabeled
in findings as success; a primary component of social
competence), and phenomenology (relabeled in findings as
embarrassment). The findings led the investigator to
reexamine the conceptualization and operationalisation of
the apriori profile. The original shame categories were
derived from Tomkin's (1963) and Kaufman's (1985)
theoretical work about shame. Tomkins delineated four“
general “asses flames: the Shady. 99:3. interpersonal

.____._,_.. wa---r-i—-,,..
_,....flmr~.._....-_..

_re1ationshipsilandwthemselfY/These four general sources were

wfl.-._ A _.........1._.. ._. ,

hypothesized to define four factors of shape; competence
J5shame (self is expEEIEhted as incompetent). body shame (self
4 is experienced as ugly), relationship shame (self is
experienced as unloveable), and character shame (self is
experienced as weak and hopelessly flawed). The findings

show only one factor ofinferiority,V/’

 

 

It is noteworthy to examine the preconceived cluster of
competence shame in this regards. “Competence shame was

 

defined as a type of inferiority in which one experiences
him/herself as incompetent; the self-perceived personal

44

msmum mamnm HmH toe mrmumsHu Heep» use mgmumzHu reopens mo cowpmHzamuummosu .N seamed

 

45

N m mmmcmcez<
«seem

m H mH N msmgm
mmmcmumpgaoaaqmcH

Hstuom

m H m H H N wsmgm
Hugo:

N H m H N osmzm
uuoee<

mH m H H osmsm
cmpoermgu

m m N m asaem
seemeoesaHmm

m H m asaem
seem

a N H m mH H msmnm
muzmumasou

 

Hmaummmm auwgowcwecH ucmsmmmrtmnsu mtamonxm commmmmmmemtp was xsma mucmumqsou mcoguo
to same mum>wca Hmwuom op sew:

46

defect tends to be focused on either one's physical or 11 /
mental abilities. Performance shame, which is 4"./ { y/

_....__. ”m .. _ .- A-..“ "MMHW—o "‘me - 3‘

discouragement arising when one fai1sI to do what one wishes \1;///

__._.___--H-—~- -—-—-

I'“I-' v ‘m-M—ae

. competence shame. The operationalizing (placing of shame \

 

 

 

items into the preconceived cluster) of competence shame \

consisted of primarily performance shame items. The 1

findings suggest making a distinction between shame about a

particular act (1. e. performance shame) and shame about the

general failure of one' 3 self (trait of inferiority). Most

recently, Tomkins has postulated a related distinction, on

the basis of the target of one' 8 negative evaluation,

between the shame states of ”inferiority" and

discouragement” (Kaufman, 1986). _According to Tomkins,
//:inferiority” is shame about the inability or incapacity of \\\

. 4the self, whereas "discouragement” is shame 3P_°VQMEBE \k“
:;{/2 failure of one' s effort, rather than the incapaqigx gf tng‘
\J . 3212:" In sum, it appears that the conceptualization of the /

apriori profile erred either in its conceptual combination I/”
of performance shame and competence shame, or in the ,‘
operationalizing of competence shame. If the latter case is
true, then new shame items are needed to differentiate the
hypothesized trait of inferiority about competence l/from
either the more general trait of inferiority or more
externally dependent (shame is activated by discrete
external event) trait of success (a subcluster of social
competence).

Mast—Shae;

Inspection of Figure 2 reveals no support for the
preconceived cluster of affect shame. Affect shame was I
defined as a specific variant of shame: shame is experienced
when events occur which would normally result in the
experiencing and/or expression of any of the other primary

affects. The notion of affect shame arises out of a theory

47

of discrete emotions (Tomkins, 1963; Izard, 1977), in which
a separate affect system is conceived as a sub—system of
personality. Perhaps the interaction of shame with the
other postulated innate affects (as hypothesized with affect
shame) is not phenomenologically distinguishable to the
respondent. Another possibility is that existing shame
measurement does not approach this domain, so that new items
are needed to further test this ”type” of shame. For I
example, ”I feel stupid when I am afraid” (shame about the L’/“
discrete affect of fear), "Letting others see my joy is bad
or childish” (shame about the affect of/enjoyment), and "I
try to hide my feelings of superiority towards others"
(shame about the affect of contempt), are possible items to
specifically assess the presence of affect shame.
finame_bsareness.

Inspection of Figure 2 reveals that 7 of the 9 ”shame
awareness” items clustered as predicted (relabeled in the
findings as embarrassment). The relabeling was done for two
primary reasons: (1) individuals who score low on this trait
may be aware of their shame, but just do not experience the
state frequently, (2) the phenomenological experience of
shame may consist of a diverse band of inner experiences, so
that a different label (from shame), such as
“embarrassment”, is needed to describe the predisposition to
states of intense feelings of exposure (most likely shame)
with accompanying self-consciousness.

It is noteworthy that the relabeled hypothesized
cluster of shame awareness did correlate higher, as
predicted, with the trait of inferiority than with states of
shame about particular acts or specific situations (trait of
situational shame). (The prediction was made after
inspecting the items traditionally used to measure shame. It
was postulated, then, that the items did not capture the
entire range and quality of shame states as observed through

48

introspection and clinical practice. The attempt to broaden
the scope resulted in the inclusion of many of the Cook
shame items in this investigation.) The low correlation of
shame awareness (relabeled as embarrassment) and situational
shame supports the notion of two qualitatively different
types of shame states. The high association of states of
embarrassment with negative self-judgment (inferiority) in
combination with the significantly lower association of
embarrassment with situational shame suggests a type of
shame that may be more malignant in nature than the ”shame"
states indicative of situational shame.

§ocial Inappropriateness

Inspection of Figure 2 reveals the predicted clustering
of items comprising the factor social inappropriateness (13
of 21 items clustered as predicted with 5 of the items
falling into the residual category). In the findings the
cluster was relabeled faux pas.

mum

Inspection of Figure 2 reveals little support for the
hypothesized cluster of moral shame. Moral shame as
preconceived was a trait as evidenced by shame states
resulting from either transgressing or failing to live up to
moral, ethical, and religious codes. The findings reveal
two clusters related to moral shame, private transgression
(5 of its 7 items came from the preconceived cluster of
moral shame) and harm to others (2 of its 3 items came from
the preconceived cluster of moral shame). It is important to
note that both of these clusters are highly correlated with
each other as well as the other two factors (social
competence, faux pas) comprising situational shame. The
Guttman scale pattern of correlations suggests that all four
clusters measure exactly the same trait; though mmral
transgressions elicit more shame than faux pas. It
indicates that structuring shame traits on the basis of

49

situational activators (i.e. moral transgression) is not
supported.

Shame and guilt have been differentiated as affects on
several dimensions: phenomenology (Buss, 1980; Izard, 1977;
Lewis, 1971), type of activator (Buss, 1980; Lewis, 1971;
Piers and Singer, 1953; Unrmser, 1981), locus of evaluation-
-public or private (Buss, 1980; Erikson, 1968), and
characteristic responses or defenses (Buss, 1980; Lewis,
1971; Wurmser, 1981). The traditional distinctions of two
discrete negative affects on the basis of activator (moral
transgression versus social inappropriateness, competence,
or rejection) or public—private evaluation is not supported.

State-Trait Distinction

The apriori profile was based on the premise that the
items from existing shame measures could be meaningfully
grouped into clusters based on the various sources and/or
activators of shame. The preconceived model contained four
clusters conceived as chronic, discrete types of inferiority
(character, competence, capacity for intimate relationships,
and body), that is shame whose source is from the self; one
cluster derived from a specific theory of emotions (affect);
two clusters in which the source of shame affect is
contextually based (moral and social inappropriateness); and
one cluster in which the awareness of the inner experience
of a variant of shame affect is primary (shame awareness).

The four discrete "types" of inferiority were conceived
as diverse shame states. As states they are typically
distinguished from each other. For example, at one moment a
person feeling shame over perceived deficiencies of
character does not think about being ugly. Most personality
items ask for characteristic responses rather than a .
response to one particular event. Thus, they tap
predispositions or traits rather than states. The items in
this inventory measure traits: a disposition toward either a

50

high or low frequency of such states. One trait may govern
many states. In particular, one trait may be the causative
agent for a range of shame states. The findings indicate
only one trait (inferiority) for the sources of shame
located within the self, as opposed to the four factors
postulated in the apriori profile. A person high on
inferiority often experiences shame about all four aspects
of the self. A person low on inferiority rarely feels shame
about any aspect of the self. Psychodynamic investigation
is an interactive study of the self and its meaningful
interpersonal relationships and has focused on states rather
than traits in this area and has thus failed to note the
unified tendency to either experience all or experience none
of these shame states.
on st Theo et c Mode h

The apriori profile model assumed that shame is
"clustered" by the content of the shame, that is, the object
about which one feels shame. If true, this could have been
explained by a learning theory model. _§hamevis experiegggg__

 

 

V,
either about certain aspects of oneself (competence,

 

capacity for relationships, body, needs) and/or_particular

 

types of situations ( social inappropriateness, in front of

 

fan audience, when meeting strangers). Many have thought
that trait shame is shame affect that has become conditioned
to particular aspects of oneself or with particular
situations. Instead the findings indicate a model quite
different from that preconceived profile. This tends to
disconfirm the learning or developmental state based

hypothesis. V/

The four clusters comprising situational shame (harm to
others, social competence, faux pas, and private I
transgression) formed a Guttman scale. The Guttman scale
indicates that rather than there being four distinct
clusters of situationally based sources of shame (a content

’4'-

51

based model), there is a typology of individuals who differ
in their vulnerability to shame. Situations differ in
their probability of activating shame, most likely on the
dimension of social norms; that is, certain behaviors are
socially viewed as "more important” to "uphold" and thus
when not "followed” are more likely to heighten the
awareness of "not fitting in" and the intensity of negative
affect experienced by the vulnerable individual in that
situation. Individuals differ in their vulnerability to
shame affect because they differ in their threshold for
shame; some individuals are "thicker skinned" in regards to
shame than others. Some will never feel shame. Some will
feel shame only if they harm others. Some will feel shame
if they have a private transgression or harm others. Some
will feel shame even if they commit only a faux pas. People
differ in terms of how serious an error or transgression
(either by self or other) must be in order to evoke shame.
The three remaining clusters, fear of e as e,
emb rra ment, and inferiority, rather than being "content-
based” traits associated with shame, are traits reflecting
three different inner states : inferiority is a propensity
towards states of unworthiness and inadequacy; fear of
exposure is a propensity towards states of worrying about
others' opinions or scrutiny of one's self; and
embarrassment is a propensity towards states of intense
feelings of exposure (most likely with accompanying self-
consciousness) along with the impulse or desire to hide.
I In sum, the apriori model formulated from an affect
theory of shame, postulated that shame becomes associated
with its/stimulus )either parts of self, or discrete
situations).'“”T findings do not support such a
organizational model of shame. The findings suggest that
individuals differ in their vulnerability gr/threshold for
shame across situations (situatioaal shame) Additionally,

52

the construct shame is found to be associated with negative
self-evaluation (inferiogity), apprehension about other's
negative evaluations of one's self (fear a; asposuae) and
experiences of extreme exposure (ambaggassmeat).

Findings: Four Factor Model

Overview

An underlying goal of this investigation was to
determine the factor structure of existing shame
measurement. Towards that end the investigators formulated
a preconceived profile of shame clusters, based upon an
affect theory of shame structuralization. It was postulated
that shame is associated with parts of self or particular
situations. The preconceivedgprofile was heavily biQEEd‘in
the direction of sources of shame stemming from the self or
discrete categories of inferiority (competence, capacity for
intimate relationships, body, and character). The results
indicate that axisging measurement does not support such a
distinction. One possible explanation is that while
clinicians may empathically discover discrete
phenomenological states of inferiority, these states are
representative of only one underlying trait. Another
possible explanation is that the domain of shame items
requires expansion to include a wider range of shame states.

A third possibility is that thelclinician's conceptual
framework for ”working with” their client's shame may be

 

 

differentiated in a manner quite different from either their
client's ”organization of shame" or the population sampled
in this investigation.

The findings indicate that a four factor model,

I

situational shame, fear a; axposagaf/saaaagassmaaa, and
infariority "best fits” existing shame measurement, Each of

these traits will be discussed separately. Initially a

53

descriptive definition of each will be presented. An
attempt will be made to integrate the findings with the
descriptive literature about shame, both philosophical and
clinical, so that the nature and connotative meanings of the
findings might be broadened.

Situational Shame

The trait situational__hame is actually a combination
of four nonlinearly related measures: harm to others, ”social
competence (rejection, audience exposure, success), faux
pas,and privatetransgression. The correlational pattern
among these four clusters suggested that all four clusters
measure the same thing, that individuals characterlogically
differ in their vulnerability to shame. (Situationsmdiffer

r._._w.~l“"

in their probability to elicit shame on the basis of social

" ‘“ ‘—‘ ~—-.M— "

 

« .h ”a-.. cw“,
-——_ “WM

Avalue). The variable situational shame is an index of an
‘individual: 's propensity to experience shame in shame

WM

eliciting situations (sources of shame outside the self,

such as work, relationships, social interaction)fmnfiowever
it is important to note that the item measuring this cluster
does not clearly specify the inner affective experience of
the respondent in the situation. Thus, it is possible that
the propensity for "shame”, may also tap other negative
affects as well as shame. There is a need for future work
to more clearly delineate the nature of the inner experience
assessed in these previously "consensually validated” shame
situations. Perhaps the scale confounds propensity for
other negative affects in response to the situation with the

propensity to shame.

 

\*

Self-consciousness: unexpected exposure: rejectioni'
fears of abandonment, helplessness: hiding, failure}
incompetence? inadequacy; loss of control:fianger,
disappointed expectations, invidious comparisons, and
incongruity have been given prominence in discussions of
shame. It becomes quite evident that ”shame” has been used

54

as a symbol for a diverse and wide range of inner
experiences. Some authors have recognized this problem and
have attempted to specify what they consider to be the
generic core of shame experiences. Schneider (1977) has
maintained that the core of shame experience is found in a
sense of visibility and axposure. He locates the essence of
shame in the ”cognitive focus on the appearance or display
of that which ought not to show” because it covers the wide
range of shame-related phenomena including disgrace-shame
(after the act) and discretionary shame (before the act) (p.
34). Kaufman (1985) has asserted that the core of shame is
unexpected exposure and it's accompanying sali-
gansciousness. Both Kaufman's and Schneider's postulated
core elements offlshameware qualities of thegstates

War-W —

indicative g£_the embarrassment cluster. Situational shame

 

 

hush.

 

 

 

correlated rather low with embarrassment (r=.28), which
distinct from states of embarrassment. The nature of the
shame in situational shame is in need of specification.
Perhaps, other postulated core elements of shame (besides
extreme exposure and the inpulse to hide ) are core elements
in ”situational shame”.

If one inspects the items comprising situational shame,
“Waffleegiyfle respondent..'§_-.f§99§ eagle
”experience” 3 Instead the respondent is asked to rate how
\__aa,mflm_rm-

"anxious" he/she would feel in particular situations. The
subjective experience of anxiety may consist of a I
constellation of negative affects (Izard, 1977), or could be
a signal or cue to avoid the experience of shame or any
other negative affect. Existing shame measurement does not
directly address the issue of phenomenology. Instead '
existing measurement assumes that items "consensuaiiy_
validatedzhtpflsiicit shame will allactivate the same inner

--——‘—"'_"

 

 

v

response. Thus, there was no need for items to specify the
v”-

‘--._.__, -wnH. rye—.4”...

55

nature or content of that inner response. Instead, symbols
such as "embarrassed", ”anxious” or ”disturbed” are all
taken as evidence of the presence of shame. Future work
needs to be directed towards specifying the respondent's
inner experience in situations presently thought to measure
a respondent's level of shame. Cook's Shame Instrument
(1985) (one of the instruments used in this investigation)
differs from previous shame methodology in that it
approaches the construct of shame primarily through
assessing frequency of inner feelings, feeling states, and

-Qn- ‘p-O .tw-

affect- beliefs about one' 3 self. In this study, the

 

 

 

clusters (traits) of inferiority and embarrassment contain
items almost entirely (except for 1 item) from the Cook
Shame Instrument. It is noteworthy that situational shame_
correlated only .28 and .26 with the clusters of
embarrassment and inferiority respectively. While
phenomenological states of intense ”feelings of exposure
along with the impulse to hide” and ”negative affect-beliefs
about one's self" are associated with shame in situations
selected by previous investigators, other negative inner
experiences may be even more prevalent in these situations.

Eear of Exposure

The fear of exposure trait indicates a disposition to
worry or be apprehensive about others' opinions or scrutiny
of one's self or aspects of one's self as well as a desire
or tendency to conform, "hide” aspects of one's self, or
"fit in". Buss (1980) has made the distinction between the
trait of public self-consciousness (the predispostion to
become aware of one's self as a social object) and private
self-consciousness (the predisposition to be aware of I
private aspects of one's self). The fear of exposure factor
is evidenced by states involving awareness of both private
and public aspects of one's self. The fear of exposure

56 6” //

trait reflects the social or relational core of shame as'

 

 

described by several theorists (Kaufman, 1980; Schneider,
1977; Lynd, 1958; Erikson, issg;"suropegpguisazi fission,

pom m1" -.__n_.

1983, Buss, 1980)L’in addition to illuminating the

 

 

 

 

 

 

"exposure” core of shame. According to Schneider, shame as
”exposure” arises from a felt incongruity in which somone
has exceeded his or her proper place in relation to the
self-perceived larger context. Schneider (1977) claims that
shame occasions are those where someone or some aspect of a
person or group is ”out of place” or ”exposed" (p. 35). It
is possible to understand whether someone is out of place
only in relation to some larger context.

Kinston (1983) has linked shame with conformity.
Conformity is one probable behavioral response to fears of
exposure. He described shame as a signal experience in which
the individual is faced with painful self-awareness and

.— ,m -M,.f1;_5—wcu-~ma:_urr-—f "‘

 

rather than disclose this awareness, denies it, and conforms

with the other in order to maintain their love and approval.

 

 

The person conforms to the other rather than risk self-
disclosure. Kinston's narrative description of shame
includes a general motive for ”conforming” rather than
disclosing or exposing one's "true self”, and thus, provides
a possible meaningful dynamic explanation for conforming.

W

The trait of embarrassment indicates a disposition for
intense feelings of exposure along with the impulse or
desire to hide. Several authors have linked ”shame" to the
need to cover or hide - in particular, to cover that which
is exposed (Kaufman, 1980; Tomkins, 1963; Wurmser, 1981;
Lewis, 1971; Broucek, 1982). The embarrassment trait
reflects the ”covering” or "hiding” component described in
association with the construct shame. MacCurdy (1965), from
a biological perspective, recognizes three fundamental
reactions to danger: fear-flight, anger-aggression, and

57

concealment-immobility. Shame is a form of a concealment-
immobility response. He notes that the subjective confusion
that has typically characterized embarrassment is not the
picture of a person caught up in fearful flight, but an
individual frozen in the inertness of immobility. The
elements of concealment and the incapacity to respond
reflect shame. MacCurdy notes that manifestations of shame
(in this investigation differentiated as embarrassment)-
averting the eye, covering the face, blushing, hanging one's
head, and wanting to ”sink through the floor"- are distinct
from fear responses. From a psychoanalytic perspective,
Wurmser (1981) distinguishes the ”aim" of shame from other
affects: anxiety (aim of flight), hatred and anger (aim of
fight and destruction), contempt (aim of elimination and
disappearance of object), and love (aim of partially or
totally uniting with the object). In Vurmser's view shame-
anxiety or shame's aim is an avoidance reaction in the form
of hiding and blocking instinctual aims (to fuse, gain
power, or be overpowered by object). Tomkins (1963), from
an affect theory perspective, views shame as a deeply
ambivalent experience in which part of one's self ”hides”
from the other and another part maintains interest in
reestablishing relationship. While these authors
perspectives reflect shame as hiding (trait of
embarrassment), they do not distinguish embarrassment from
other aspects of shame. The findings suggest that further
theoretical work is needed to elucidate the relationship
between embarrassment and other shame traits.

