Colleagues, Annette Taylor mentioned shame and several other folks have mentioned guilt in connection with the discussion on sin. You may be interested to know that June Tangney has an excellent and extensive research program on shame and guilt as motivating emotions and as moral emotions. The one chapter I cite below is a recent review of her work. I highly recommend it.
Tangney has reasonably good measures of guilt and shame that distinguish between them. Guilt is other focused, while shame is self focused. Not surprisingly, guilt leads to reparation more often than does shame. Most of Tangney's work is in U.S. culture, so we don't know if this would change in more collectivist cultures. "Sin" seems to me as unhelpful a term to psychologists as "terrorism" is to political scientists. It is not analytic. It is difficult, if not impossible, to measure. It imports value constructs that are difficult, if not impossible, to identify and separate from the concept. I am intrigued, however, by the discussion of the "basic goodness or evil" of homo sapiens. If done right, it serves as a fine pedagogical device to get one into a great deal of good, empirical psychology in a hurry. If done poorly, it becomes a red herring or worse, an obstruction to clear thinking based on essentialism. What is "the essence" of human nature? This is a bad question on which to found a research program, even if it is a good question to have at the heart of a class. The easy answer from evolutionary psychology to the question of good or evil as the basic nature of humans is "yes!" We have evolved the capacity to experience "moral" emotions that lead us both to help and to harm others. Rozin, et al (1999) attempt a mapping of some of these moral emotions to what they call "moral codes." Note that one of the moral codes they identify is what they call "divinity." There is lots of fun complexity here to unpack that I won't try to do on an email list. -Chuck References Tangney, J. P. (2001). Constructive and destructive aspects of shame and guilt. In A. C. Bohart & D. J. Stipek.(Eds). Constructive & destructive behavior: Implications for family, school, & society (pp. 127-145). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Rozin, P., Lowery, L., Imada, S., & Haidt, J. (1999). The CAD triad hypothesis: A mapping between three moral emotions (contempt, anger, disgust) and three moral codes (community, autonomy, divinity). Journal of Personality & Social Psychology. Vol 76, 574-586. -- - Chuck Huff [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Professor and Chair 507.646.3169 Fax: 646.3774 - Department of Psychology http://www.stolaf.edu/people/huff/ - St. Olaf College Northfield, MN 55057-1098 --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
