Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 334

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Evolution, Social Roles, and the Differences in Shame and Guilt

Gilbert, Paul·2003·Social Research: An International Quarterly

Abstract

THE fear of shame and ridicule can be so strong that people will risk serious physical injury or even death to avoid it. One of the reasons for this is because shame can indicate serious damage to social acceptance and a breakdown in a variety of social relationships . The evolutionary root of shame is in a self-focused, social threat system related to competitive behavior and the need to prove oneself acceptable/desirable to others (Gilbert, 1989; 2002a). Guilt, however, evolved from a care-giving and “avoiding doing harm to others” system (Gilbert, 1998; Tangney and Dearing , 2002). Guilt will be explored here primarily to offer a contrast with shame and thus clarify the self-focused nature of shame. The evolutionary precursors for shame can be traced back to the way all animals must be able to detect and cope with social threats (Gilbert and McGuire, 1998). For many animals, attentiveness to conspecifics that could inflict harm, and are threats to them, is highly adaptive, and social anxiety, flight, or submission /appeasement are salient defenses (Gilbert, 2001). Social threats (unlike nonsocial threats) often involve communicating signals that impact on the state of mind of the threatening other(s); for example, a submissive display may be sufficient to stop a more dominate from seriously attacking a subordinate. Although shame requires a symbolic sense of self (Lewis, 1992), it too is regulated by social threats and automatic defenses to protect the self from threats posed by others (Gilbert, 2002a). Indeed, there is now evidence that shame can act as an inner warning signal of threats and challenges to the self, with a trigSOCIAL RESEARCH, Vol. 70, No. 4 (Winter 2003) Evolution, Social Roles, and the Differences in Shame and Guilt PAUL GILBERT gering of automatic defenses—especially desires to escape (flight) and submissive behavior (Keltner and Harker, 1998), anger (Tangney et al., 1996), and concealment (MacDonald, and Morley, 2001). Guilt is not rooted in “threat to the self” or needs for rapid defenses of the self. Rather, for guilt there must first be some concern with the welfare of others, such that the (distress) experiences of others matter. One archetypal origin of caring and responsiveness to distress is probably in the parent-infant/kin care system (MacLean, 1985). Concern for others matures in children as they become aware of distress in others (including awareness of being a source for others distress), develop empathy and sympathy, and wish to help others (Eisenberg, 2002). Unlike shame, guilt is not associated with anger at others (Tangney et al., 1996) and reparation is chosen over concealment (Tangney and Dearing, 2002). Further, unlike shame, guilt is not associated with feeling inferior to others (for example, making negative social comparisons), or submissive behavior, social anxiety, or (nonpsychotic) depression (Gilbert, 2000b; Tangney and Dearing, 2002). Although never tested, it is possible that guilt may require a capacity to tolerate sadness. For example, while driving home, a cat suddenly rushes out in front of your car and you hit it. One could drive on and think “stupid cat”; feel shame by blaming oneself for not driving with due care (or think others will accuse one of such), or one can feel sadness -linked guilt, stop the car, and see if there is anything that can be done. Clinical experience suggests that guilt/remorse is often associated with sorrow/sadness. Thus, although some researchers distinguish guilt and shame on the basis of evaluations of self (a bad/flawed self is a shamed self) or behavior (guilt is about actions and not a judgment of the self), my own view is that this is only part of the story since there are also major differences in a whole suite of evolved motives, emotions, competencies, beliefs, and attentional focus that underpin these two social emotions. However, 1206 SOCIAL RESEARCH they can often be “fused” together in that, for example, causing harm to others might activate both guilt and shame (Tangney and Dearing, 2002). Cognitive Competencies in Shame and Guilt Although many animals may have the precursors for shame (for example, sensitivity to dominant others and submissive behavior) and guilt (care-giving for others), it is doubtful they feel shame or guilt as such...

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1353/sor.2003.0013

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 5 references

Cited by

See all 334

Metadata

Authors
Gilbert, P.
Venue
Social Research: An International Quarterly
Publisher
Project MUSE
Published
2003-12
Volume
70
Issue
4
Pages
1205-1230
ISSN
  • 0037-783X (ISSN-L)
  • 1944-768X
OpenAlex
W307373178
Cited by
334
References
5
FWCI
3.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Evolution, Social Roles, and the Differences in Shame and Guilt. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1353/sor.2003.0013
The paper
Gilbert, P. (2003). Evolution, Social Roles, and the Differences in Shame and Guilt. Social Research: An International Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1353/sor.2003.0013

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.