Embarrassment correlated quite high with the fear of
exposure (r=.64) and inferiority (r=.77) factors whereas it
correlated much lower with situational shame (r=.26). .
Apriori, the embarrassment cluster was conceived as an index
of an individual's awareness of shame. This reflected the
researcher's conception of "embarrassment" as a subjective

58

state strongly associated with states of inferiority. The
results confirm this association between embarrassment
affect and inferiority. It is noteworthy that the three
highly inter-correlated factors of fear of exposure,
embarrassment, and inferiority predominately contain items
emphasizing (requiring) a field independent and
differentiated focus towards one's internal world, while the
situational shame items require an awareness of one's
contextually-based affective response. Fenigstein et. al.
(1975) defined self-consciousness as the consistent tendency
of persons to direct attention inward or outward. One
possibility, is that individual differences in the direction
of self-awareness influenced the correlations found.
Perhaps, individuals inwardly focused respond higher on the
traits of fear of exposure, embarrassment, and inferiority
than situational shame while outwardly focused individuals
score higher on the trait of situational shame than on the
other three traits found.

Inferiority

Inferiority is a disposition/to view oneself as a i/,
__£ailg£e, inadequate, or worthless; hopelessly defective. It
is evidenced by both negative affect and negative evaluation
of one's self. The qualitative nature of this negative
affect requires further investigation. Several theorists
have highlighted the negative consequences for personal
integrity and identity resulting from "too much" shame or
failures in coping with it (Tomkins, 1963; Erikson, 1959;
Izard, 1977; Kaufman, 1980; Wurmser, 1981; Joffe, 1984) and
its resulting inferiority. Kaufman (1980) has postulated
that the final step in the developmental process of shame
internalization is the formation of a ”shame-based '
identity". Internalization means that an individual can
experience shame in isolation, without the prompting of an

interpersonal event.

59

Kaufman (in press) theorizes that a Shame Profile
emerges through the higher order magnification (increased
duration and intensity) of shame scenes. He postulates the
first stage of magnification to involve four primary scene
dimensions: affect shame, need shame, gpive shame, and
purpose shame._ Second stage magnification fuses these
scenes into competence shame, bod shame, and relationship
shame. The final stage of magnification is character shame

 

(inferiority). This investigation offers little support for
such a formulation, as the profile of shame postulated
(according to shame content or object of shame) is not
found. It is important to note that the discrete clusters
of shame in Kaufman's schema may exist , but to be validated
require the expansion of the domain of present shame
measurement to include the postulated states. Current shame
measurement does not include the range of shame states
formulated in Kaufman's profile model.

Correlations between Final Scales

There were four scales produced from the shame
inventory: inferiority, embarrassment, fear of exposure, and
situational shame. The first three are much more highly
correlated with each other than they are with situational
shame. Initially, this suggested a hierarchical model in
which inferiority, embarrassment, and fear of exposure might
be dependent on a common factor (i.e., ”malignant shame").
However, a confirmatory factor analysis shows that there is
no such higher order factor. The pattern of correlations
shows that the higher order factor would just be inferiority
itself. That is, ”malignant shame" would be inferiority.‘

There are at least four path models which fit this
data. The path model chosen for Figure l was selected on
the basis of the following theoretical rationale. First

60

consider the high correlation between inferiority and fear
of exposure. Which way might a causal arrow go? The
direction chosen assumes that one reason for a high fear of
exposure is the belief that an inner deficiency will be
exposed. Thus a person with feelings of inferiority
believes that exposure will reveal the deficiencies which
the person believes himself to have. The reverse argument
seems less plausible. If a person started out with a fear
of exposure but no feeling of inferiority, then subsequent
actual exposure seems likely to diminish or extinguish the
fear response rather than produce feelings of inferiority.
It is probable that the individual's fear might be used as a
"signal” or motivator for preparatory coping behavior for
the anticipated "feared exposure” (i.e., like in preparing
for a public speech). -
Consider the high correlation between fear of exposurekffw
and situational shame. The causal arrow from fear of
exposure to situational.shame was chosen because of stronger
arguments in favor of a causal impact of fear of exposure on
vulnerability to shame than vice versa. The argument that
fear of exposure tends to produce vulnerability to
situational shame begins with the argument that fear of
exposure creates an anticipation of negative evaluation for
mistakes, faux pas, failures, or other situational traumas.
This anticipation is like a ”chip on the shoulder”; it
renders the person more emotional or "on guard” in the
situation even before something happens. This excess
emotionality makes the person more vulnerable to shame. It
is also true that any path model that fits this data with
inferiority prior to fear of exposure must also have fear of
exposure prior to situational shame. ‘
Consider the high correlation between inferiority and
embarrassment. The assumption that inferiority causes

vulnerability to embarrassment rather than the reverse stems

61

from a consideration of embarrassment as an extreme form of
self-consciousness. If an event causes a person to become
self-conscious, then a person with feelings of inferiority
becomes aware of self-perceived deficiencies. This
magnifies the feeling of self-consciousness and hence
magnfies the embarrassment. A person who starts out
vulnerable to embarrassment but without feelings of
inferiority seems likely to extinguish the embarrassment
response after exposures that turn out to be harmless.
Consider an exposure which turns out harmless; say dropping
a spoon at a restaurant. The confident person feels self-
conscious for a moment, but the feeling quickly passes into
relaxation. The person with feelings of inferiority

feels both self-conscious about dropping the spoon and also
self-conscious about many other self-perceived deficiencies
which might be brought to others' attention. Thus, even if
no one does pay attention, the person feels like they
”escaped a potential disaster" (i.e. ”no one discovered my
other deficiencies”). Since they do not feel relaxed even
when the event of exposure is actually harmless, the
emotional self-consciousness response is magnified rather
than extinguished.

The correlation between fear of exposure and
situational shame is .45 which is lower than would be
expected on the basis of the argument given above. This
raises a point discussed elsewhere; the possibility that
"situational shame" might be measuring other negative
affects as well as shame. For example, if the scale
assesses fear as well as shame, then there might be other
factors which predetermine ”situational shame”; i.e. factors
which contribute to high vulnerability to fear in situations
of exposure. For example, an extremely competitive person
might have ”much invested" in always appearing superior. A
faux pas or simple failure might very well produce fear

62

(threat of losing superior status) or distress (loss of
superior status) for that person more than for others.
Thus, a competitive person might be higher on "situational
shame” than others. This ”extraneous variation” would then
reduce the correlation between fear of exposure and the
situational shame scale.

Shame Theory: Self-consciousness (embarrassment) Contrasted
with Inner Deficiency (inferiority)

Some authors (Kaufman, 1985; Schneider, 1977) have made
embarrassment the corner stone of their shame construct.

That is, they have stressed exposure and self— -consciousness

 

 

rather than feelings of deficiency or inadequacy in talking

Mug-0.4M” __.... m-

about shame affect. This stress would not matter at them

 

gtrait level if inferiority were perfectly correlated with
embarrassment. However, the correlation of .77 is high but
far from perfect. Thus the two concepts, extreme self—
consciousness and feelings of deficiency are not coincident
at the trait level. There are at least two reasons why this
correlation might be less than 1.00. First, it may be that
most of the people who develop feelings of inferiority are
also vulnerable to embarrassment but some are not. Perhaps
those who accept their inferiority become matter of fact
about it and hence do not become emotional about the
possibility that others may notice. They would be high on
inferiority but not high on vulnerability to embarrassment.
Second, it may be that everyone who is high on feelings of
inferiority is also high on vulnerability to embarrassment,
but that there are also people who are high on embarrassment
who are not high on inferiority. It may be that there are
people who are much more vulnerable to self-consciousness
than others; for example people who are "bashful” (in the

sense of being fearful of offending others) but do not feel

63

inadequate.

It may also be true that these authors have
overstressed the relationship between "shame? (self as
diminished) and embarrassment (acute self-consciousness) at
the state level. 'If "shame” is used to describe acute
feelings of inadequacy or deficiency, then it seems possible
that shame and embarrassment are potentially independent
affects or subjective states. Tomkins (1963) affect theory
connects these two distinct states. He uses the label
"shame” for a theoretical entity referring to a specific
innate affect that is postulated to be the primary affective
component in both inferiority and embarrassment, as well as
other disparate negative affective experiences. Tomkins
(in press) argues that it is the total complex of affect,
source (activator), and response which results in a
particular ”feeling" label. Because source and response can
differ, the same affect may be present in many different
feeling states. Thus there are many variants of shame (or
any other affect). The use of the symbol shame serves a
potentially useful purpose in integrating diverse qualities
of human experience (Kaufman, 1985). This investigation
suggests that such symbolization might also hide some
meaningful differentiations at both a trait and state level.
For example, a situation in which the person is self-
conscious provides an opportunity for ”shame” if the person
also focuses on feelings of deficiency. The combination may
be much more intense than shame without self-consciousness.
On the other hand, consider a child who is falsely accused
by a teacher and responds to the accusation with angry
humiliation. A person who responds to shame with anger
(angry humiliation) may feel no self consciousness and hence
no embarrassment. Their focus may be entirely on the hated
person who produced the shame.

Related to the issue of the distinction between

64

embarrassment and inferiority is the issue of the
distinction between inferiority and gear of exposure. Those
authors who have made acute feelings of exposure (i.e. self—
consciousness) the central focus of their shame construct
have also assumed that shame would automatically imply fear
of exposure. Thus they would implicitly predict a perfect
correlation between inferiority and fear of exposure. The
correlation is a high .76 but is still far from 1.00. Thus
at the trait level fear of exposure and feelings of
inferiority are not coincident. There are at least two
reasons which might explain the lack of perfect correlation.
First, although most people with feelings of inferiority may
fear exposure, some may not. Those who accept their
inferiority may not fear exposure since they are habituated
to it. Second, even if all who are high on inferiority were
high on fear of exposure, there may also be people who are
high in fear of exposure for other reasons. For example,
people who are ”bashful" (modest about themselves) but are
not troubled with feelings of inadequacy may dread exposure
because of the acute self-consciousness which they

experience under those conditions.

Directions for Future Research

Problem of Language
The term shame has been used to depict a diverse and

vast range of phenomenological states and traits. In
reviewing the literature, the investigator became aware that
most authors failed to encompass the observations
(particularly the phenomenology) of their colleagues within
their theoretical construct of shame or even attempt to
compare their observations/interpretations with those of
their colleagues. In 1959, Lynd noted that there is no
readily expressive language of shame, no accepted form by

65

which shame can be communicated. She also differentiated
precise scientific language which concentrates on a limited
exactness and demands elimination of ambiguity from
expressive language which may include ambiguity and surplus
meaning (i.e., metaphors). It is this author's viewpoint
that the descriptive studies of shame have significantly
advanced since the time of Lynd's observation. The work of
Kaufman (1985) and Tomkins (1963) have done much to provide
a language for communicating the inner experiences of shame
(or shame variants), while a host of other psychodynamic and
existential theorists have emphasized and highlighted
previously neglected elements of "shame experiences" that
have increased understanding of people's experience. Much
of this work has come from clinical observation, and few
attempts have been made to empirically ”test" and

reformulate and/or integrate theory.

Expanding the domain of shame items
This investigation indicated that though there is a

rich range of states described in association with the

construct of shame, current shame measurement appears

.———__.__—-— .—.—.-

limited in its ”tapping" of this domain. Shame states have

Wimu‘ W\

been classified according to the subject of shame (the

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

contents of shame: actions, its results, or general

reflection on whole acting person), sources of shame (body,

‘wa_ ""' "‘“—' "~—

“WM...“—

self, work, relationships), its activators (audience_

 

 

 

exposure, personal rejection/betrayal, faux pas,
M x—.________

Ta?

 

failure/incompetence, humiliation, public exposure of the

privately cherished, criticism), and behaviors which reduce
it (hidingééscape,wblaming, denial). An outgrowth of using
these diverse classification schemes is that there is no
”shared” scientific language for shame. In obtaining ideas
for shame-state items from theory, it becomes important to

"see behind” labels used to depict states : (a) some authors

66

use the same label for different states (i.e. Tomkins uses
the label of "shyness" for shame resulting from an
impediment to immediate intimacy, while Buss defines the
term as the relative absence of expected social behaviors)
(b) other authors use different labels for similar states
(i.e. social anxiety and shame). One clear direction for
future shame research is to write new items based upon the
various shame states described in the literature. An
important distinction to be kept in mind using such a
methodology is the distinction between states of shame and

 

traits associated with shame states. This investigation
indicated that distinct states of inferiority are

representative of only one trait. Additionally, it might be
useful to include states more traditionally labeled as
”guilt". This investigation showed a high correlation
between states traditionally thought of as ”shame" (faux
pas, social competence) and states traditionally thought of
as ”guilt” (private transgression, harm to others). This
provides some support for affect theory, in that ”guilt” is
postulated as shame resulting from moral sanctions (Tomkins,
in press).

The inner Experience of Shame (States of Shamef/

The four traits of situational shame, fear of exposure,
embarrassment, and inferiority were found to exist within
current shame measurement. The items measuring fear of
exposure, embarrassment, and inferiority contain references
to specific inner experiences or feelings. These feelings_
have been linked to ”shame? by many authors: relational 6‘
lincongruity (shame as exposure}, negative self-evaluation),
(shame as inferiority), concealment (shame as hiding), and
painful self-consciousness elements which have been /’
described in relation with shame states. Other elements
have been ”discovered" and/or hypothesized through various

r /
._,
1

67

methodologies (psychodynamic, introspection, and empirical)
as core elements in the shame experience: self as passive
and helpless in relation to a laughing ridiculing other
(shame as dependency and rejection) (Lewis, 1971; Anderson,
1977) failure to live up to an ideal image (shame as
imperfection) (Piers and Singer, 1953; Lewis, 1971; Wurmser,
1981), a global withdrawal of love and approval (shame as
unloveability) (Wurmser, 1981; Kinston, 1983), a partial
barrier to the "heart's desires" (shame as ambivalence)
(Tomkins, 1963), self-disgust/contempt or self-
disappointment or self-blame (shame as self-hatred) ( Piers
and Singer, 1954; Tomkins, 1963; Kaufman, 1980; Buss, 1980);
loss of self boundaries (shame as identification) (Tomkins,
1963, Lewis, 1971), and noxious body stimulii (rage, tears,
and blushing) (Lewis, 1971; Tomkins, 1963). It appears that
current measurement does not encompass the range of elements
hypothesized to be a "part" of shame. Future research needs
to assess/differentiate the elements of hypothesized shame
states. In particular need of clarification is the
relationship between\sham9rand\sn:erfi Edwards (1982) has
stated that the "courag30us use 0 anger" is the effective
counter to shame and that shame inhibits the
experience/expression of impotent rage. In contrast,
Kaufman (1985) observes that rage (anger) is a spontaneous,
naturally occurring reaction following shame. Lewis (1971)
hypothesized that anger (humiliated fury) is blocked by
guilt and/or love of the other in shame experiences and is
”turned back” against the self. The relationship between
shame and anger will require careful thought in future
investigations of shame states. Its clinical importance is
hypothesized.

Izard et. ai;_(i911i_have developed an instrument to

 

investigate the primary emotions postulated in his discrete

emotions framework. The DES is a standardized adjective

68

check list self-report measure, which can assess the
intensity (State-DES I) or frequency (Trait-DES II) for each
of ten primary emotions (interest, enjoyment, surprise,
distress, anger, disgust, contempt, fear, shame/shyness,
guilt). In brief, each of the ten fundamental emotions are
represented by three substantive items on five-point scales.
A potentially fruitful avenue for future work would be to
use the DES (rather than a more global assessment of
negative affect such as ”anxious") with each of the shame
items to differentiate the nature of the affective response.
Such an approach might "shed some light” on : (1) the
ambivalent aspect of shame (does shame consist of both a
negative and positive affective experience?)3 (2) postulated
distinctions between shame, guilt, and fear, (3) the
relationship between "situational shame" and
"embarrassment”, (4) to what extent does "situational shame"
measure other affects? Additional information about the
inner experience of shame might hem attained through use of

 

““4 Ma W‘_,.._._1. flyww—h'w M1“. ——

the Dimensions Rating Scale (DRS) (Izardwgtimgin 1977) in

-_ ,‘W‘ 1W" ‘ ’3'? 0‘4““! uh ermfifflmh “gr. 1.: MAUI-m- or!

conjunction withw shame items. For example, Izard et. al.

N
“gr—d

‘71977) found more pleasantness associated with shyness than

 

for any other of the negative emotions. “The DRSMQ§§€§§9§1

three levels (feeling, cognition, and behavioriwgnflfgggfl

 

dimensions (tension, pleasantness, impulsiveness, and self-

/

assurance) for each of the ten fundamental emotions of the
DES.

Another possibility for specifying shame states is to
write items with actuslhphenomenologjcal descriptiens. The
literature is rich—with descriptions of postulated shame
states, but it is "clouded" by potentially arbitrary
semantic distinctions. Symbols such as ”dishonor”,
"ridicule”, "humiliation”, ”mortification", ”embarrassment”,
”inferiority”, ”guilt", ”disappointment", ”shyness”,

”bashfulness”, ”discouragement", "awe”, and ”pride” have

69

been used to describe specific psychological states of
shame. Other postulated shame states (as well as traits)
have been labeled on the basis of its assumed activator
(either internal or external): ”affect shame", ”need shame",
"criticism shame”, "relationship shame", ”moral shame”,
”social inappropriateness shame", "body shame", and
”competence shame”. It is assumed that these labels cover a
very wide range of differing psychological states, yet with
postulated common psychological features. This
investigation indicated that on a trait level several of
these postulated distinctions "wash out”. Writing items to
operationalize postulated shame states would do much to
clarify the semantically based confusion. For example, in
this investigation which used existing shame measures, the
three general but distinct inner states (a fourth remains
ambiguous) of inferiority, extreme self-consciousness, and
worrying about exposure of self were found, rather than the
eight previously hypothesized shame states. The postulated
common psychological features of shame states awaits
clarification of the domain of shame states, or perhaps vice
versa.

gethodological Problem: Defenses Against Shame
Many theorists have hypothesized a proclivity to

develop defenses against the experience of shame (Tomkins,
1963; Lewis, 1971; Wurmser, 1981; Kaufman, 1980). According
to Kaufman (1980), "particularly following internalization,
that psychological event which makes shame so intolerable,
the self begins to develop strategies of defense against
experiencing shame and strategies for the interpersonal ‘
transfer of experienced shame" (p. 83). Denial,
overcontrol, detachment, and grandiose idealization of
oneself have been several of the particular psychological
defenses hypothesized to be associated with shame. These

70

types of defenses result in an individual distancing
him/herself from experiencing shame. The underlying process
in the defense may be conscious in that the individual makes
choices to avoid shame situations within his/her lifestyle.
Secondly, the process may be conscious, in that the
individual escapes the experience of shame through
consciously suppressing the affect once it is activated.
Thirdly, some authors believe in unconscious defenses.
It may be that the individual's habitual affective dynamics
(a consequence of affect socialization) result in automatic
defenses against shame affect. This might include the use of
significant others for the disowning of one's own shame
through the process of projective identification. Here the
individual might select a shame-prone individual and
”punish” the other for their shame as a means of disowning
their own shame. Thus, in a self-report methodology, one
would expect/predict that a subset of the ”low-shame
scorers", while not experiencing or minimizing their
experience of shame (and thus would score low on shame trait
scales), might be defended and unaware of its dynamic
impact on their functioning. Future research needs to
address the impact of defenses on self—report measures of
shame, and thus, clarify the meaning of a ”low-shame” score.
One possibility would be to select individuals clinically
observed to be prone to shame and contrast them on a battery
of measures (self-esteem, dependency, depression, etc)
including a shame inventory with a matched sample (age, sex,
and socioeconomic status) of postulated ”low-shame” prone
individuals ("loving" and "competent individuals). It
might also be useful to measure shame across time in
therapy, to see if there is a change and the nature of the
change in shame scores. One could make use of clinicians
ratings of clients defenses in conjunction with the measured
shame score. Additionally, one might have access to other

71

information (meaningful life events) to further understand
possible meanings of a low shame score. If clinical theory
is valid, then one would predict an increase in shame around
the middle phase of therapy with a subsequent decrease after
termination (particularly the inferiority and embarrassment
scales). Another possibility is to attempt to develop a
method to assess defensiveness to shame, based upon some of
the defenses delineated by individual theorists. One could
observe the interactions of these individuals with intimate
others and "score” for postulated interpersonal shame
defenses, such as blaming, overly critical remarks, extreme
interpersonal control, or denial of behaviors. Another
possibility would be to develop scales of postulated
adaptations to shame (perfectionism, detachment,
idealization of self, competitiveness) and examine their
interrelationships with shame traits.

