Exploring the Consequences of Humiliating a Moral Transgressor

Abstract

When people transgress, they are often publicly condemned for doing so. This punishes the behavior and presumably induces moral emotions and the desire to make amends. Public condemnation can also be humiliating, an experience that may work against such reactions. In three studies, using vignettes and retrospective accounts, we explored the nature and consequences of humiliation. Public condemnation, when intentional and severe, heightened the experience of humiliation along with the negative consequences of anger, hostility, and vengeful urges, despite the fact that the humiliated person had transgressed in the first place. These intentional and severe forms of public condemnation failed to increase the moral emotions of shame and guilt. However, unintentional publicity and mild reprimand generally enhanced both moral emotions and intentions to apologize without increasing hostility.

Notes

¹Vignettes are available from the first author upon request.

Note. All means (within rows) with different subscripts are significantly different at p < .05. Scales range from 0 (not at all) to 6 (extremely).

*p < .05. **p < .001.

²Not surprisingly, publicity and reprimand appeared naturally confounded with each other. We reconducted the analysis for the publicity manipulation check using reprimand as a covariate. Doing so did not alter the effects for publicity. Also, we reconducted the analysis for the reprimand manipulation check using publicity as a covariate. Doing so did not alter the effects for reprimand.

Note. All means (within rows) with different subscripts are significantly different at p < .05. Scales range from 1 (not at all) to 7 (extremely). Neg. = negative.

Note. All means (within rows) with different subscripts are significantly different at p < .05. Scales range from 0 (not at all) to 6 (extremely).

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .005.

³As in Study 1, we reconducted the analysis for publicity and reprimand manipulation check using reprimand and publicity as a covariate respectively. Doing so did not alter the reported effects.

Note. All means (within rows) with different subscripts are significantly different at p < .05. Scales range from 0 (not at all) to 6 (extremely). Rep = reprimand; Neg. = negative.

*p < .10.

⁴Because participants remembered their own accounts, it is possible that the wrongness of their transgressions varied across conditions. Tocontrol for this variability, we used participants' perceptions of the wrongness of their transgression as a covariate in all the analyses.Doing so did not alter the pattern of findings.

Note. All means (within rows) with different subscripts are significantly different at p < .05.

*p < .05. **p < .005. ***p < .001.