Conceptualization and Assessment of Shame Experience and Regulation: An Umbrella Review of Synthesis Studies
Fuente:
Wiley Open Access
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Artículo Open Access |
| Published: |
Wiley
2025
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1867006831944007681 |
|---|---|
| author | Carlo Garofalo Laura Giammarioli Irene Aiolfi Elisa Delvecchio Claudia Mazzeschi |
| author_facet | Carlo Garofalo Laura Giammarioli Irene Aiolfi Elisa Delvecchio Claudia Mazzeschi Carlo Garofalo Laura Giammarioli Irene Aiolfi Elisa Delvecchio Claudia Mazzeschi |
| collection | Wiley Open Access |
| contents | Conceptualization and Assessment of Shame Experience and Regulation: An Umbrella Review of Synthesis Studies Carlo Garofalo Laura Giammarioli Irene Aiolfi Elisa Delvecchio Claudia Mazzeschi Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy ABSTRACT Shame experience and regulation are of crucial importance in the study of emotion and psychopathology. Considering the variety of conceptualizations and operationalization methods in the shame literature, the present review aimed to provide a meta‐synthesis of current knowledge. First, we examined how shame and shame regulation are conceptualized. Second, we aimed to identify the most used measures of shame experience and regulation. Third, we gauged the literature for levels of consistency between conceptualization and methods of operationalization. An umbrella review of recent (2018–2023) systematic reviews and meta‐analyses was conducted: 17 studies were included, integrating data from a total of 748 samples and approximately 166,172 participants. Data on title, authors, journal, aims of the review, conceptualization and measures of shame and shame regulation, and main findings were extracted. A relative majority of studies (roughly 63%) conceptualized shame as a multidimensional construct, and the most used measure was the TOSCA (Test of Self‐Conscious Affect) in 76% of cases. Only partial coherence between conceptualization and measurements of the constructs of interest was detected in the retrieved literature. Most measures capture different dimensions of shame, but these were not always leveraged in favour of ‘total score’ considerations. Notably, several reviews referred to shame regulation, but only two included measures of shame regulation. These findings stress the importance of increased consistency between conceptual and methodological levels when studying shame and, in particular, shame regulation, in order to aid integration across studies and increase the theoretical solidity and applied usefulness of empirical findings. 10.1002/cpp.70136 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1002/cpp.70136 |
| format | Artículo Open Access |
| id | wiley_oa_10_1002_cpp_70136 |
| institution | Wiley Open Access |
| license_str_mv | http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ |
| publishDate | 2025 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | wiley_oa |
| spellingShingle | Conceptualization and Assessment of Shame Experience and Regulation: An Umbrella Review of Synthesis Studies Carlo Garofalo Laura Giammarioli Irene Aiolfi Elisa Delvecchio Claudia Mazzeschi Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy Conceptualization and Assessment of Shame Experience and Regulation: An Umbrella Review of Synthesis Studies Carlo Garofalo Laura Giammarioli Irene Aiolfi Elisa Delvecchio Claudia Mazzeschi Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy ABSTRACT Shame experience and regulation are of crucial importance in the study of emotion and psychopathology. Considering the variety of conceptualizations and operationalization methods in the shame literature, the present review aimed to provide a meta‐synthesis of current knowledge. First, we examined how shame and shame regulation are conceptualized. Second, we aimed to identify the most used measures of shame experience and regulation. Third, we gauged the literature for levels of consistency between conceptualization and methods of operationalization. An umbrella review of recent (2018–2023) systematic reviews and meta‐analyses was conducted: 17 studies were included, integrating data from a total of 748 samples and approximately 166,172 participants. Data on title, authors, journal, aims of the review, conceptualization and measures of shame and shame regulation, and main findings were extracted. A relative majority of studies (roughly 63%) conceptualized shame as a multidimensional construct, and the most used measure was the TOSCA (Test of Self‐Conscious Affect) in 76% of cases. Only partial coherence between conceptualization and measurements of the constructs of interest was detected in the retrieved literature. Most measures capture different dimensions of shame, but these were not always leveraged in favour of ‘total score’ considerations. Notably, several reviews referred to shame regulation, but only two included measures of shame regulation. These findings stress the importance of increased consistency between conceptual and methodological levels when studying shame and, in particular, shame regulation, in order to aid integration across studies and increase the theoretical solidity and applied usefulness of empirical findings. 10.1002/cpp.70136 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ |
| title | Conceptualization and Assessment of Shame Experience and Regulation: An Umbrella Review of Synthesis Studies |
| topic | Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy |
| url | https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cpp.70136 |