Conclusion

The investigation was formulated from affect theory
(Tomkins, 1963) and assumed that shame becomes
structuralized or associated with parts of self or specific
situations. The findings did not support such a model of
shame. Instead the data supports a model of three shame
traits represented by three general shame states: feelings
of inferiority, extreme self—consciousness, and fears about
exposure of self. Additionally, support was found for
individual differences in shame vulnerability; the data
(represented by the trait of situational shame) indicate
that individuals differ in their propensity to experience
shame in "consensually validated" shame situations. This
finding merits further empirical work, particularly since
the qualitative nature of the shame reaction of the
respondents remains unclear. The trait (situationalvghgnm)
had a low association with intense feelings of exposure

72

(shame as embarrassment). The measurement model which fits

the data requires further conceptual thought. Present shame

theory fails to adequately elucidate the model found in
existing shame measures. It is suggested that the domain of
existing shame measures be expanded to include more of the

states of shame described in the literature.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

The actual instruments used; with variable
numbers handwritten and circled for those

items that were used in the analysis pre-

sented in the text.

S K I P P E D

73

COOK SHAME INSTRUMENT

6!!!ng S SCALE

DATE

 

AGE SEX

 

DIREETIOHS: Below are a list of statements describing some feelings and experiences
which you may or may not have had when you were growing up with your parents. The .
growing up time period to think about is fro! your earliest calories until you left
hole. If you grew up with only one parent or with a step parent. think about the
period of time with the permit or parents that was longest or most significant. Any
stat-eats referring to 'pareits' can be taken to mean either your mother or father
or both.

for each statement mark the number that most closely indicates the frequency
with which you had these feelings or experiences during the-period of your growing up.

songs
g - glam 1 - SMETIMES & . FREDUEY 5 - ALMOST AL'AAYS

I felt like the blacksheeo or the outsider in my family.

—e
I
2
-e

Z I remember being mocked and laughed at by my parents.

3. My parents belittled me.

4 My parents were good at blaming others for their nistakes_and failures.
5. I felt that my opinions were not important to anyone.

6. My parents were able to make me feel about one inch tall.

7. I felt I had to be responsible for everyone in my family.

8. I got the feeling that my parents did not want me.

9. I saw my parents as wardens in a prison.

10. It seems that my parents shaped me into the person they wanted.

ll. I felt there was a heavy burden of expectations out on my shoulders.
12. I think my parents wanted me to be someone else.

l3. Hy parents were good at putting me down.

74

m

1 .' NEVER z - snow 3 . SOMETIMES 4 . mgguzmv g - AL_:~iOST mm:
__14. My parents abused me.'
_ l5. I tried to hide my differences from my parents.
__ l6. I felt like my parents never really knew I was alive.

9 _ l7. Sm. I always was expected to know better.

2: _ l8. I mater a feeling of panic. after being scolded by my parents.

f. _ l9. Sod-times my parents exploded with anger towards me for no apparent rusons.

z __20. My parents did not allow me to express my feelings.
__Zl. No matter what I did it never seued to be good enough for my parents.
__22. I had the feeling that my parents treated so badly because I was a bad kid.
__23. I rel-oer a rage I felt. when my parents put me dam.

ADULT S SCALE
DIRECTIONS: Below is a list of statuents describing feelings or experiences that you'
may have from time to time or that are familiar to you because you have had these
feelings and experiences for a long time. Read each one and mrk the meter in the
space to the left of the item that indicates the frequency with which you find
yourself feeling or experiencing what is described in each stat-mt.
591.51

1415151 2_'_5§.29fl mom mm}. W

©___ l. I feel like Iamnever quite good enough.

® __ 2. I could beat myself over the head with a club when I make a mistake.
_ 3. I feel I am alone on an island. separated fro: the rest of society.

(3 __ 4. I see mysglf as not being able to measure up to other people.
_ 5. when I feel enoarrassed. I wish I could go back in time and avoid that event.
_ 6. I become confused when my guilt is overwhelming, because I am not sure why

I feel guilty.
® __ 7. I see myself as being a bad person.
“If...“
® __ 8. I know people look at me and think I am worthless.

E!

L

@©

_____,10.
._____ll.
______l2.

(55 ._____13.
(§> .____.l4.
([ED ______15.
Q3) _____,15.
<EZ>‘_____l7.
QED l8.
______l9.
®_zo.
(IE 21.
KIED ______zz.
(jib ______23.
(53> _____,24
25.

(IS) ______25
.____,z7.
_____,23.

a. _29
(éfi),______ao.
:. _____.3l
(QEB .____,32
(:59 33
_____,34.
@__3s
15 35

75

 

m \
cm Miss; M S-Awsnu-ms

I see myself striving for perfection only to continually fall short.
/____’_,,_,,

I think that people look down on me.
My loneliness is more like aptiness.
I feel- insecure about others opinions of me.

I feel inadequate when I do not achieve what is expected of me.

I say to myself, 'how could anyone really love me or care about me“?

I feel intensely inadequate and full of self doubt. /
It is hard for others to get close to me and for me to get close to others.
I see myself as being very small and insignificant.

ram—Mm” ‘

linen I am uarrassed. I wish the earth would open and swallow me.

I feel like there is something missing.

when I feel Itemssed. I feel like I could sink into the ground. V’

I an cautious when it comes to trusting others.

I am a very sensitive person. easily hurt by others comments.

In certain situations I feel like melting away. or’

I think others are able to see my defects.

I replay Painful events over and over in my mind. until I am ovenhelmed.
I have an overpowering fear that my faults will be revealed in front of others
I am like a sponge. easily taking in others probl-m and feelings.

My inadequacies are intensely overwhelming.

It is hard for me to maintain eye contact with other people.

Sometimes I feel like I am about one inch tall and I want to hide.

I believe I an hacked and laughed at by my friends.

I think I should be all things to all people.

Sometimes I feel like there are LOGO eyes staring at me.

Sometimes I feel less than human.

I scold and put myself down.

It is difficult for me to accept a mliment.

76

SCALES

 

g - $3.90" 3 . SU‘IETIHES 4 . FREOUENTLY 5 - ALMOST ALWAYS

I feel somehow left out./
I really do not know who I am.

 

I feel like a. puppet on a string that is being nnipulated.

I feel I am someone or something to be dined on a garbage heap.

I feel ia-obilized when I think about doing an unfamiliar task.

I feel miserable because things should have been different.

I would like to shrink away when I make a mistake..

I have this. painful gap within me that I have not bee: able to fill.
when I become amarrassed. I would like to go hide in the corner.

I feel upty and unfulfilled.

Sometimes I become enraged when people criticize me. /
when I oupare myself to others. I am Just not as important. /

77

GENDER

SGT

Here are a number of descriptions of situations in which
you might find yourself, or which you may have experienced.
Please indicate how anxious (nervous, tense or upset) you
would feel in each of the situations described. Some of the
situations sound as if they are appropriate only for men.
Please don't skip those questions even if they don't seem to
apply to you. Just try to imagine how you would feel if they
happened to you. For each situation described, rate how you
would feel along a scale which ranges from "not at all anxious"
to "extremely anxious". Circle the number that best describes
your response:

1 - not at all anxious

somewhat anxious

moderately anxious

highly anxious

W 1F U. N
I

extremely anxious

To assist you in marking the response you mean. you will

find this scale repeated at the top of each page.

78

SGT QUESTIONAIRE

l 2 3 4 5
Not at all Somewhat Moderately Highly Extremely

Anxious Anxious Anxious Anxious Anxious

You completely forget your speech in front of an audience
and Just stand there awkwardly, unable to recall where you were.

i 2 3 4 5

You walk onto a bus and after walking all the way to the
back, someone suddenly points out that you have a huge rip in
the front of your pants.

Your friend tells you in confidence that she is secretly
fond of someone. Later, in passing, you tell him.

1 2 3 e 5

You are trying to appear more knowledgeable than you are
on a subject. An expert starts pointing out your misconceptions
and exposes your ignorance.

l 2 3 4 5

Your boss has planned a big meeting where your presentation
is to be the highlight. You fail to live up to his expectations
and your company loses the account.

You falsify some information on a job application in order
to get the job. You're worried about having lied.

79

l 2 3 4 5
Not at all Somewhat Moderately Highly Extremely
Anxious Anxious Anxious Anxious Anxious

You are driving by someone who has Just had an accident and
is obviously in trouble. You pass by because you are in a hurry
and don't want to become involved.

1 2 3 4 5

You are finally intimately involved with someone you have
seen as attractive but uninterested in you. You find yourself
suddenly impotent.

l 2 3 4 5

Your mother angrily asks you if you ate the last dessert
she was saving for your father. You blandly say no, as you
swallow the last bite.

You feel a nagging worry that you are not doing what you
should to help solve social problems.

1 2 3 4 5

You show up in casual dress at a party where everyone else
is wearing their finest. .

l 2 3 4 3

You're having an affair with a friend's spouse and, while
you avoid the friend, you feel funny being around mutual friends.

i 2 3 4 5

‘jk

16.

® 18.

5'

19.

80

i 2 3 4 l 5
Not at all Somewhat Moderately Highly Extremely
Anxious Anxious Anxious Anxious Anxious ‘

You are unbelievably awkward trying to play a new sport.
Your friends are trying to teach you and you feel as if you are
all arms and legs.

1 2 3 4 5

You find out just before you are to be married that you are
sterile (male) / infertile (female).

You're telling a joke and suddenly realize that you are the
only one who is laughing.

l 2 3 4 5

You catch yourself indulging in petty bragging.

You're in high school. Your mother goes through your coat
pocket before_sending your clothes to the cleaners and finds
several empty contraceptive wrappers and confronts you.

i 2 3 4 5
You are caught unexpectedly by someone talking to yourself.
1 ' 2 3 4 5

You give a poor speech in front of the class and people are
laughing and making fun of you.'

<3 23.

® 2..

(5325.

81

l 2 3 4 5
Not at all Somewhat Moderately Highly Extremely
Anxious Anxious Anxious Anxious Anxious

You're in the middle of a very involved discussion. You have
an important point to make and you can't open your mouth because
you're afraid you'll sound stupid.

1 2 . 3 4 5

You finish a small project and your boss compliments you.
You feel silly being so proud over such a minor accomplishment.

1 2 3 4 5

You have a reputation for being particularly smart. Suddenly
you find yourself in a situation where you're about to venture an
opinion that you're afraid may be wrong, about a subject where you
know very little.

1 2 3 4 '3

You're usually very calm when discussing heated subjects.
All of a sudden you hear your own voice and realize you're almost
shouting.

You're an adolescent showering after gym class. You feel
acutely self-conscious about undressing in front of the rest of
the group, afraid that they might tease you.

1 2 3 . 4 5

Everyone in your neighborhood takes pride in keeping the
neighborhood clean. You're unwrapping a package and forget and
casually toss the wrapper on the street.

SE 26.

® 27.

® 28.

29.

30.

31.

82

l 2 3 4 5
Not at all Somewhat Moderately Highly Extremely
Anxious Anxious Anxious Anxious Anxious

You're reading an old diary and can't believe you wrote such
nonsense. You feel ridiculous to have written down such things.

1 2 3 4 5

You're trying out for the high school basketball team in
front of a large crowd. You attempt a fancy shot and trip,
missing the backboard altogether.

l 2 3 4 5

You have a mild case of epilepsy. You forget to take your
pills and have a convulsion before friends who didn't know.

l 2 3 4 5

You are sick to your stomach and don't quite make it to the
bathroom.

You're supposed to be a good tennis player. In a tournament
you are so Jittery that you make wild and stupid shots.

1 2 3 4 5

You're getting out of the swimming pool after diving and
suddenly notice that your swimsuit has slipped down.

®

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

83

l 2 3 4 5
Not at all Somewhat Moderately Highly Extremely
Anxious Anxious Anxious Anxious Anxious

You're not very successful in relating to the opposite sex
but in your dreams you always contemplate fary-tale romances. As
art of a small group experience you talk about these romantic
antasies.

l 2 3 4 5

You are in a relationship with an intimate lover. One day,
your lover tells you that he/she is having an affair with another
person and is leaving you for her/him.

You discover that even by running. you will be at least ten
minutes late for class.

You belch in public.

You suddenly realize that you are unable to cope with your
own problems.

' You realize that you have not acted as effectively in a
business deal as you would have wished.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

84

l 2 3 4 5
Not at all Somewhat Moderately Highly Extremely
Anxious Anxious Anxious Anxious Anxious

You see that you have failed to make a good impression on
your boss.

After arriving at your destination, you discover that you
are improperly dressed for the occasion.

You discover that you have failed miserably in what you are
trying to accomplish.

l 2 3 4 3

You are the manager of a losing bowling team in a tournament.
1 2 ' 3 4 5

You let off gas in public.
1 2 3 4 5

You are sharply criticized for your mistakes.

You overhear your friends making fun of you.

You lose an important game.

1

47.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

85

i 2 3 4 5
Not at all Somewhat Moderately Highly Extremely

Anxious Anxious Anxious Anxious Anxious

You make poor progress in your job.
i 2 3 4 s

In a game, you see that you have made some foolish mistakes.

Your husband/wife confronts you with your failures.

You are criticized in front of your peers.

You are criticized in front of your subordinates.

A friend tells you that you boast a great deal.

l 2 3 4 3
You forget your lines in a play on opening night.'

1 2 3 4 5

You meet your friends at a time when you are wearing dirty
and smelly clothing.

55.

56.

S7.

58.

59.

60.

61.

86

l 2 3 4 5
Not at all Somewhat Moderately Highly dxtremely
Anxious Anxious Anxious Anxious Anxious

You are ignored by an old friend in a chance encounter.
i 2 3 4 5

You feel that you look awkward in a bathing suit and you
receive an invitation to a beach party.

You are shown up as a fraud.

You meet a friend whose name you have forgotten.
l 2 3 4 5

You are not asked for (or are refused) a date to your group’s
big dance.

You find out that you are the only member of your group
that did not make the honor society.

Yeur immediate supervisor has Just been praising you, in
your presence, to the head of the firm. The big boss asks you
a simple question, and you draw a complete blank.

62.

63.

64.

65.

67.

87

1 2 3 4 5
Not at all Somewhat Moderately Highly Extremely
Anxious Anxious Anxious Anxious Anxious

The girl of your dreams has agreed to go to the big spring
dance at the club with you. You dress with care and arrive with
flowers. She sneezes violently, due to her allergies.

1 2 3 4 5

You have your first apartment. Your mother drops in for
an unannounced visit, and finds you with a naked girl in your
bathroom.

You've been asked to go on local TV to talk about an event
your club is planning. The big day arrives, and you have a huge
cold sore on your lip.

Your son's teacher has addressed you as Mrs. Smith, but you
are no remarried to Mr. Jones. Your ex-husband is remarried.

You are a teacher, and Johnny Smith's mother pays a visit.
You address her as Mrs. Smith, and she corrects you, since she
has a different last name.

You run into an old friend you haven't seen for years.
After warm greetings, you ask after his wife. He informs you
coldly that they've been divorced for several years.

QiED

68.

69.

70.

71.

72.

73.

88

1 2 3 4 5
Not at all Somewhat Moderately Highly Extremely
Anxious Anxious Anxious Anxious Anxious

You've described a very unpleasant encounter with a woman
in a downtown store to a fellow employee. Later you meet the
same woman with him. He introduces her as his wife.

1 2 3 4 5

In the noonday crowd someone bumps into you, causing you to
drop a package. Angrily you ask, "Why don't you watch where you're
going?" ...Just before noticing the white cane of the blind.

1 2 3 4 5

You enter a restaurant you go to quite regularly during a
busy dinner hour, and the proprietor calls out halfway across the
room that you have a bad check, and demands immediate payment.

You're enthusiastically, and profanely, describing the
beautiful girl you Just saw, and learn later that the person
you're describing her to is her husband.

You see an attractive and fit young couple at the beach, and
realize that you're paying more attention to the one of your own
sex than to his/her mate.

You've had a terrible day, and on the way out of the parking
lot a car cuts you off. You shout the vilest curses you can
think of, and your minister looks around with a shocked expression.
He was driving the offending car.

@

74.

7S.

77.

79.

89

1 2 3 4 5
Not at all Somewhat Moderately Highly Extremely
Anxious Anxjuun Anxious Anxious Anxjuua

You've just been telling an obscene ethnic joke, unaware
that a member of the ethnic group it attacks is listening. A
member of your intended audience points this out to you.

1 2 3 4 5

You're an adolescent, and for the first time you're engaged
in "heavy petting" with your girl. Her father catches you.

You intend to give your girl a playful swat, but she moves
just as you swing and you injure her severely.

You set up an elaborate practical joke to pay your brother
back, but your dad becomes the victim instead.

A man has been convicted of burglary on the strength of your
eye-witness testimony. Later it is proved that he was innocent.

1 2 3 4 5

.You havelbeen muttering to yourself as you struggle with
a serious problem, and you suddenly become aware that someone
you don't know very well has been listening.

1 2 3 4 S

YOu hear your son come in long past his curfew and dart out,
clad only in you underwear, to scold him. Too late, you discover
that he has a guest (opposite sex) with him.

32.

® 33.

84.

Q23) 85.

86.

9o

1 2 3 4 5
Not at all Somewhat Moderately Highly Extremely

Anxious Anxious Anxious Anxious Anxious

You are singing along, loudly, with your car radio when
you suddenly realize that the driver of the car in the next lane
is staring at you.

1 2 3 4 5

Doing an unaccustomed chore, you botch it and curse with
feeling. Later you hear your four-year-old repeat the forbidden
word.

The pastor of your church scolds your four-year-old for
using "bad language." The child replies, "But that's what Daddy
says when he gets mad!"

