PCI Registered Reports

Announcements

We are recruiting recommenders (editors) from all research fields!

Your feedback matters! If you have authored or reviewed a Registered Report at Peer Community in Registered Reports, then please take 5 minutes to leave anonymous feedback about your experience, and view community ratings.

Back

396

Title

Revisiting the role of public exposure and moral beliefs on feelings of shame and guilt: Replication Registered Report of Smith et al. (2002)’s Study 1 use asterix (*) to get italics

Authors

Yikang Zhang, Fung Chit (Jack) Cheung, Hei Tung (Patrina) Wong, Lok Yee (Noel) Yuen, Hui Ching (Rachel) Sin, Hiu Tung Kristy Chow, Gilad FeldmanPlease use the format "First name initials family name" as in "Marie S. Curie, Niels H. D. Bohr, Albert Einstein, John R. R. Tolkien, Donna T. Strickland"

Year

2023

Picture

Abstract

<p>Shame and guilt are unpleasant self-conscious emotions associated with negative evaluations of oneself or one’s behavior. Smith et al. (2002) demonstrated that shame and guilt are distinct and are impacted differently by public exposure, that is, the (potential) exposure to disapproving appraisals of one’s misdeeds by others. The impact of public exposure (compared to no exposure) was greater for feelings of shame than for feelings of guilt. We conducted a direct replication (N = 1272) of Smith et al. (2002)’s Study 1 and found that exposure increased both feelings of shame (ηp2 = .14, 95%, CI [.11, .17]) and guilt (ηp2 = .13, 95% CI [.10, .16]) compared with the private condition. Moreover, people who were in the high moral conditions reported both higher shame (ηp2 = .33, 95% CI [.29, .37]) and guilt (ηp2 = .36, 95% CI [.32, .39]). Shame and guilt both had moderate-to-high correlations with the shame-related and guilt-related reactions and both exposure and moral belief manipulations had effects on shame-related and guilt-related reactions. Our results suggest a failed replication: public exposure and moral belief influence both shame and guilt, so we cannot conclude that shame and guilt can be distinguished from each other solely based on public exposure, which diverges from the target article’s main theory and findings. All materials, data, and code are available at https://osf.io/j3ue4/</p>

Indicate the full web address (DOI or URL) giving public access to these data (if you have any problems with the deposit of your data, please contact contact@rr.peercommunityin.org).

You should fill this box only if you chose 'All or part of the results presented in this preprint are based on data'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Indicate the full web address (DOI or URL) giving public access to these scripts (if you have any problems with the deposit of your scripts, please contact contact@rr.peercommunityin.org).

You should fill this box only if you chose 'Scripts were used to obtain or analyze the results'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Indicate the full web address (DOI, SWHID or URL) giving public access to these codes (if you have any problems with the deposit of your codes, please contact contact@rr.peercommunityin.org).

You should fill this box only if you chose 'Codes have been used in this study'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Keywords

shame, guilt, public exposure, moral beliefs, replication, registered report

Methods that require specific expertise (optional)

NonePlease indicate the methods that may require specialised expertise during the peer review process (use a comma to separate various required expertises).

Thematic fields

Social sciences

Suggested reviewers - Suggest up to 10 reviewers (provide names and Email addresses). (Optional)

No need for them to be recommenders of PCI Registered Reports. Please do not suggest reviewers for whom there might be a conflict of interest. Reviewers are not allowed to review preprints written by close colleagues (with whom they have published in the last four years, with whom they have received joint funding in the last four years, or with whom they are currently writing a manuscript, or submitting a grant proposal), or by family members, friends, or anyone for whom bias might affect the nature of the review - see the code of conduct

Opposed reviewers - Suggest up to 5 people not to invite as reviewers. (Optional)

e.g. John Doe [john@doe.com]

Submission date

2023-02-03 10:58:20

Recommender

Chris Chambers

Reviewers

or Register
Submit a report

Announcements

MANAGING BOARD

MEMBER OF

INDEXED BY