Your basketball team has just won an important victory, and
the members are embracing. You feel sexually aroused when the
star of the team hugs you.

1 . 2 3 4 5

Your sister's boyfriend, a football teammate of yours, comes
into your living room when you are crying over a touching TV
commercial.

At a church dinner the members are asked to join hands for
the prayer. The person next to you pulls his hand away before
the prayer is concluded.

87.

'91

1 2 3 4 5
Not at all Somewhat Moderately Highly Wxtremely
Anxious Anxious Anxious Anxious Anxious

You attend a game of your favorite football team and, after
your team scores a touchdown, you realize that in your excitement
you have knocked the total stranger next to you off his seat.

1 2 3 4 S

A childhood friend fails to remember you, even when reminded.
You were once very close. He is now your new boss.

You recognize a friend from behind and sneak up to try to
scare her. When the person turns, you realize you were mistaken.

You stop into a nightclub you've never been to before. After
you're served, you realize that all of the intimately embracing
couples around you are gay men.

1 2 3 ' 4 S

In the next section are statements describing traits, feelings
or personal characteristics that might fit you. Please rate each
statement according to how characteristic it is of you.

1 - Not at all characteristic (never true of you)

2 - Rarely characteristic (very seldom true of you)

3 - Somewhat characteristic (occasionally true of you)

4 - Fairly characteristic (frequently true of you)

5 - Very characteristic (almost always true of you)

E)

6)

6

91.

92.

93.

94.

97.

98.

92

1 2 3 4 5

Not at all Rarely Somewhat Fairly Very

I feel like an imposter and worry that people will find out.

I feel funny about my physical appearance.
1 2 3 4 5

I have a feeling others don't take me seriously.

I worry about what others would think of some of my more
grandiose fantasies.

1 2 3 4 S

I am more worried when I have done something wrong about
being caught than about being punished.

I keep secrets and worry that they might be discovered.
1 2 3 4 S
I worry that others might think some of my ideas are "crazy."

1 2 3 4 5

I am very concerned about the impression I make on others.

U

65)

G)

99.

100.

101,

102.

103.

104.

105.

106.

93

1 2 3 4 5
Not at all Rarely Somewhat Fairly Very
I feel silly about some of my irrational fears.
1 2 3 4 S
I blush when someone notices something about me that I wasn't
aware of.
1 2 3 4 5
When I get angry I feel silly or uncomfortable because I
can't justify my anger. I feel I have no reason to be angry.
1 2 3 4 S
I feel I have to be able to justify most of the things I
do, even little pleasures.
1 2 3 4 S
I am very modest about my body, especially about being seen
naked.
1 2 3 4 S
I worry about making foolish mistakes, and wonder what other
people would think.
1 2 3 4 S
I have difficulty taking things seriously.
1 2 3 4 5

Sometimes I think everything is trivial.

<19 109.

1%.

110.

lib 111.

l

J

‘lb 112.

113.

127 114.

94

Not at all Rarely Somewhat Fairly Very

I can't stand to see others' feelings hurt.
1 ' 2 3 4 5

I am upset when others treat casually the things that are
important to me.

I often deceive others into believing things about me that
aren't so. .

I am usually very alert to incongruities in situations and
appreciate irony and absurdity.

I often worry that I might do something inappropriate in a
social situation.

1 2 3 4 S

I hate to cry in front of anyone.

It bothers me that apparently trivial things can upset me
so much. ' '

11S.

'{IIID 116.

(EE§ 117.

(Egg, 118.

\3A

119.

120.

95

Not at all Rarely Somewhat Fairly very

I like to think of myself as not caring about public opinion
and am bothered when I find it isn't true.

I have a tendency to make up excuses to avoid situations
that would make me uncomfortable.

I worry about giving myself away.
1 2 3 4 3

When I've done something awful, I feel I can't talk to
anyone.

I have trouble knowing when others are serious.
1 2 3 4 5

I hate it when others praise me, because I know I'm not
all that good.

APPENDIX B
TABLES

Table 81

ame Items

Correlations Amongg131 Sh

 

22 23 24 25 26 27 2. 22 30

19 20 21

2 1O 11 12 13 14 16 1G 17 1|

2 3 4

1

INPUT R-I‘IIIX

96

a h vvv
n"3333333333u39o98 gaggeggg: oagggzzNflOODuo.ONOH¢¢ODNOOVDONOno-“DbOO

noouannhvnvo our Onoauouvo- F vv. OOFONNGO-.Q. haonhou - - -
ova-«unuanna nvugnnnnnuvnangsvgn« 9-- --- u-- . --- --’2-3_:,'22°‘22

.' h.-. NC'OGCCNC’.CFONNNI N.FG’N-FN'N "N N m "' Oh Oh
gNflg'N'-=gNflflfl-'NGHNHH'-NNN .NN'N" N'-I-:!--:-'.? 3.22232”. 22.- ”:09”
u

no cacao-0-0.9100 'V'-F". ~90.o'coggonzo-to:v«50::o 0200006 0: :2
vn:n«nvnvvvnnfinvagnavnunvv nnnnnnv ° 2 .2 O

IO‘OO*N¢OI~Q¢”¢DNOOON§OO¢ «msquvgzunnm 9. 0-N a: a: N 0-065-
nnvuannanvavnnaannwuanano- HNNNNNQ-' . 000.0, 9 . 2- .

FCIN‘FHF‘HUOOC 'F.MVHQH “'"VWCF'ngflvzdmthao " ' :".::
vacaavaevuunn vanno—nnnn nvunwnn' ca- 00500 OOfloo O o

.22.-sztat.- 8°83 «3322-"8§32888829‘327"'?38""'“"!?°”°29"T”"T:'""

none-900300050005wovhngnoah anm'nvQNONO'0*I~:0:O'¢C2¢GOOQ:OOQ”DOQOFOC
van-N-«an «un- «nunuua HNNN'NHN

NOOOONNQCQNHNF.-OOHVD fiOflF'fi..flflh'N92.DD:2F2.: 'UNO..NNONN.NNFFC:.CONC
HNON'DONN'N'NH-NNNQN68N"NNOONNNC‘O

Ovavnoe-nnv IINNBNOQIIF 0h.-QN'NB.‘”DNOD:OQ:2.0'~:OOOIBN=ONODQD N 00.20.:
«onvvunnnvgvvv¢nannn§nananvnaovunv 0' .

:OGNONQONN HNOQNOQ QQ-OOQOOgiI-NOV0000-0.-.”DllhuthOfl'olloo-h“WC-Q
vaunn anunnunu nuan-«nnu -,

manna F oovoao canowno-nna-n-oucnno-zunoouoa-no u-
novaanvu8:uganunavgunenuounnnnnnn 3' 2"”‘2‘°!°°‘.2

 

canon-«avuonuo-on nnvov noon '000'0002'FCNF::O0.:NO.NOO...FO..H:¢OON
«unnanvvnncnnnnvv wanna annn ..- v ‘
.' I

F MNMF fl OFGFH '9" Q P N "T F: m
Nggflm'CNflszfl:ggNgflNflfiflgggfiIIflg-gzNguopN". NF - :3. ”:WML.8.2.92

avononavnnoo 08.novn—ogwnOOhQ0O-«o:«00000¢00000¢0=.09.:0:0090000«h«h
nunv-nnvnnvw ««_een«««« Mae-«nacnno a--- --

“0....202D 2:: ag32::omuoooouonunmwmhmeohomomv0-ono
I

«OOQQNhGOIFOugahvoanaboggoho-hnhn«hcuovnuouau-OONOHOCQOBQHnovvaho'non
«unnnununnuvh nununnvn- «unnuonnv
-

DO’UDONFCFOI'isgogflNflHflNF .0. VD'fl'gghHmaw'fln'flNMONE:.O-OCINFS
NNHHNVQNHUN' N DHHN'NN NNHH GONG
.

O. EON OODOgflOOOFa.NON...“OODFNQ:ON::NI~:zghONOWNthm.OCNODN¢'-Ofl
CH 919 acne vv-«nannvvn-nvonnnon

no unavoo' 00h 0'09 no“.vvnv'0Dov-nonvooovunnhib-ONF-00.9«0NOF:OON'N
a- annnavv van vnvu NNNNHQNNNNNN'I-
-

oovuanSn-sznh Ofifl'fih0".COF..N°Q.flNfl’hN’bflOOONONQD.NNFNOFNOOFOIF'F’Q’N
vvovvv v0 nannnvnvnvvnnnvvnnvnnvv
-

’0‘ 0".“ ’OCVIOHN-8NH.- Ono-0'«non-hggsze-mmagg:ugzmgo«00¢muo-
'0' NF)" .Q'flfl’fl'fl ONON'M'GNHHN ”N” --fl- .- en.-
-

use «a no 00.00006.cocoaObnuuaouhouoo«ha..vo-.ooo.°.Duo-OOOnnnnuoc
can «vn_v «anvvvunnnnuenn—«nnn

0.2%. S- CMNH'FN.MNO’N”"H:0..ONN.W.N:“:2-.”“2:.2N.':2
:gg" ' 0 ”WNNH'VGHHH -0- --.- I

“'03.
“Mn N 'Qfl'NN'N NW NH'N'BONNNNN
-

0830§CONCNU-DN'.-ON.HO.FFCOF “CFNOF"VUMWCWC:M::M:WGOC”T°N
O Q N'Nfl'N'OM'NNNH'QN"NNNQNNNN

NHSOOOg goNflFCQCOHONN'OQOFOCONOgFOO'FNONQONCNQOOCOQFO"-ONNN'O.-.'.GNN
N ‘0' fl'fl'flfi”flflflNQfl’NflNflfl'-N NN " N I I I I I'- I I I I I

«ggfloonvuvo '0¢009«anouonw-voov '0'ODFOON'OODDNQFDONODON-O'h*O'GOOOh
u nanonenn nwvnaneunna-vvvnunn e— au« -fl. v-w - ¢- - 1------ o --
-

a Chgvnun00OOOD'OOQOVOOOOOOOOOvQNh0'Ohunfloou007unvnv:onnn-aoon-vav:0n
-nn flaunt-nau—«nanunuunonnu—«anu 1

NOH*ONOOOOON'98OHQGHDNFIOCINOONQOQNON-C.NN“00.060.0.00.0..F0000000h
annueevvavua- «nun Ha—«vnvnvunn

“NOQDONOCO:NNQOOFODO'NN'DOBI. canvnw gO'NO'DOFIO «awn NO. vNQQOOhoo
M’---' nuuuaaannu annnnn mg “eve we've? noun can oooouoooo

97

fl « C- u u - --
-.8;:;~222O=:«;OM h. sveOQIOQ3000fltOOQ- egzgzagagzngegchsoggggg

QFF NO.N.NQNOQ..°....00..QMQ..QF..F.O..DQ.ONQ.1;:F 2.3!..NN.3F as
-0- .-

OONONION10.000ONOOOQN"OOOOOOFOOOOOIOOGOOF-DCNN'OOFQNOOOFONON-
.- --O-- ’ugc- N- CDC-g .- c- - O -N-” CDC-Ca“..- “ " "flu-«fl
Q0.OQN..FQCNBONOOONOINOOF.OOQOCOOCOOOQDNQDQQIQDFQFOCOQOOQQQQNQ

ON-NNNDN NQO-NU-NNNNN
HQONDQOQOQQOQQQOQNQONNOOQONQHOQONDFOQOONOQONNONOQOONOOOOOQQBNQ
I IN-“ I -- N I - F I I -I' NNNNQQQQNNN'N ‘N NNNNN
QQQD»QONNQODQQQNNN'-.OQNDQ”I~NNNNBNNONQQF“DQNDGOONOFOQODNQNQO

NNNNNNNNNQNQN

NQ.N:..OOQ..:DDOOONOFOINNONOOIOQOF:COBOO.DN

W
DUI---” on-

*Ouoooooch-v.
N- - O I “N---

.NQQDQQF.NQNONOFOhTQNCQO:D:0.:OQQNN°N0.ON 0-” ”NNN vn:0NN:o:N

Ulc- I on- | CD I 1 Nuowflufi "c-

DNGNQ..NON..NNNG°FN.CNNNDN.FNNO.QQNNNNNQOQNNOOOQFQUQIQQDQQ. v.0
INNN NNNNQNNQ N avI N-NN—

voooNuNNNNOOOvvaNo--OQONQua.vvovNOOOON-n-NN~~ON¢NN~000Q00¢0oh
HNNQ N-NN-—NNNN

hum-9.00603QNNOQO QN:.N.N.°...NN..2.°Q°NN=OQNNOO.QQQQ°...Q

OON
CD”..- ”on“- QNQ -c-“

"'83«88

...NN.QNQNNQ..NQ.DFQQ.Q..QN°O.QQNQO.NNDQNQNQFQN......QNNN..QF.
u.--o. ”NNN vaa QN NNNM

Q3:gQN”NQONN...DDONNNNNNN..OQ.W.DNNI~OOQ“.O.
Q QQN Q NNOQ QNNNQ

”fl 0."--- CI.-

2 '- 0 :N I I I'
on 2:02 “"Qfiflng 00 Moon W.m«:.~832h" “Gaza".mm

NGQNN "NrgaoQflflQNQh.2mQQQQ2.°N.Q

NO. PRO
QNQ MNNQ '-

“WDMDDFNQO m:-
I I -nfi-”fifio.¢fi.flfl¢fi.flfinfl

HOQONDQDNNOQOOCONOQ.QNNOQQNQQ.F.QQN°NQ.QNO.N.N.°....O°QQOFON.F

.NN..°°0QO°.QQONOQNOO:.O:zg..Q.QNONOOQOOQOQNNIOOQQQQQF NNNNNNNN
.- -fl” I CW ”n.- NNN

 

FFMNDNONNGNNNNMQGNQOQF
. "o'c- I .- 9.- I CI-

‘ - u -- ‘ '30:.QFNgNg.m
NQNQQ NQQN NMN

0Q0QnghQQN...0°:DONNNNNO::N.:OOQ.NQOONQDNONOOOOOQ
. NN QNNNN

Q I QQ NNQQNNQQN

_ - A -
' Vuvw- 'VIUV v
I- I - I -1

CNN.” man.
”on- O I CI-“ -«flfi

Iv—v' v-v—r— vv -—
IUII I. U I

‘ .u- v .NNNQ=NNNN.N
I INNNQN

Q..QQF”Q2°NN.QHNF

.FNNQ.NNQ..02.NQQN°QQHN°Q.Q...WNQNNQN 8Q.
. QQQQH'QQNQQNNNNNQNNQNQQNQNS

8:883

NN=DONONOIQ°O=NONCCQQFNO:.OON:ONQDQ°.QQ.O.NONDOOOPOOONFQFQONQQ
- NNNNNNNNNQNQNQ

""WQQO
M N NNNNN

QOONQNNOOOOQQNQCQQOQNONIFNOONNQQQDCOQOQQN“GNONOONQOFDDN2Oggggz

WW.NQO.2NFQN:QW:FNQW

00Q NOCDQ”:
NN QNN

OOONOFQ.Q.NN.N.QOO:.N:QNOO:..:NNQNUOQNQOOOOO
CI- CDC-c- QN N'QQ

DOONQO..OQNOQNONQflNOflOfloeNCQFOOON.

‘vv '— v

T":

DQN.N.QQNONN.N°..FNW.0.N..QFNQOONNOONSONNQFW” . 2N: 232:6“

NON
-meQQQNN.ONNQMNN...:Q..OQQDNm.gg;:=ngQQ:gO:QQ.“g

..:2°...2..NDOING”N69Q9N9.QON.NN?NYONQNNge-ggggzzggmmm:

HOOOONQNQ:Q2:.2NagogflgNzQOgghODNGOOQNflgh2:82:QNNQNcoag°Q0830NN

|"«l"

NNQO.I~..
NNNNNNN N

v—v—f‘v'v-v—v—v—v—v’

2322:322328322388282 3233888388§883888839339333=33

fv—v—vvwv—v—v— v—v— v—

32 33 I4 58 53 S7 53 SI

42 43 44 4| 4. 41 43 43 50 I1

32 33 34 33 33 37 33 33 40 41

earner-"0:2"

QDNNNMNNNQflucfl
I C- - I
I

amozflQeQNN:NFN;

°v°7'22'2202222°

-
IOQQIOQONNQONQFO
Q I .”
OQNCQID.QNFOQQO.
-N- c- c- .- I |
QQ.NQN.°.NNNQ.QO
. CIV- -O-----
ONDNONONONONONOF
I C -- N .
N-Nvuhgnn:-NNON¢

ON'NNNONNNNN'nvo

I I I .-
.NMQNQUQMFN
.- o c- .-

NT..QQQONNNQ.°FO

QW"

0Q.
. c- u---

QonQQe‘QMN va

-0-..

M20. NOON...

. Cu. O“
NOQONONHQOQNONQO
G- 1 I
..NNDQNNQO.O.OON
W... N». .-

:NO.Q QNONQNO:OQDO

”.mwfium.
. c c- - vb-.-

”WWQNDNt-OFO
a a ”w- .- fl

N. can DNNN

. ON”- --«-«

QQQNODCF°:NQOQO:

CDC-CI-.-

QNQONO:2.N:ODNON

 

FNCUCV. _re a;
NNQNQNQNQQNQQNQH
ggngCQOIOOQFNOO
NNNNNNNNNNNN
Nu-gthOOQONQNOO
NNN NNNNNNNNpuNN

QNNW..°:NNQCI.

98

-htnfiflOOOOOOOOOO' «cannon-o "nagohaQQOn:-.8:n«nnhnhv-e::o.:.o::nm .CCQOOCOHOHFOHF
« —— ---«o-- n nawvc-- «an n-vawnna-v ««nv«n««0«««vo-vnvu«n vnnunn-nnvnn--nv

.O.:O":fl:.h:0flfim::.:flflhBhdh'a'u'cflfl. DESI-«ODFNONO'NRMHGOHC'GFOIOQOO'QNGOO'O.
GflG «GGG “fl“----

Hannah.OOOONO'NDOODHODQQHGVOOOOnfl'6F.N008ӢNNOO.OHFFOOOO-NFVHIONONFOOODNNGOOOOhav

fin"-fl---“- G n GGGG o -m.
DIOOON'COHFQOOBOOHD'FO'IN'QNOHFOOVOOFVV 0.-QhONhhoo.«Oh«.-O-'OOOvu-vhahnnbnotona
-.-N« ”a --—--vn --n«nn-«van-«anunvvnau-oaav- -«-
“O'HDCCCQNOOGOQVU'O'flflOOh“OIONCOODVCnOSQDFGFFBOOOCOH-Ofi. voonhv'uvovaNnnv “.vno

«nvunvuv-«nn «awn wnu-n-«nauvnw-vna H’N’NN «- -u«—

O'flflDNCOQ“OOOOONOO-FOOHIHOOOOGOQOOGHOSD'NCOOF'0’NOBHOG'OGOOGONOF-QFOOH-ONQnfiNNOGN
----nuunnnnann n-«vfi-nuauv maunaw H—«nvavunuaun «

QHCI’HUVH-..FDF°'NC...NO'"00¢".C"N."CSO‘FECOCHV’ON'OVO'CN" ”.2::“2;F'.2DCVICOOOHO'

“flGGGGn

 

I“‘

v-.h«00vOO¢QGOFOO¢0h-mooo«VONQQOOHOSOHOOFGthvhvog-Ohonuhoovu o-«woh0huoo-«vvnuno
GG flfiGG «N (1W GGG «GG “GGGfififlGGfiGflfl "GGfiGGGfifiG

202.59 ”0":':;:MB'3’ .‘HOOO-CODNG§:HHC.flOflN’WCGzfl 80.8..n«:'.fltw'.:fl.flfie'flflflh INN!"

v wanna «an wnnv-«vunnann- «nun “an avvnn-«nn
«ans-OONOOOODCOOQOunonv-v:.nnhonw H..0".FO vOQOG'OQOH-.QOFI-OQF0.0009... "2:0
co -«-- --v-- -. ”av“ nu «««-—u«-- «an a-“ ¢--««-vv «— N..flfl.fl.flfl

5:-MNCQWOF2FCNN:?22'.U.°°- 0:.g;gON22fizgzaggmgfluflfl::CM'mQflg.flgwggg"-:

nonucu-000«.000n0009woman-nano-gonuo'vocan.vnvohunvvoonoouncouogaa thug-.uvhvon
v --- -o o uvco-«c -«¢-« v- a «unnuaw-n-«v «unanuuano ouauvu
-

-HOOO'O’Q.QQIHODflflh-..°O'V'DODSOFCH'OSQFO’:822=OOCNQFOQRQF:.- '22::8zggncvugghcaa
I

 

 

. r:r: - nonvhaono HOOBCOFnNHDFHOO -fl.fl..flh..hhhh'2.F'bflh.fl.’flh.¢fl¢'.
------- =--g-vv—«¢«u Wflflggu «nouvunnmna-n «n-«vavnunnaum ”nu mu m--««« annuv
G

G" - H
2:oak-och...¢0««92:O:-::OQ:O on ".322322202 "aggzzgggszagu-.hnn22:33: fizggggxgflg:

‘

:f_ I I. h " ' ' ""' -
e.-.- 5--.: --«a«---n"8°"’— “§"‘28’32933«$82833323m «an-"”"a'a-w rmanmxsn

GG GGfiflG GfiflG GGGG

hh«v.hh««.--.D-«00«0«Choc-8n.nvoaoavoocvvno'0.vvnvhouv..ho..h.8ONhog.Cannon-u-nhn
. u a .G u --“ «G fl u.“ «G G

FPeCGDWCM22”.flD'fl:COC' 80hM'..F.N'O--M.N..N”0'Hm°°-m «O’CWOODfl230:

«"QG GGfi G GgfiG G GGG GG

GGG . GG --«--

 

‘

OOQOQOOOQWOFOfihhhv-«OOOR8"IGONOBOVHOOMNWOOQHONWM-”Gmnc-ooofipmngvh.n'
G G GG G GGG .aGfl G u N“ GG
G

" W W
:F T:2’7"22:29’?292~3238:83‘3"82.:.:228292-”n'm:”' mm-°:-. Q...

--~-- G G GGG GG
ovonono-nac-onooauuggn onagazeuazgonnozvznvg-gu canno-oooconcavn-voovnvogg32::
G
2:2°:'~::::2~:222;::3322:"gaggetzge-Oego~gaess-gea:~'~~'°:aasaegzsgagzz 32222::
G
222222°222222:=2:;:=_ easzaszas2223;232:222:2::-«- a.--:s:2°"ess=raraaazaaa2:" -3:
QGIOOOMOOQ0—0-coon-8»-o-nno-oovhnnvhohvvn-000svnooovohOoaooonoooch°00«vuhovo--vov

2.0.N".222.N2::.:38:3:0°’Q”:DF2=NH:.:MQN°=CGGOQION::S::MCFMFm '. ';Q-QF

-«v- -oo “acuvcnv ouun
2"22'72':::’:2~2332:z:2~9*22222323:9v'22:323:8'222-2'222-:::°:~:;: -... gee-*2:
G I
a:gaggggszgxgsggggzzce~2~""222?s~'02::--°¢z°222"2°-7*2°?2-2-°::~:-:02-22222:2'
-
33232238383233; FOOGGONFONaflflnNO'00°"Q000°COO'V°.°..*’::T:::SGCO Douozghnozzo

no-oanCOBOquShouvOnanoonvnnucoreossOvaunooavothnODOONOOh-0Q0hvooavvvonvh009up.
aflfifi'fififififlnfl ‘-a«-- “.| |««-- GGG GGG GGGGGGG GG GflG m.” GGGGGflG GG .. GG

h 0‘”? F O Nfl'l‘lflh. “NOVOCFCO ’Nfl'fl BC. DUFCOO’NO'W Cg...hg. “NO
.. 0. . .0 ‘38:...mhhthhhm“

VGOF
“-‘NVNWNNM GHHHHGGHHQ'Q'QQ'V'Q DDODO DD. OCOOOOO

-as;ggag¢gng¢:0;°ugue~«o=2099-2009

”COMOOOOOlfl‘It" " m-“2'.flFFfl
fi’flflflNflNNNNfl'- . 2..°

22~°~2a;“2°2¢~°922:“~¢°0292220-~22

«hon0-.hnuunvoouooo-00.000'ho'0'0V
-0- ---fiflc-CI --- -fl . - - C

.
HCOFCOQ'DOHm'NOOOOFNH‘OCFOIOCNF'OO
'- w-.- on- Nc-c-Nuvnwcc-ofl' --- “I--- .-

NFND DON022000'OOFOOFOO’O'OON'NNthQ
«CC-“.«fl .-

000.00

~--”“

WCVOOGWNFONONWN'VWFFO
on- 0-- ”CDC-”cu-..”
I I

cocoon-noononvvuhconcuooavo-auuuno
unc- '1‘-“ “c- u '- O... c. c- u c- .-

'00..FON02.
«v- -«flfifl

02:2820-:FF=N2g.: O:

’.’..FNO.“N0mogtFn'Mg‘.:°.'"0
H’flHNNONNNNfl

OI'INNFOONQNOONGHDWOQONDON.-.QFQF°V
“--- ”find-«fiend.-.- .. CI-.- «flowc- GO“-

FDFND..°'DON-NF:M
«'va--nvunwnuo .

-300002000:«ozv

QDHFCiflflggflHOOFFONFCNO;'FO.0-.2000
“flu-Owfin -
I

0.00.05Q09NOO¢000000000FNO~¢¢09:20
I I
«azanonwoannnuh 3.600022

“-2. NNNN”

guano-.0: N'FOCDC'OOglVF “OF”
W0 " 'Nm'N

«an- -

«honovhoovcougv«woooavanoOnbOQVOOO
«ca “-00“ v-a—vn -« «

HOOOCOOOODOF.QOFHDF’°.F'Q.Q.DQDBNN
'- c..-" '- I o a .- ----- I

hoovnuouvvuooGOOO-OOFQGh—«onuovvO.

- ---

Orson-Ono

-“---

-2OGN-:2°.F.'-H':F.F=D"

 

n‘ A
.u uv' '_ - _
; ;-fi::-- ' I c- I I N I O I I

NOOF:O'.*HOODDCNBF.DNND*Q:O:.OQ.GQ
Cu” “O '0

NCO-HOVVBmOO-CNF'-OFOWWQN
“NM---I---Ifl- .- gun.

2:0 O'COOGH'-N' man-«2.99000

coon
-- “N“- "N-N------- H N-
GONFCONMO'COFwa-WWQOIDDON.
‘ - O I- c- u- -“ u-.-

;. 'QGFD:

«usav::onoono«=«vonon
-Cflfluu

I--

-flfl. OOH-OQDNOON'QOIFON'D.-’OFFOG
030““ “O F O '- 0.--“ -“O u - I

OFOOOF DOOOOIIFIQ no-onoooogoa “0:“
.- O n --flfl

“N-NN

gov-gg:n°hoovnnocoa 0hcouooooacuctu
vu-nunnwnw-«a n-vn

°-:'2~~v'222222332232--82:="a;==:
O’NHQDCFCOMHQIDCFOC

p---------flNNNNNNN«N

v—v'v—v—v—v—v—v—

388§3§§§§3§

8

.2 .3 .4 .6 I. I7 0. 00

72 73 74 7O 7. 77 7| 7. .0 II

02 03 .4 09 IO 07 II I. 70 7|

GI

99

.ONNONN'WfimrzflzflFys-IFW -00.“:.Q.FOOQ

-- fl---

NFC"...0-09..»"°".”'O.¢D¢M.F'FI8QHOHN¢
- g . - I O- | - ' -~ " --‘- n
.NQOOO'IQONODFQ'OFGH'F-flNQNOOOODOOONflQ'OFflflQ

I O F- -- I I g -N- v.“.“.. ---fl

2F:FB¢..NF“N'.DDDU'OFFOFNIIOOF'CDHN'O'OOHGN-

fi----fin

gonna-o.oO¢onOnonacOuO¢On~noo~vohonuoonvvooo

bacon-vansoonho-Q—onunhnvoasonvhonnOnw«coo.n
- I I “.9. ..¢ ’“-flfifl-‘--fl

m.ONCOHOMOHOIi'HOO'CWIOI'IIIQOO(DUFF--0000
. - I- - C.-. -- fl- '3'“ mac-.- NH

Oouunonhonv00000-OOQvunov-uvggOOFv-OvOg::o¢g

I
DOOOOOOOOCouovoguOOQOn°-u-nnuhncv3hhQvonahhn
O “Q. N p- -- O n n

"W.

won- .- O..- (I- c- -1- c-'- u--.fiflw fl---

----
Q.-N..flCNNDNNOQOQF920.7.--OOQOFOOFEOgggefiggg

v.00.QOOONO'OOGOIQ:onsuTh-tovocanttngaunnnom

.- O I '6'- INN
“CMOQ”ONON'NFO'NOFOOOFOFQNN'OMO’H.’FIG

cc- . I I c- c '- -.c-o --- u--.-
MMOFOII'FWO'OHOOFIhnvdhagfitflQ ONHOOFOOFH
“ c. on--- ”-m-" C- on- on- -“flcfiflfl—u

'DN'.H”.’"O°'FMWC’..°NN“OCVanFfl "Fe.“

F.MNFNOF'.2228..2.2CQOFVNCC.FCONOC‘-
.- c- one-«mou- u" c-flflc-flfiuc-“c-q

:OOOOF

wa»wn¢amm-m.flw'."m..-flw.‘n"."°°
III I II C-vu c-n -IIFIIIIFIIOOOINF-

OD’OONNOF:C'FCOGQOONOF:FDHOON'OOOO'H

"a-

N'DHOOOFOOOOQN’VFO'OID-0-0IBFONQNIO-FFONNOQQ
$-03 UNI--1" w.- ” c- - .- CI ocwflfi-cufiwflflw--- a

00v-00.09..whhoouoooonnvvoach-O~h«oOhhaunnva
' .- O I .- a u p. -- -9“ c- c.“
nova.vonQ-oohoenoc-hvuon-n-OQcavvv.h.oonoo-n
I F I I I O I I- v- . ---Nfl- -“fl
kahunouOvanoonChooOvoooog-SOOOFnocuooh«cocoa
upon.- ---"-- u- -- c- - .- c-UI-’ fl.- C-«flc-u w"

I°:NO°NOO.’.F.NNOFO'OHCO:F:O:g°...g'g::Foggg

2:0..FQNOVN’NOOFCMV'DOF'zfl:°’Ffl°°e::83gDO:F0
I

O'CO.¢M0¢OO.Q¢«OOB-I~OOQIOOFOFFONHQnF-OO'OO'v
090'Duanthuooooo-O-vov-v-.hvOOOvnnooguluh«a
I II I I O F I I I w-” an N a p-

9v:OOOOCOQ-OOFv00-05.9COCO-hoovvoonnnounovvn

2-2T2'028:F.ggaggfl2:m.:NDO.”'280"82222:0

90:900-0000n-vuon0v.09090000-nv69vuho venue

Om“ u----‘

20:39.Qa.NON-O'DHWONFC’WONCC’MFDHROODODCO

'NH'DCFCOQNO'QSFCCwNOQ‘CF.

vno'uohooo-Nnv
H"N Hawnunnn

HHHBHHGHH'Q' Q C

100

.N'"N"N...'N"'N.N" onuONNN- 0 0N0009 0N NON. no- on 'NNN"
NN"N"N'""N"N" N"NNSENNNN"N"3N NNNNNNNNNNNNN‘S'NNNNNNggflNNgNNNONN - 3.3838”‘°8°"3

."202:'2:NNNN"NDONNOF'OONNNFFFOOO'."N"ONNOON "N""-"OF On ONNVNNNNnn-GOHNOON—Non
HNnn-NNNN NNQVNNNNQNNNNVNNNNNN -DNNN"NNN vvn NN"N"NN ""N""N H-w-

"NNNNONNNDgh N222"~:=NNNQNNN”N N.""NONI~C"NNNN Nh""NN".'NNNNNNFNFNNgNNO:9.22: ONN20N.

N"NN"N"N ""NN"NNNNNNNNNNN"NNNNNN HN'NNNNNNNNNNNNN" ”NN
vow NODNNQINNDDOOSSNNVOHNNDNNONNNONvCONSOQSSOONDOOONquNNNON0220N O'"".".NONNNNFF
N """"NN""N"N NvN NNNNNN'"NNNNN-"N NN NNNNNN van NNNNN .- N""N N""NNN -

ONOCONNRNNOFO'QOOF'NFOO"NFQO"OONN"NNOIN°" onN-OO--No-a N QNN. n on--NNDONDO NOON
NNNN""N"N""NNNNNNN"NNNNNNN"QNQNN"NNN'Q gNNNNN'NN'NN" NNN flflflgfla N"N °

NFFFWNNNN'QONNNNONNNN"NNQ" N'"NN°"NN."" "NNFNNNN'NNF'NN'OND (NOV~ " NNQNONN
NN"N"NNN"NN"N N"N'N"NNNN"NN NNN"QNNN"NNN§'NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN NNON“N: “ -‘ "

 

H DVONNin-OIO'WDONOIIIN'6”N“fl.fl'flfl°"h "OOOnONDOFOQQOONN. 0' «fighzvfl'ogNNfIOIt-QO:
nng «-q-u---- NNNNNNNN"NN-NNN"NNN"NONNN§NQNNNN'NN""NNN nflflaggflfl .

.N "2N:::N=DNNNNOVNNIFNINQ""N.N.NN.N"OOa -N a. NONN-Noo -QNONVO QF'.F..D"NNF
NN" N" "N"N NNNN""NNNNNN"N'Q"NNQD NNN NN NN"NNNN"N8NNN""" — — "N v -N N

.""0".""QQQNF"IF.QNQ"nah'ON'QNSOSNOQSO"N.NN"NN'h"NNNOONONQNNNN"NNNONFOFNNNN'Dzoo
vNNNNNNNNNNN "'NN"NNNNNN"NNQN"N v nan DNNNNN'N'NNNNN MNNNNNNNN NN ""N"NN"N" -v

NNNN 9N9- on N N —N—- NN' v N'N: ow ”an-
:NNN" :NN--:2 . ~-«82§-3'880~9-23~-~:§,°°2- ' m8°.:_-:-__” NNo::a:-xg:Na:-ON:

NN"N"NF'ON'N‘NNN N2."FNNNN”NNN"N8. "NN-NN"NNNNNNNnNNNt.” ”'muwNN" N"
2N2” NNNN"N"NNN "N"" "N" NNNNN"NNCN'N8N"N"" ""NNNN N"NN""N NNNSNN" """mg. "

0.0.8ICOOOV COCOEONQCNNNQUQNONNQOO'O O'NnovNVO-IONOONNON NO""'QQN2’O"OO°"FF'ONF""6
n--- .--v- HNNNNN "NNNN'N'"NNQN§NN MNNN' NNNNggNNNN"N u -N .

NVONQNNDCNN-Oav O -00 ORNNF O'F O’Nov ONNNONN"..O "ozocongooovoov
N"NN """N"NN"" "N" N" MNSN NNN Nv- ""NNNNN "N""""NN NNN’" 'c-|u u-.—
'

NNOOOO No.00." ONNND. O’N'OONCQNN N-VIOnuONO’ONm «:0NOOOOOHOON-INONOOOO- H... ONO
"NN-Q""NNN" 'NNNNN NQNNNnvv-Nn NQNNQQNVQNNQN'NQNN NN¢NVNNNNN¢NN va NN"N"""NN

’“'3838§82333388388388933339:83§3382882393833838988888§“”“”8'82'8‘!"""28'r--a-”3

:zzaaaa'seeszzeaeaeaz' 223828_ 3588228883938” '"‘298828823332228““°”'2=3892289’2

OhNN."hONOVCNNOFOOONNQD"GNN"9800'0Qfl"?NOVONNFGDON'NIOOFONNOOCOONOQNNDNDNDNNOFh."fi
0-".... “on"- H". “fiat-c-

N""N"NNN"NNN "MN-NNNNNNNN -NNFQNNF"'NNN"9N;2.'NNNFN ”NNNNNNNN" WNNNNNNNN:
NNNN N"N"" N" NNNNN"NNQ""N' "N'VN'NNNNNNN NNN"NNN "NNN"N"N"NN "ON N"""""N"

NNNN"" "NNNN "'NNN'NNNNNNN' 'NN'VNNNN'NN NNNV'N""NNN' "N "N " 0 N. " N
.

"NONNNNI‘NI"~ NNNNN FNNN'NNNN"N"N"Q FNNNNNFNF“NNNNNNNONONNNNNNN"":NNNNNNN"
NNNNN" "N" NNNNN" "N"NN- "N"N'NN'NNNNNNNNN'QNNN"NNNN NNN"""""N"0" "

FNNWNNNNNNFMNNNNNN. NNNNNF.NFNN'"N"FNNNFNNNN°NN"F'NN" N""F ”NmomwNmF"
NN"N "NNNNNN"N"NN""NNNNN -NNQNNNNNNNNNN"NNNNNNN"N"NNNN"NNNN" N"N"! """N

a

N”N:"3N2"NN""'NFNN8 "NF NNNNII" "N'NNN'NNNNNNNN N"“NNNNF ONNNNN"VN:"N!"°.2NN:N":
N"" "W" "N" -NNN' NNN N"NN"NN"N"N"N""NN "'"I""

"MNNW 8".'NNNNNSSFNN"N"..NNNFNNNVN"N.gN"NNF'F'FNN'WNNNNWQ"NNCNNNNNNF
N"" N"NNNN"N" NNNNNNN NN" ""NNN"N N"NNNNNNNI" "I"

22:: -«z-caazeazaaazatgssgsaevaez23:::2:a:aaaaaz°aaa«assssea-:~"92':. 2:22:22::¢e

"NNNNN"8"NNFNNNNNN"N 2'”NNQ" ONN"F'NN::N:'N:"' "ON-zfi'Nmthvfig.F"NeCI-NFQ"NNN"":
N"N" N"N"NN N" N""""N" N"N NNNN" ----N-
-

'NNN mm " N8: N'QFN N"NFNN'NNNNNON ””mehwfimbN
N"N"" " "N" I I 93:15:... NN 8N2 N83: NNNNNNN"NNNNN NNN:"""NN 2

."OFRCNQN"ONNFNONQOSOQ"NNNNNIN"FIONNNN OOONNNODFONOQNOFNO"VDF'ONOOOOCOOIOOOQOQOF".
on N NN" N"N"NNNNNN NN N"""N""NNN N"NNNN"N"N""N""NNN"N"
-
'Nvuoo Nuns. an o NNCDNNNn—ONOUONOO vnNoonoNggouN SNNNNDNSNNov-uo- NONNINONN'ONN
NNNNNNNNNNN"2"'86986NNNNN"NQN"'NN"N"gNNNNNNNN N'Ngg N"NNN' NNNN'O" N""N NN -oN
N

nunvgsnvv-NNONNQO O'".O.F" .NONND’Q.N...°F800""FQ:NN’QFQ"COONNNONNNON".C""N"N"ON'
00.. N

NN"NN""NN' 'NNNNNNN NNNNNNNNNN"NN' NNN'"N" NNNN NNN"""NN " N"N" N""
-
”“8"FNNNQNNNNSQNNNNN'NNNNNONNFNNDBF'NNNN"2NQ:SN Hm» 'W:""N:°NNNNNO
NNNN N""N"N""N' NNN"NNNNNNN"QNN"N""NNNNNNN ""N NNNNNN""NN "
-

" N "NN N NH
9323: N333: 5333.333832332tfipi£22222.-.388.28a .3883oo3888 92222222228§m z"

rvvv—v—v—V vv-

 

.FMN

OOO'N’

-- .-
.NN-.F
CDC-
(Vi-II...
. w- o

00’...
. O“.--

0'.F°fl

a --
VF."'.
. .-
NNQONN
NC-
"OI-0'
-- -
“PC“...
- fl -0-
.F...”
c- a
9....0
. -1
'OF’ON
- O
92:22:
9
0 Out--.-
coca-.9
. '-
“O'OF'
-'« .
'F’N”
«c- '-
72F...
flaw“
.- u .
N..°°.
-- -
006.600
3 cud-fl..-
.15-.”
o 0-.- .-
FO..FN
CD- 0-.

BN'MN

I O. I
OG'QNN
- --“-
ONonvN

-- -

N'.F..

' ----

NOQONN
u on---

99 100 101 ‘02 103 10‘ 105 10‘ 101 10. 109 1'0 1.. '12 ‘13 ‘14 '15 11. 117 1‘. 11. I20

92 93 94 95 96 97 CI

101

8:.-_323300COCONOOOv-OOonoaNNOOOOOONNvoovNNNN00.OONNooooooONN'NOONNNNONQ

NHQ.O'.F..H'N".FF...NQH°..F.F.F..FNN.NN...-QNFNOONQ.NN-....F20.""CFN'N'
~«fi--«-- «NW..- 0. ---“-- v- ---o a---

'Q'N...N..NQ.V..;.:OHFF’..;°N-NFO.DDD- ’:.FFON.N2N..';:N NflNOQ: :fi.."°'..fl.

 

fl.OON.O.N...QO.Q'fl'Nfl....F.N.NON.'U'..'..°.F.OD.F..FOOFFFO-.O'QN..II".-" O
O'NN’ Hva-N -NNN

-.FFON n vNouoN-o-oa NF.'F-N. N:QFOFFNN
G-N~~“S~gnm M’_-fl" oo:_fi an“ -"~ 3 _'02-NNNN3283N0goagn'oooNno'oO't

 

 

F.F vao'NVOVONNggNNo-Nc : ._:"- ‘V -u. -3 _ “

H”flfi' ”fl" N-m NNv-Nc-cNNNfi-——;;.. —N w -* °"':.gfig:°--goNnvvoooo

. -v“-

M’NNN..O¢NNNON.O'F.’F.NDF-...°°..N.°.N°..FN...F....N°F.N°.'..

«fl ---“ ---- -

(10"-...
“W ~-"--fl

8.33::eggegexggggagFaggtgggsggggF“BFO-..N°°'.'OFF9..-..OOD'OOO'Q.F.O"6fl

:..°N

-N ”GOING. .NONO'DNH 0-0....F'NON.NNFN...N°'.0.’NNNO."O.N.FF".N...".N.NHQ

N'QNN-N-NN'N'NNN'NNNNNNN

" m
gaggcguag...“ F0.00mg:“m--w...w..flm.fl°"' ”9”“.
I

FNNN.’..2:VN.NQ.N’.°.’.°'NF°..N.::

“.000.F.-0.0M «NSOQONNNONNN-NNn-NONNQ
-—NN-N O..-¢-0NNNQ'NNNN..-0

 

V-v‘
' “ -

Iu-vV' 'v'
---

A
‘v‘ ."“ v '- 'v'
-

3...:OO.NHNN....N..N... QNNOQOQVONNNNO
va- -NNNN¢NN- NNN “NNNNN NNN

 

0.....NO'OOOF..-.O.O.FOHBOQ.0’QF......0F av. “NOOOOBO” ONOOW
F “I”. . -. - G o c- -- g- C «W «Q---
NNON.:Q..N'.NON.N...°NNN°....'QO..:..B;N.:.:ON vonova OFN’NN'OO
-.. N NNNN. N N N-No-ONN-

20:..ng :NMOOMWWN FMWQMWW

«MHN'NF»N.OD
on..- .0- .CD CI“ - N fl "Cram. 0-“

”'NN‘N- 0N“- NO

.Q.N...'::NFNFOFI...OFN:FF....F:°.'N.'Q.O..Ffi°FN¢.N.

-N'N- “-NNN-NNNN 0'...FN.

N”NNNNN

~..N....:

.Cr" 0.....N..".'ON“...’NF.....FNOF".Q.2..-N”::..’:FF.NN.¢F=NO.:::2:2:2-NO

I.-.Q'-QDDNQON’..F.NNQ¢.NN..F.’0°8F.OBQ'DN..’..-.F.:....DF oovaNNonnN
oo- ouuuu o o IIIOI '- unavflv--0- HHOOONN
O

NN0.0?mm...”'Cfl'.’¢fl.mw..flt~aMOODMHOFNO...VOFN..'.'.’ 0'90.
'- - -- .- g | ' CI- '- “- c-c-c-nflfi- -m u“..- fififin -Qflfififl

'“88835882882383

...FON"'.ON'NC....r'fl'”o.......FN..'..NF..F.N...N...°F.F°FNDF.N°N°N.F.'
C--- CD..- u- c.-- on- . v «c- .- ~”-”-- -O- wvcfiflu '- .-

NMFNW.

.FDNO..O'ONON.FQ.‘Q..°.°F....O.'eggflagggt..=a---'-fl. -,-

FN'Q. N.F '...9.'.NN..QN..FN.. :z'.2."...‘N‘N. 2';:DN.N.'FN.QQ

m-"HF. N;
HNNNN

NvaoNW

No-ONOON'ONNQO-QNOOOONNDNCOON'QNONNwovovv-NooovNNN-o-NCN'QNQNOOno-nvnonN
”NN- Nv-Nvm 'NNNQ'HNNNNNO

”COO-NOODMNONMWOMNOOFOF COOa002=ODONOOVVOIQ0NMH 'OflN-NOND'QNnonN
oNu-N ’60NN’N'NN”NNN’NNNNNNNNONONNG

”cage-0.20.0»- NF.:..’.....':2F;Q.:N..Q..N’ N.-.F'.N'N8=.

“.09 ".FM 0'. «O
c- - | -0.-- CD...‘“ fl--~m -«---«

a.--

Q...ON0NQONO?“-QNOF.v.¢mN°"NONCOGINOOFNNQONNMONCFOCN“OFOFNNNMOO
but.--" «-«oum- .1.“ ”ac---“

'388322222’3883923383:35:

”9).."NON.N'....CN..N'.’.°’...FNN¢.8N....-V....“”Q”.N...QFFN°'1.0..I5

:NNNODNOFQ':2.....NNFNONNW.2222£;T:::F:NDW

O’ll

I O“ O.” ---“-

0-00.00NoannnthooNN-NOONNNQO'Nou N8'FN.....'FF...'H“ wNNNoownuoo
---NN-~vn 90¢ N--QNN.NNN'N-N ’QNNQONN’NBNNMH
'NOQ..F.02:N0:..F..O;NOQO.F.0 wNNv NOQ..F.. ”8;NNQoONooo'N
H.-- NNNNNNNN nuns vvvvvvv' canon “a .........FFF

102

NCFCCCNCNCCNOMOCF"”O"C°"NNNQCFCNCCFQC:gOz.:g- FOC:""DDHCC
. 0-..- .c. n" c- .- cw- con. unc- cD "NN" N“N“-NN“

aanQQanoonouaonh«OQOOIQOIQQQoou0000050038-aua Qannnngnoub
---”N c- - Gut-CI“- -C- C--- N fia-O-‘ N"“ -flfl

«Q3
.9 "DFHONFFDHNONCOCN onuOQQoOQQzflQOOQ coonoo
O- M- “N“N“"

”W “a“--fiucfiggfi «CI-O N“-

«aaanQnganog
-0" ON"

Nfifl'"0hONOCFDCCNNCCC'CCNOCDOQNC'FNCONNN'OOFOggflflnNNQflNfiQ

CO
06""NN NN"N"NN"NN N"

HHFgCNWQNQN"C"”CFCNC'WN'."CD’N"I"°0.SNCWCCV'CC"FCC...O
N" M"NNN"NNN NN"" NN N"NN'"NN NN"N
’

coo-OQonaghaonoocQuQGOOQQONQOOO«O«OQOQanQSosa ouooQo. on
u.".. ---“- u.-- CDC-Mc- 1.. on“ “

QQQnQuanQ «an n an an

hN-NCCCNDFQ"°NQ°"C°.DNCCCO'NQ"CONfl".0.NCD8QNOONODFOC""O.
QQQ QQ QQQ _ n «aQuuanu
hflflgg'DChChQQQ""N.2§2’CCFOQC"CDFCCN°:P2.8:28.«822:2'COQFOH0
mach«CQDQOthQQOoQon0Q«OOooQonnOCOOOQ0080050QOOOQDQQOQIC o.
QQoggg

I a c- . o o o v .- a I a 0 n C- a N

OouQOQoogooonoccggooo«Q°QhQQOOQOQOQODO aanQa

--fl- '-«-- u- w-

'CNFN

NN""" arc-CI- “or "NN

C: mo «gaggNNONCCFNNCCOONOC8383?:"aggzN20nggsz'3CC:

 

«QQQuaan nannannunQnunnnnn
aflhQ"Ch Q00hnbuthoa: ‘ ‘ ‘ “"020CCC8CC2NCCQCO
Hana «0Q«annnnananannnnuuanauunnanQaQQ ”Q—

N".C°'N"CQ'OCOC'88°3""CFC
'- nunflwnfiflfl N. N"

322822'

.CNCON'NNCOOQFOOOO
chflcufl-” -M---fi

a:2:32:sgsoz-e-2:-2~°27-::2:22~

.g'CCCC NOW ""CCCWCCF

coho-“CI"- WIN- N .

FCNCCFNQCFCONNC" gngongn
NN"N” N"NNNNNNNNNN N NNN ‘0

mmm~wgzgssasnznwmaawnae

gOano "NCCFQCFChCCVOCO"fiNQFflr
nQu

«Qnuono «nunnvnnvnancg m:g:g8.30209060QQ00Q90QQOOGOO Oh

CCCCCgCFM’DCCCQMCMOHC

CmCOQCN'VCN'NNCOCOSSasflQN'"O- 'ONNN -«- N ”"

"NNNNNNI‘" NNNNNNNNNN" NNNNN

".CN"'"CNN'=

a -ugOCFOOQIOODO annQQaanQ

0.0flONNbON.".'02QN"°""C"C:"ON
anQunuunnnn

N"NNI

..

8'888:;”2388888338333.23332§83:8:3338?:TS??222“?228?2?"' .

“:FCCChgagaCe-"§:::"P Naggg":2"QN'C"C""MC£:C:C

82835ua38838§33"

N”N”. DCOC"'FCC'NQCCCCCN
"NNN"N" NNMNN'NNNOND"N"

$83.0.-

C”CCNF.'FN”"N"'C"F' CCFC
NN"NN" NN"NNNN NNNHNNN NNN"

”NFC"

-“- :

DON...

QuuanuQuonOSHIOONOOOOD.
anon«ov

N..."
NNNMNNOQ Nfll mu--. 0 Q Q

nQQhNflQQOhoououn.
'"NNN

«flhQQOODOQ
n«NQ0Q-n QQQNQaQ

.CNN
NN"NN

N"N N"

.C 0""00“ "NCNFCOOCC" "NBC". NCNCCCNCNC
NN"N. .-

'NN'HNNHNNNNN N"" NNNN"""N""NO "N""

A

"NNQNN NN """"NN" 0'." N " """N
:CF""OF'"CNCNNN 0Q
"NN""NN N"NN""-

"DHCCC"HCCH"CC ON".N3CCCC"COFN=CCC:C=
""HNNN NNNN"" "

”On-OOth

NC“"CHC8"FCNNNCN D'ONC
gN'C'NNNNNN

nOOnongQuQquQQanQ
aannaQn annaunuo nuaon Q

NON
filth”- -

'C'CNONNF 'NCCOO""CC
N"NNN"" "NNNNNNNNNN
-

323932923333888389§89232882:33838“

unhgnnnoocooQhOOGUOHOQQQ-:gQfiQOOOOGQnQO
Qn mQQnQQvnunan-Qo «Q QQ

O" 200°CFCONFNCOFCH::C°C

fi----”

"NN'C:

N'DCFC.
00...:

GOO QQQQ """QNNNNNNNNNN

123 12. ‘21 '2. '2. 130 13.

NgNFCQN'COOOCNFOFO.
HNNNNQNNN

NNNONC'QC'CNNNCFNF
NNNN NNNNNNNNNNNN""HN

.«naOuQno
maannan

323322333

CON 00"me "CO.
NN""NNNNH "NN HNNN

oonhnthQ
«nunQ Qaau

CCCDOFNC"
"NNN"NNN¢'I

NN"NNC”'"NNNN°"N.'
-Q- a 0-“ CI.-
0

QOuonooQuo=n
Qua-Q"

"$.02!

8°C.. NOFOFFNCG"°CNI
duo-“on-“

-vfic-Q-u 0---.-
’WN'NFFNON"'F
.. c O--. .. N"
CWNCWH"".O I",
NNN""NNNNN"NNN 0 NF!

2".". “'2’2"9’:'Z222

"NN'CCFCCO’NN'CCFC.
vuuwc-oc-u- '-

103

fl.ONO.'Q-onvGNOOOOGQNQGNOOOOOCCHbODDOQOHHNCRNNNFROGC'Qfi.h'hflflfl*fi.fl.'fi’«CORKQO'QO'
NN’H¢¢0NNNN-NN I O--- c--- 0-- n.- . .-

”"Q'flhh«OOBWOMBOWOO'2QOHkDOOHhnflnfldeWOOMOOIDOWOO'OO'F”FO
-"flw- ”M” a '- O ”on- O- O- -- .-

22'.’flfl¢05fl...hfl°.¢'.0'fl.h¢¢0.h'OflhhO'hhOODO'fi.fl‘°’flfl°¢.fl°’°fl.‘°¢fi w-voagooouooa

n--nfl«--fl- u- C O-”

3.23'Q'VN' “NCF“H'”F-D'..fl°fl':2fl.'hMO?“.".'MF~°. "m- ”3".302220
um an“..- ”----- f..- -”--

H‘NQNNN-NNN cum.-

:0. «Qua-hammo'm-nocmoon-u-cvooaunoon-oo«onnpmnnommeWMOQT-:Q§
n

DODCOGOCON... couponc-«oru-ovnuo -QCCFOCD '000F2:.Q"W'HI~“..QHQF ”NF-HOWMOCQ .ll
“fl"-flflfl "M623“ " " - 0N“ " --2- (I "'2Nfl’” “NO -Nflfl” ”wk 0"“-N-fl--flfl8”

0:3:I.“O.“OCCCNG“CHOIDQONQN'.’.M“8"fln0.fiflm-hfl”mwflmmfl.flh.09
u

QWHOM'OB*2OOO“*D"CHOOSNO”.*NQmocfimflwhh-U'hmm.” ”wommchmgzo:

-CCQOFQON'G Duvavvanuafv Ngflhflflfl'DODFO v-«-v.ho-hvh.n.fi -QF FDR" own vacuum
naua-«nnunngnunu «v- : H'flflfl .. ougum «v --o--«n~ nn-naagngQQ83’ vngnnn “vs
v.vul°«.vDocuononnh-uvh-ON-hvOOoho«-OonnounuvnooBOQOOOhooooo-vvonv ouncopvoouo
Our- -- O. O on. CDC-C- a“ '- 9.- u- .- “-- -- - p «c- Q “ ”fl- -flcc-c-

o—«nvoohoo —«nvno~oocvnavo.hoo «6'0 b.03— NHQDOFCOO'M QDOF «nvnOhoug-«nvnchoag
«ananuunnu nnnnnnnonvvvvvvvvvv noun a OOOUCCOOOFFFFFFFFF .00....- 0.0000000
.

NN.:2~FOggegag:::::=.80:SN:::=§

'.'°"’"""2"' «manager-mazes.

772-923"~88°2828:822r:=°::§::

2:020Qh2-000fi0.0'h00.hvfl -gggahh
WNNNNNNN’G-N’Nfl «-

”’1'“'°"23328’ “-~:-«2:r -----
N'-con-«00v~o-QONOnoona-98'oovn
-N’ on"- O-.- -“l

-

.2--::'.*.8:.33FNQN.N:O' 0'fi

---u- Hanan". Q'N «an
o-vvuooovaaov-n-cnan. “DONG.
mun--vo- a .-«n«-
-

2:20-7:92»:mmecgzzsgvengz'v
-

”.HN' .NDCFDNNNSCN8000NOF.’
--NNNN 28"N-NNNQHN NN--"-NNNN

O'O-NHOOOO.QDDOQOOQF8.“.0.0'°°.
-COM- --fi-- “9 «on o O O.--
§°o§ssgego~navoosuno~uovao~0:8;

NNNNNNNNN

104

105

Ammacmucou mHnmpV

 

eH NH: on mm mu on o m. HH N o w HH NN OH 0 we N@
m HH N e oHu N o v- NH: Nm oH oHu Nu mN H m me Ne
w mu m NH N 0H: HHn m NN mu N N o m 0N e me cm
H NH: NH- e mH mu N CH mH mu m mu «H: mH mHu mH mv mm
m m 0H: HN N H H o m: on mu m e HH mHu ¢H cm on
m H eH m N: m H- N: mN mHn mH oH HH m NH H om Hm
NN m «N e: HHn N MN m mN m- NH N uH m m N Nm mm
NH w HHn mu mH H on HH- NNu e 0H. 0 HH on H N. Nm ON
N: H e: oH NH m mHn NH NH eN m N: e oH H on Nm NoH
m e m m mu m. mH: o N: HH NH oH HH m Hm mH mm mm
H M NH oH mH N: H: mu m an eH w NH Nu mN m mm mm
q: 0H: NH m N N on H m: NH m m 9H HH N e um Nw
HH m m m N. N: ma mH N mH o mu HH- HH HH e um HoH
HHn v: e o N 0 HH en mN v: m m N- mH NH m mm mm
m: mu o e o e: mHu H HH mH mm H: on H: mH H: mm ooH
mm N. H cu m- OH 0 H: N: mH e: N. mu e m m cm mN
HNn mu m m- H m CH: m: OH H N H mH N HN e wm Nm
en N: H N- m- N: o mHn on «N. NH m N m NH N mm om
mu vN oH mu m NH HN N HN eH- H N. m m mH m Nm Nw
NH: mu m N. NH mu 0 N CH v H m m H: e: H: mm mm
mH m m H: H m: mu mH ON mHu eH N e m NH HH Hm Hm
m cH m: e H N HN H mu m N m m oH mH w No 0N
mu N o NH o m m mNn o N: mHn m o ¢ mH NH mm NN
«H: N N. mu N: on m N N mu Nu mu ¢H H NH N me am
m m m N mHu H NN m N m m e m m mH HH mo NN
m N- HH- H N 0H m on 0H: 0H e N mu m H m No mN
mH H NH: N N N: on OH: NH- mu m N: CH m mu m we HN
NH mH mH eH mH NH HH 0H m m N w m e m N H mEmuH

 

{anmppweo mHmEHumuv mmmwumog gopumu

 

 

meuH mamgm HmH mg» mo mwmaHmc< gopumu NgoumgoHaxm
Nm «Ham»

as» we mpH=mmm

106

Ammacwucoo mHampv

 

m- m- m- m- o m NN- m H- v- m- mH e- 0H m mm N wN
m- NH- ¢- m- o w m o mH- m- 0 NH mH m H mm mH mH
e m e- N N- HH em w- o m m N o m H- mm m m
N- m m- H m HH m- N- w- e- N mN o mH N mm c HN
m N- m- N- mH- v- NN m- oH- m- mN mH N m H- mm N NH
m mH mH- H N H MN- N o oH- m- mH H- oH mH Nm 0- m
H- m m- eH- NH- e- «H- m N- H- mH- NH H m N mm m- e
w mH- NH- v m m mH 0- v- c o oH- m- m H- mm N m
m m- c- m- mH- m- mH- N oH- m- N OH NH N m mm N NN
o mH NH N N m- MN m- m m m o o H N- om H- 0N
N N m OH H- NH eH m- N m o m m e m- mo HH NN
N- m N e N oH- N- m- mH N- w o m- N mH mm m mm
m N- m m H o mH eH- 0 NH m H m N- v- mm c mN
v- m- m- HH o oH N e m m m- wH- H m- H on mH H
H- cH m w- w v- oH- HH m H N NH m 0H m No H- NH
H 0H m N N- N- m- H m m mH- N e v NH No m m
o m- N- m m- N- oH- «H v- w- o oH e H- N we oH N
m- NH- H N N oH- N N N- m- m m- m- H H- mm NH m
m o o m o N m m m w H- m m 0 HH mN e oH
oH- HN H m m NH mH NH- m NN NH u mH o- N HN mN mHH
oH- N o- NH v- N- N o m- w- m N m oN m- NH Nm om
vH- c o H- m- w o HN N- m- H NH NH mH mm m Nm on
m- MH- oH mH- v- H eH m on m- m HH N- Hm m wH Nm Nm
mH m N m- m N- H- HH m- e- m- m N 0H mm N mm mm
oH HH m N- eN m vH m- ON- N mH- H N mH HH N am mN
NH HH- 0- m «H eN- e m H mN HN oH m NH 0H NH He me
m mN- m mH oH- N- m mN- NH N- 0 ON HH mH NN HH He we
N Hm NH- m- m- «N o N mH N- w o m HH N mH me Hm
NH- mH e o N N H N- m 0H mH v H- mH wN H m¢ mm
c m- mH mH N- m- N H- o H- NH o oH e NN ON Ne mm
m eH- m o oH- m- NH v m- H- e m eH HN NN H we mm
NH 0H -mH .wH -mH‘ NH HH -DH‘ m m N m .m e m «m H mEmuH

 

Numuaweo mHmEHumuH mmcwumog Louumu

 

 

107

Ammacwpcou mHnmuv

 

OH OH- «H e- O O OH- O N O N- N- O OO N N OH me
O NN OH- O OH- OH- O N- NH- O- O O N- ON OO .OH OH OO

O N O- ON- H OH O NH OH- O O H H O OO NH OH OO

OH ON OH- O- HH- HH- O N- v- N- O O- OH NH we OH ON OO
O- N- O NN HH O- O O- NH O O O H- N OO O He OO
N H H- NH- OH HN N- O- N O OH O- O OH Oe N OO OOH
OH OH- O c O NH N- ON H- NH- HN e- O O OO O OH NOH
O- O- OH N O- O c N- O OH- O N- O- ON Oe OH NH OOH
N- H- O «H O NH- O O- OH HH OH O- HH HN HO O HO OOH
OH- O N N- e O H O- HH OH N HH O O HO N «O OOH
O O O OH O H O N- O O O- O NH OH NO O eN OOH
O H OH- O- O OH- ON e- HH O O ON O O N OO O «N
H O O N- O- c O- O- O- N- ON O- OO OH O OO HH NHH
HH OH- O- N O O- NH O OH- NN O c ON H H- OO NH NNH
O OH O- O OO- OH e- N O H- e- OH ON e H OO N- OHH
NH- O NH HH- N- O NH O- OH- O N- O- HN ON H OO O ONH
OH H- O O- O NH NH eN- N N- OH O OO N- ON NO ON NNH
O NH v- O ON O N O O OH- O OH OH OH O NO N- ON
N- O OH O ON- e- OH- O- H OH- N O ON e «H OO e ONH
e N- ON H- HH OH O O O H OH ON O O O OO OH ON
v- ¢O N O H- OH- H N- OH- H- N O ON N OH OO H HOH
N OH NH O H- O O OH- N- H O OH OH O N- OO N ON
OH- O- O O OH- NN e O O O H NH OH N- NH OO HN ONH
HH e- N O ON- NO O O- v- O O HH ON O O HO O OOH
N- N N O- OH N- «O e O O- N- OH OH e- O OO O NO

N HN N N H- OH H- NH NH H- O- N O O O- OO OH- HH

O- HH O O- O- H- O- «O OH- O v- O- ON HH O OO H NHH
N O- O- v- N OH O O- OH- HH O- O N N- O- HO O N

OH- OH- O H OH- H O O O u ON HH- OH N O HO NH HHH
OH- H- e O NH- O- OH O O N O OO N N N NO NH NH

NH OH OH OH OH NH HH OH O O N O O c O N H memuH

 

OumuuHeo mHmEHumnH,wO=Hcmo4 Levon;

 

 

108

Hmmacmucoo mHnouv
O- « O N- O- O- « HO- OO H HH O
O O N- HH « N O O OO « H O .
OH- «H N N N «H «H O O- OO- N- H OH- ON ON O NO
O- N- H H N- O O O- H- OO O w

O- O- OH H «- O O H- O- O «O O « OH NH «H
OH- «H O- OH- OH NH- N- O- HH O O« O H- N NN O- «O
O H O HH O N « O- N N NO O- H- H OH O ON
N O- O O OH O «H H- O H H OO OH O- O «« OH
«H H NH O O O O O- OH « OH HO « H O «« NH
O- O H- « «- O- N- O «- O O- «O H « O- N« N
O- «- N- N- O- N- O- H « N «- «O H O O O« O
N O- OH- O- « OH O «N- O- «- OH O «O «- N ON OO
O O HH H , OH NH- O N- O- «H O O- OO OH NH NO O
H N- OH- NH OH- O OH- H O «H- OH- O OO N O- ON O
N N O O O- O- O OH- O O O OH O« H «H OO ON
N O N- O O- O- N NH O N- «- O- «« OH OH NO NH
«H- N HH- «H- O «H O N OH H N- OH O« NH HH ON O
O O O- H O- O- « HH- «- OH- O- HN HH «N «N O- ON
N N OH ON N- NH O H H HN- OH N HH ON ON O OH
OH N O O HH- OH- OH- OH- « NN ON O- N- «O N N- «N
O- « «N- HH OH- H O O- N O- OH O O OO HN HH ON
OH N O- OH O- «- O HH- OH NN- OH O OH OO O HH ON
H- NH- H- OH OH O O N- O- «N- OH O- H- OO ON OH ON
H- O- OH- N OH O H N OH «- O- HH ON NO «N O OH
O- N- H- O OH O O HH OH ON « O NH- NO O O OH
OH OH H- NH O OH OH O «H O- O O O OO NH O O
O- OH « « NN O O O- OH- OH- OH- O- OH OO HN O OH
OH- NH O- O O- O O O- HH O O- O O O« «- NH O
«- O OH « OH O N OH N- H HH- O N N« «H N ON
O- «- N- HH- N- N- O- O N- O N O « O« OH OH O
O- «- NH H H O «H- N- ON- N- OH O HH HO OH N O

 

NH OH OH «H OH -NH HH OH O O N
vauuwso mHmEmumuv mOOwOOOO Louumu

H

«o
u:
<r
m
N

 

 

 

 

o. .Louumm Oumemga LHOOO co chcmoH mo muzuchwE gngu on OcHugouum umgmugowg cmmn m>ms msmuH .muoz

0

1
«O H- N «H- O OH N «- O- O- NH- «- « ON ON N NO OO
O O- N« HH O- O- O- OH- H N- «H « N- ON ON O OO OO
«- N N« N H- O- O N- N- N- O OH «- « ON ON O« ON
O NH O ON ON- OH O OH « N- OH H- N- NN ON «H NN «O
O H OH «« « N- H- N- « O O N O OH «H NH N« HO
NH- « O- O« HH OH O- O O OH O N «- O O N H« OO
H H- H- O O« O O- N « H- O O N HH O O- HO N«
N O N- O N OO O- O H- O H O- N « N OH .«- ONH
H N- H- N O- «H- O« O- HH O N OH O «- N «« HN OH
O- O O N N N O ON- «- O OH OH ON HH HH «N ON OHH
N- O N O O O NH HO H «- O- ON N O- « ON « OH
H- O- NH- H N O O- O« « O- N N- HH- N N ON «N H«
NH OH OH «H OH NH HH OH O O N O O O O N H mEmuH

 

«Omupwso mHmeomOO mOOwOmoO gouomm

 

 

110

HmmscHucou mHnmuv

 

NN ON OH ON «O OO HN HO ON N« N« NO
HH ON OO «O OO OO OO OO O«. OO NO «O
ON ON HN OO OO OO «O «O O« OO H« OO
NN ON OO HN OO «O OO O« NO NO OO NO
NN HO ON HO OO «O O« OO O« OO «O ««
NN ON ON ON O« O« NO O« OO «O OO OO
ON OO OO N« OO OO NO OO «O O« O« OO
NN NN Omxi-N« NO H« OO «O OO O« «« NN
OO NO O« NO «O OO NO «« OO OO NN

 

mgsmoawm mucmwua<

 

HO NO OO OO OO
NO OO O« «O OO
OO o« OO N« NN
OO «O N« OO HO
OO OO NN HO
:0 .P #00 hum
NO OO NO NOH
OO N« O« HOH
NO -\m« «« NO
NOH HOH NO

 

 

mgmsuO cu Egg:

 

mgmumsHO cvspwz msmuH mo meowpmnggou

 

 

LawmaHO scam cw mampH mg» cmmzumn mcoHumngLou ”mgmumaHO mcwz
Low mmmOHmc< Louumm Ogoumsgwmcou as» mo muHsmmm as» mo Ogmssam

OO mHOmN

111

AmmacHucou mHnmuv

 

OH OH ON OH OO ON «H OO ON OO OO OO ON NO OO NN «O H« NO OO OO OOH
OH ON OH ON ON «N ON NN NN OO NN OO ON «N ON OO H« «O OO O« OO OO
OH ON ON «H ON «N OH NN ON OO NO HO OO NO NO O« NO OO «O ON NO OO
ON NN HN OO ON «N ON NN OO OO ON OO OO ON NO ON OO O« ON OO O« OOH
ON ON NH ON OO ON OO ON ON «O OO H« NN ON OO H« OO OO NO O« OO «OH
«N OO OO OO NOH OO «O NO «O OO OOH OOH OO OOH OO OO OOH OO OO OOH «OH

 

 

mmmuuzm

OH NH ON NN HH ON NN NN NN ON NN OO
NH NN ON ON ON ON ON HO ON OO NN NO
ON- ON ON OH OO Hw- OO ON OWN OO ON O«
OO NO O« NO «O OO NO «« OO OO NN

 

H.ucouv mgamoaxu mucmwu=<

Hmmacwpcoo mHOch

 

 

 

OH HN HH OH OH ON OH OO
HN OH OH OH OH ON OH o«
HH OH OH OH ON NH NO OO
OH OH OH HN ON HN «O OO
OH OH ON ON ON ON «O O«
ON ON NH HN ON OO OO N«
OH OH NO «O «O OO OO NO
OO o« OO OO O« N« NO
:onmmngcmgN mum>mga
mm «H «H N HN O «N OH ON «N OH OH OH NO ON «N ON OH OH OH ON ON «N
.1 «H NH NH OH OH OH OO OO OH NN OH OH ON ON «N HN OH ON ON NN ON OO
N NH OH OH OO NN OH OH ON HN OO NH ON ON NN NN ON OH ON HN NH OO
HN OH OH OH NN ON ON ON ON ON «H NO ON ON HN NH OH ON «H OO ON OO
O OH OO NN ON O HN OH HN OH NO OO ON ON ON HN OO ON ON ON OO NOH
«N OH NN ON O ON ON OO NO ON OH NH OH «N ON OO ON «N «N «N ON OO
OH OO OH ON HN ON HN OO NN ON «N OO ON OH ON ON «H ON OH ON OO «O
ON OO OH ON OH OO OO ON OH «N ON NN ON ON ON NN OO NN NN NN ON NO
«N OH ON ON HN NO NN OH ON ON ON ON ON ON «N OO ON NN ON OO ON «O
OH NN HN ON OH ON ON «N ON ON HO NN OO ON «N ON OO OO OO OO «O OO
OH OH OO «H NO OH «N ON ON HO ON OO NN ON NO NN OO NN NO ON OO OOH
OH OH NH NO OO NH OO NN ON NN OO ON OH ON HO NO OO OO HO OO H« OOH
NO ON ON ON ON OH ON ON ON OO NN OH ON ON OO HO ON ON OO OO NN OO
ON ON ON ON ON «N OH ON ON ON ON ON ON ON NO ON NO «N NO ON ON OOH
«N «N NN HN ON ON ON ON «N «N NO HO OO NO HO ON OO ON NO NO OO OO
ON HN NN NH HN OO ON NN OO ON NN NO HO ON ON- NO NN OO O« ON H« OO
«N OO OO OO NOH OO «O NO «O OO OOH OOH OO OOH OO OO OOH OO OO OOH «OH

H.p:ouv mm; xzmm

113

Hmozcwucou mHOmuv

 

 

NH HN ON NO ON NN ON OO OO ON
HN HN OH HO OO OO OO OO OO «N
ON OH «N OO OO ON OO OO N« ON
NO HO OO NO OO N« O« O« OO HN
ON OO OO OO N« «O OO OO «O NH
NN OO ON N« «O OO NN OO NO «H
ON OO OO O« OO NN «O «O OO OH
OO OO OO O« OO OO «O OO OO HO
OO OO N« OO «O NO OO- OO HO OO
ON «N ON HN NH «H OH HO OO
ucwEmmmLLmnEm
OH ON NH NH O ON OH OH ON «N OH «N OH OHH
ON OH OH OH OH ON HN HN NO ON HN ON OH «NH
NH OH ON ON ON OH ON ON NH ON ON ON ON NNH
NH OH ON HN OO OH ON «N ON ON HN ON ON ONH
O OH ON OO HN OH ON OH ON NN OO OO OO OHH
ON ON OH OH OH ON HN ON ON ON HO ON NN ONH
OH HN ON ON ON HN «N ON OO OH ON NN NO NHH
OH HN ON «N OH ON ON ON OH ON NN ON O« OHH
ON NO NH ON ON ON OO OH ON NN NN OO ON ONH
«N ON ON ON NN ON OH ON NN ON HO H« NN «HH
OH HN ON HN OO HO ON NN NN HO OO OO O« ONH
«N ON ON ON OO ON NN ON OO H« OO OO OO OHH
OH OH ON ON OO NN -NO O« ON NN OO OO OO NNH

 

OHH «NH NNH ONH OHH ONH NHH OHH ONH «HH ONH OHH NNH

 

mgzmammm mo smug

114

Hmmzcwucou mHOmuv

 

ON ON OH NO NO OO ON OO «O OO ON NN OO OO OO OO ON OO ON O« N
ON ON NN OH OO N« NO OO ON NN NO OO ON NN OO OO OO «O H« OO ON
OH NN ON ON ON NN H« NO HO «O HO OO OO OO O« H« mm OO O« O« HHH
NO OH ON NO OO NN O« ON N« OO «N NO OO O« O« O« OO «O OO O« O
NO OO ON OO NO O« OO NO OO ON OO ON OO NO OO OO N« OO O« N« «
OO N« NN NN O« NO ON NO ON ON O« O« ON NN OO OO H« OO O« N« O
ON NO H« O« OO ON OO O« HO OO OO OO OO OO HO ON OO NO N« OO O
OO OO NO ON NO NO O« OO HO ON O« HO HO OO OO OO OO N« O« N« OH
«O ON HO N« OO ON HO HO OO HO NO «O OO O« HO HO NO OO N« O« O
OO NN «O OO ON ON OO ON HO «O NN H« O« HO OO OO H« H« NO N« ON
ON NO HO «N OO O« OO O« NO NN OO NO HO OO OO OO O« OO NO «« NN
NN OO OO NO ON O« OO HO «O H« NO OO OO N« N« NO «« O« O« O« OO
OO ON OO OO OO ON OO HO OO O« HO OO OO «« H« O« OO H« O« O« NN
OO NN OO O« NO NN OO OO O« HO OO N« «« O« O« N« OO O« NO OO ON
OO OO O« O« OO OO HO OO HO OO OO N« H« O« «« O« O« O« O« HO O
OO OO H« O« OO OO ON OO HO OO OO NO O« N« O« O« o« NO O« O« H
ON OO OO OO N« H« OO OO NO H« O« «« OO OO O« O« O« OO OO OO NH
OO «O OO «O OO OO NO N« OO H« OO O« H« O« O« NO OO N« NO «O O
ON H« O« OO O« O« N« O« N« NO NO O« O« NO O« O« OO NO O« OO N
O« OO O« O« N« N« OO N« O« N« «« O« O« OO HO O« OO «O OO OO OH
N ON HHH O « O O OH O ON NN OO NN ON O H NH O N OH

 

OOHLowng=H

115

 

 

OH ON N- O O OH ON OO H- O O- N OH NH O NH NH NH O « OH O O « « O O- ON NO ON NH ON
ON NH «N NH OH ON ON OH O H O OH HH N OH NH NN NH O «H O OH- O H O O O NH OH NH OH ON
N- «N H O O O O HH O- O- O « O- O N O- OH O- OH O HH H- OH- O O- N- H O- N HH- OH NN
O NH O O HH «N ON « ON O H OH OH N NN O N NH OH OH OH- O OO « «H O OH OH OH NN O N-
O OH O HH O O OH «H OH NN HH O ON O O OH «H NH O ON « N NH H HH O NH O N HH O O
OH ON O «N O OH ON OH «H OH OH OH OO OH OH «N OH «H OH OH NH OH OH N- NH ON O NH NH OH O OH
ON ON O ON OH ON HN O OH ON « «H ON «H HN «H OH OH HN OH N O OH H NH ON OH ON OH ON O NH
OO OH HH « «H OH O O H- O- O O OH « HH O «H O O N- N O- O NN O- O- H ON ON OH OH ON
H- O O- ON OH «H OH H- HN O« N O OO «N NN ON ON ON OO N« OH OH NO NH OH OO NN «- O- « N- NH-
O H O- O NN OH ON O- O« OH N OH «N OH OH OH OH NH «H HO OH OH ON O OH HO OH N H- O O- O-
O- O O H HH OH « O N N O «« OH NO O NH NH NH O NH NO OH OH O OH NH N O «- O O- O
N OH « OH O OH «H O O OH «« «H ON OO ON OH O OH ON « NN ON ON HH OH O O OH O N N N-
OH HH O- OH ON OO ON OH OO «N OH ON OO ON ON OO HN N« NN NN ON OH HN O OH ON NH OH OH OO OH HH
NH N O N O OH «H « «N OH NO O ON OH OO ON NH NN NH O ON OH NN O ON OH « H O O O- O-
O OH N NN O OH HN HH NN OH O ON ON OO NN NH OH ON «O OH O NH NO OH NN NH ON OH O NH O N
NH NH O- O OH «N «H O ON OH NH OH OO ON NH HN NN «O NH ON «H «H OO O ON ON O O O NH N- H-
NH NN OH N OH OH OH «H ON OH NH O HN OH OH NN OH ON ON ON NN O OH OH NN OH O «H O OH «H HH
NH NH O- NH NH «H OH O ON NH NH OH N« NN ON «O ON ON O« «N ON NN NN O OH ON NN O O ON O N
O O OH OH O OH HN O OO «H O ON NN NH «O NH ON O« OH OH «H ON ON ON «H OH ON O « O O O
« «H O OH ON OH OH N- N« HO NH « NN O OH ON ON «N OH NH O NH HO O HN «N NH O H OH «- N-
OH O HH OH- « NH N N OH OH NO NN ON ON O «H NN ON «H O NH OH O ON O OH OH NH H OH N O
O OH- H- O N OH O O- OH OH OH ON OH OH NH «H O NN ON NH OH O ON HN OH N NH O O O N N-
O O OH- OO NH OH OH O NO ON OH ON HN NN NO OO OH NN ON HO O ON «N ON NN NH OH NH OH «N O O-
« H O « H N- H NN NH O O HH O O OH O OH O ON O ON HN ON O O H- N N O O OH O
« O O- «H HH NH NH O- OH OH OH OH OH ON NN ON NN OH «H HN O OH NN O OH ON NH O- O O N- «-
O O N- O O ON ON O- OO HO NH O ON OH NH ON OH ON OH «N OH N NH H- ON «H NO O « OH O- H-
O- O H OH NH O OH H NN OH N O NH « ON O O NN ON NH OH NH OH N NH NO O N H- NN O HH
ON NH O- OH O NH ON ON «- N O OH OH H OH O «H O O O NH O NH N O- O N OH HN O« ON ON
NO OH N OH N NH OH ON O- H- «- O OH O O O O O « H H O OH O O « H- HN N ON O ON
ON NH HH- NN HH OH ON OH « O O N OO O NH NH OH ON O OH OH O «N O O OH NN O« ON OH ON OH
NH OH OH O O O O OH N- O- O- N OH O- O N- «H O O «- N N O OH N- O- O ON O ON « OO
ON ON NN w- O OH NH ON NH- O- O N- HH O-.\N- H- HH N O Ow O N- O- m «- xh- HH ON ON OH OO -ML
HOH OOH ONH ONH HNH OHH OHH NHH OOH NO OO ON ON ON OO OO «O HO OO O« O« N« O« H« OO OO «O NO ON OH OH HH

HOH
OOH
ONH
ONH
HNH
OHH
OHH
NHH
OOH
NO
OO
ON
ON
ON
OO
OO
«O
HO
OO
O«
O«
N«
O«
H«
OO
OO
«O
NO
ON
OH
OH
HH

 

H~=u_mmx

116

HmmacHucou mHOmuv

 

 

NN NN ON «O ON OO OO NO «O OO
ON HO ON O« O« O« O« N« NO NO
OH ON OO H« N« OO O« o« ON O«
NH «H OO OH O« «O «O OO O« NO
HH OH «H NN N« HO NO HO «« «O
OH OH ON NH OO OO OO OO O« OO
«H OH ON OO O« NO OO OO O« NO
OH OO OO NO HO N« OO OO ON ««
NN ON NO ON HO OO NO OO O« OO
NH HN HN OO OO OO OO OO HO OO
OH «N HO «N OO NO OO OO «« NN
mgsmoqu mucmwO=<
« OH OH O NO OO O« OO HO OO
O N ON OH O« HO OO HO O« OO
HN HN OO ON HO OO NO OO NO NN
O OH NN «N O« NO HO NO O« HO
coHammwmm
O « HH NN OO N« O« NO OO NOH
HH O HH ON H« OO N« HO OO HOH
OH O OH O« NO OO O« N« OO NO
Ego:
OpHgngmOcH pcmEmmmngOEO mgamoaxm cowmmmgmmcmgN mam mmmmmam mgzmonxO cowuumnmm mgmguo

mo gmmu

mum>HLO xamu
goummmwxg-Omaaogo mgopumu saw: mEmyhzmo mcowpmeggou

mucmmnzn

op Ego:

 

mgopmmm Ocm mEmuH :mmzumn mcowpmnggou "mgmumzHO

mcwz Low mHmOHmc< Louomu OgoumELHucou mg» mo mpHammm ms» mo OLOEEOO

«O mHOON

117

Hmmacwucou mHOmuv

 

 

OH OH OH H« O« OO OO ON NN «O
OH «N NO O« O« HO OO ON HN NO
OH NH «N «O OO ON NO ON ON «O
O «H NH NO HO HO OO HO O« OO
O O NN NN OO OO OO OO OO OOH
OH OH HN «O OO ON OO HO NH OOH
O OH OH OO OO O« O« OO «« OO
OH NN NO ON «O N« O« N« «O OOH
OH OH ON OO OO NO «O OO O« OO
OH NH NO NO NO H« OO «O HO OO
OH OH NN ON OO OO NO O« «O OOH
OH OH NN ON OO N« OO «O N« OO
HN NN OO ON OO OO OO OO HO OO
O OH ON OO HO «O «« OO OO OOH
NH HH ON OO NO O« «O O« O« «OH
mum xamu
ON NH HH ON ON O« N« OO N« OO
OH OH HO HN NO NO H« O« NO HO
NH NH «N ON N« NO HO OO «O NO
OH OH ON HN O« OO OO OO O« OO
HH O OH OH OO NO «« NO HO ON
OH «H ON ON OO HO «O OO NO OO
NH HH ON OH OO OO OO OO «O HN
NH OH ON NN O« OO NO NO OO ON
OH ON OO NN OO OO OO NO OO ON
OH OH HO ON HO NO OO NO H« NO
OH ON ON ON OO NO OO OO OO HO
mmmmuzm
OuwgomngcH acmEmmmLLmOEO mgamoaxm commmmgmmcmgh mom mmmuuzm mgsmoaxm cowummwma mgmsuO
,MO gum; mpm>wga xzmu o» ELO:

 

gouumm NO OmOOoLO-mgoummu OOH: mEmpH we mcomumpmggou

118

Humacmucou mHOmuv

NO ON O« ON ON OH OH OH O ONH
OO ON O« «N ON NH NN HN , NH OHH
«« H« O« OH ON NN «O «O NN ONH
OO NN O« OH «N OH HN OH HH NHH
OO ON OO OH ON H« H« N« NH OHH
H« NO HO OH HN OH HN OH H ONH
OO NO HO ON ON «H OH OH O- «HH
OO NO NO OH OO NO O« OO ON ONH
N« HO OO ON HO «N ON NN OH . OHH
«« H« NO OH N« O« N« OO NH NNH

 

mgsmoaxm mo gmmu

OH OH OH OO OH O OH HH HN OO
OH OH O OO ON OH HN OH OO O«
OH HH OH O« OO NH ON HH «H OO
NH O NN O« O« «N ON NH OH OO
O O «H HO NN NN ON OH OO O«
OH OH ON OO NO «H ON OH NH N«
O O ON OO NO OH NN O NN NO

 

H- NH OH OO NO ON OO OO HH «N
OH ON OH O« H« HO NO OO OO OO
NH OH NN «N N« ON ON ON ON OO
HH OH ON OO O« ON OO HO OH OO
NH O OH ON O« ON «O «N «H NOH
NH OH ON O« «« NO N« ON HN OO

 

H.H:omv mag xamm

 

OuHLoOLmOEH pcmEmmmLLmOEO mgamoaxm cormmmgwwcmLN mm; mmmmuzm mgzmonxm coHuumOmm mgmgpo
xmo meu mumpwxm xsmu mmcmmOz< o» ELO:
Louumu Na Ommzogu mgouumu :pmz mEmpH mo mcowmmnggou

119

Hmmzzwucom mHOmuO

 

 

OO O« «« OH O NH NH O O ON
OO O« HO OH «H NH OH N H NN
NO O« «« OH HN OH «N HH O OO
OO NO O« OH OH NN ON NH «H NN
OO OO NO O O OH OH O O ON
OO O« OO HN OH «H HN OH O O
NO OO O« OH OH ON «N OH OH H
NO OO O« ON OH OH OH O « NH
OO O« N« NH OH ON ON OH O O
ON «O OO «H OH OH ON OH O N
NN NO NO OH HN OH OH OH O OH
NquoHLmOEH
O« H« «O OH ON HH NH O O ON
OO O« ON O OH HH OH O N- «N
N« O« O« NN NN ON ON OH OH ON
OO HO O« ON ON «H ON O O HN
OO OO NO OH ON HN HO ON HH NH
HO ON OO NH OH NH NN OH O «H
HO «N OO NH OH NH ON OH O OH
O« ON «« O OH ON OO HN O HO
HO ON «« «H ON HO OO NN HH OO
acmEmmmggmnEO
OO HO OO O N H O O O- OHH
ON ON O« OH O O OH N N- «NH
OO OO O« OH OH OH OH OH OH NNH

 

OquowgmmcH ucmEmmmgngEO mgsmoaxm cowmmmgOmcmLN mma mmmumsm mgsmoaxm cowuumnmm mgmcuO
mo gmmu mpw>wxn xamm mucmwuz< 0O emm:
LoummO an OmaaogO mgouumm saw: mEmpH Oo meowumnggoO

 

120

Hmmacvpcom mHOmuv

OH OH ON «O O« O« HO OO OO OO
HN OH NN OO H« OO OO OO OO «O
OH ON «N ON O« «« OO O« O« HO
NH OH «H OH OO OO O« «« O« OO
O O OH NH OO OO OO NO OO O«
OH OH «H OO O« H« O« «O NN O«
N- O O «N ON HO «O NO ON N«
OH ON ON HO N« O« O« H« HO O«
NN OH NH NH ON NN ON ON ON H«
O « OH O« HO HO HO «N OO OO
O OH HN ON NO OO HO O« ON OO
«H HN ON N NN «O H« O« OO «O
OO O« H« O OH ON ON OH O- NO
O« H« NO «H OH OH NH OH « ON
O« O« N« NH HN OO OO NO NH OH
ON OO OH H OH NH N HH O- OH
O« H« OO «H N N N O- H- HH
sztwmmm
HO N« OO O O HH O O N N
OO O« OO ON NN OH OH O O ON
«O OO HO NH «N ON NO ON OH HHH
OO O« O« HH OH OH ON HH O O
NO O« H« OH O O N O- H «
OO O« OO HN NH O O H- H- O
OO HO N« O NH «H NH « N- OH
NO NO OO OH NN ON ON «N O OH
NO NO OO OH «H NH OH O O O

 

H.u=oov OpwgowngcH

 

OuwgowgmmcH pcmEmmmgngEO mgzmonxu :onmmgOmcmLE mm; mmmouzm mgamoaxm cowuumnmm mgmsuo
mo gmmm mum>wga xamm mmcmHO3< on ELO:
Loammu NO Omgzoym mgoummm new: mEmpH mo meoOumnggou

121

 

O« OO NO OH ON ON ON NH N OOH
OH N OH HH N O N- N- H- ONH
OH NN OH O OH OH OH OH «O ONH
NH ON NN OH «N NN NN OH OH HNH
HO NO HO OH OO NO OO OO HN OHH
NN ON OO OH ON OO OO OO ON OHH
NO NO HO NH OH O O OH O NHH
O O HH OH O« OO NO OO OO OOH
N HH OH ON O« O« OO N« OO NO
N O NN H« O« N« NO OO OO OO
O NH OH «O OO H« OO OO N« ON
NN NO HO ON O« HO OO NO OO ON
O HH HN N« O« OO O« «« OO ON
OH NN ON HN NN O« N« «« OO OO

H.pcouv Hmavwmmm

 

vagowgmmcH ucmEmmmggmaEO mgzmoaxm :onmmgOmcmLE mom mmmumzm mgzmoaxu newuumnmm mgmzpo
mo meu mum>OLO xzmm mocmmuzn» ou Egm:
goumwu On Omaaogo mgouomm OOH: mEmOH mo mammumnggop

APPENDIX C
FIGURES

122

Success
Items: 38, 69, 71, 73, 76, 78, 79, 81, 82, 83, 87

Rejection
Items: 51, 65, 77, 89

Harm
Items: 101, 102

Grou IA
Items: 59, 72, 90, 91, 97

Group IB
Items: 37, 56, 62, 67, 70

Group IC
Items: 44, 84, 85, 86, 88, 93, 96, 98, 108

Embarrassment II
Items: 17, 21, 24, 29

 

Fear of Exposure II
Items: 19, 110, 117, 120, 122, 127, 128, 129

 

Inferiority
Items: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 18, 20, 22, 25, 26, 27,
28, 33, 111

 

Norma] Shame 111
Items: 63, 94, 95, 99, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 109

 

GuiIt IV
Items: 36, 40, 42, 43, 53, 57, 58

Anxiety IV
Items: 39, 46, 50, 52, 54, 55, 66, 74

 

Fear of Exposure V
Items: 114, 115, 116, 119, 124, 125

 

Embarrassment VI
Items: 13, I4, 30, 31

 

Residual
Items: 11, 23, 32, 45, 100, 112, 113, 130, 131

Figure C1. Items grouped by factor for fourteen clusters

REFERENCES

References

Anderson, A, R. (1977). Shame and guilt. Unpublished manu-
script, Universi y o inneso a, Minneapolis.

Anderson, A. R. (1983). The shame matrix. Unpublished manu-
script, Universify of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

Beall, L. (1972). The Shame-Guilt Test. Un ublished manu-
script, The Wrigfif Institute, Berke ey, CA.

Broucek, F. Shame and its relationshi to early narcis-
sistic developments. Interna ional Journal of
Psychoanalysis, 6;, 36 - .

Buss, A. H. (1980 .

Self-consciousness and social anxiet .
San Franc sco: Freeman.

Cook, D. R. (1985), The Shame Instrument. Unpublished manu-
script, University of Wisconsin, Menomonie, WI.

Edwards, D. G. (1982). Existential psychotherapy. New York:
Gardner.

Fenigstein, A. Scheier, M.F., and Buss, A.H. (1975). Pub-
lic an private self-consciousness: assessment and

theory. Journal of Consultin and Clinical
Psychology, 1;, 522—527.

Fisher, S. F. (1985). Identity of two: the phenomenology of
shame in borderline development and treatment.
Psychotherapy, 22, 101-109.

Possum, M. & Mason, M. (1986). Facing shame. New York: Norton.

Gillmore, G.M. (1970). Legalism, antinomianism, situationalism:

 

Three moral decision-making orientations; Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Michigan State Univer51ty.

 

Hunter, J. E. (1977, March). Cluster analysis: Reliability,
construct validit and the multi le in ca ors
a roacfi to measurement. Paper presented at a
figngfi§_6f-ffiE—UTST_CTVil Service Commission.

Hunter, J. & Cohen, S. (19691. PACKAGE: A system of computer
routines for the ana ysis of correlational data.

gducational and Psychological Meagurgment, 22,

Hunter, J., & Gerbing D. (1979). Qnidimensional measure-
ment afid con Irmatory gactor ana ys s ccas ona
aper o. . as ans ng: c gan State Univer-
si y, The Institute for Research on Teaching.

Hunter, J., & Gerbing, D. (1982). Unidimensional measure-
ment second order factor analysis and causal
modeIs. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummin831(E§s.)

o O 0

Research in Or anizational Behavior
Greenwich, CN: 3!! Press.

123

124

Hunter, J., Gerbing, D. & Boster F. (1982). Machiavel-
lian belie s and personality: Construct invalidity
of the Machiavell anism dimension. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 2;, 1293-1305.
Izard, C. (1977). Human Emotions. New York: Plenum Press.

Joffe P. (1984 s rin . Shame. Pa er resented at the
' annual méeting g; the Student erv ces of the Big
Ten Conference, Ann Arbor.

 

Jones, D. (1981). Shame as a r :erent of nonverbal behavior
in mothers' and dau fiters mteractions. UnpuBIisfied
d toraI dissertation U

, niversity of Minnesota,

 

oc
Minneapolis.

Jones, J. (1980). Shame- roneness in mothers' and
au hters' verEaI in erac ons. npu 5 ed doctoral
sser a on, n vers y o nnesota, Minneapolis.

Kaufman, G. (1985). Shame: The ower of carin 2nd ed. .
Cambridge,MA: SfienEman. IUriginaIIy pugl shed 19 0)

Kaufman, G. (in press). Psychotherapy for Shame-based
syndromes.

Kinston, W. (1980). A theoretical and technical approach to
narcissistic disturbance. International Journal of

Psychoanalysis, 61, 6;, 38 .
Kinston, w. (1983). A theoretical context for shame. Inter-

gational Journal of Psychoanalysis, 61, 213-225.

Korpi, D.R. (1977%. Psychohistorical aspects of shame and
guilt as un t ons of political ideology. Disser-
ation Abstracts International, 38, 28 B.

Lewis, H. B. (1971). Shame and uilt in neurosis. New York:
International n vers es ress.

Lynd, H. M. (1958). On shame and the search for identit .
New York: Harcourt, Brace I Co.

MacCurdy J. T. (1965). The biolo ical si nificance of
éiushgnggand shame. Britis Journa 9; Psychology,
_I ' -

 

Mirman, C. (1984). Shame and uilt: activators associated
unconscious dan ers and detenses. UnpuSii 5 d
doctoraI dissertation, Micfi'

s e
Igan State University,

 

East Lansing.
Nunnally J. C. (1978). P chometric theor . New York:
ggggaw-Hill Book ompany. or 9 na y published

(195 ). An investigation of anxiet as related

to guilt and shame. Archives of Neuro ogy and

Psychiatry, 89, 752-7 .

Piers, G. & Sin er, A. (1953). Shame and guilt. Spring-
field, L: Thomas.

' Schneider, C. D. (1977). ShameI exposure, agd privacy.
Boston: Beacon Press.

Smith, R. L. (1972). The relative proneness to shame or
guilt as an indicator of defensive style. Disser-
ation Abstracts International, 3;, 2 233- .

Tomkins, S. S. (1962). Affect-Ima er -Consciousness
(Vol. 1). New Yor : pr nger an o.

125

Tomkins, S. S. (1963). Affect-Ina er -Consciousness
(Vol. 2). New York: Springer and Co.

Tomkins, S. S. (in press). Shame. In D. Nathanson (Ed.),
Shame. ' “

 

 

White, R. V. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: the concept
of competence. Psychological Review, gs, 297-333.

Wood, D., Pilusik M. & Uren,.G. (1973). The martyr's
personalit : An experimental investigation. gouénal
of Persona it and Social Ps cholo , 2;, 18 - .

Wurmser, L. (1978). The hidden dimension. New York: Jason
Aronson.

 

WurmSer, L. (1981). The mask of shame. Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins Univers y ress.

   

anil-“11111113111111-gag-lain-