Management Of Shame State-Shame Acknowledgment

Abstract

The Management Of Shame State (MOSS) scale, specifically focusing on Shame Acknowledgment and Shame Displacement (MOSS-SASD), was developed by Braithwaite and Ahmed (2011). This instrument is designed to measure an individual’s immediate emotional and behavioral reactions following a specific negative workplace scenario, such as voicing harsh criticism of a colleague. The MOSS-SASD assesses how individuals process feelings of shame, differentiating between adaptive responses, which involve taking responsibility (acknowledgment), and maladaptive defense mechanisms, which involve externalizing blame (displacement). The scale provides crucial insights into interpersonal dynamics, moral emotions, and conflict resolution strategies within organizational settings.

Keywords

Shame Acknowledgment, Shame Displacement, Workplace Bullying, Organizational Psychology, Emotional Regulation, Psychological Scale, MOSS-SASD, Moral Emotions.

Authors

Valerie Braithwaite, Eliza Ahmed.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the MOSS-SASD subscale is to quantify the immediate emotional and cognitive consequences of committing a perceived transgression within a professional context. It aims specifically to distinguish between two fundamental responses to feelings of shame: the constructive internal process of self-blame and regret (Shame Acknowledgment) versus the defensive, externalizing process of blame shifting (Shame Displacement).

This differentiation is critical for researchers studying organizational justice, conflict management, and the underlying psychological mechanisms contributing to negative organizational outcomes, such as workplace bullying and victimization. By employing a hypothetical scenario relevant to hierarchical professional interactions, the scale elicits typical responses related to moral emotions in high-stakes organizational settings.

Construct

The MOSS-SASD measures two distinct, yet related, dimensions of shame management states. The first construct, Shame Acknowledgment, reflects an internalized sense of responsibility, remorse, and a desire for repair following a perceived wrongdoing. This response is generally considered adaptive, as it facilitates restorative actions and promotes accountability within a team environment. Items measuring this construct focus on feelings of being ashamed of oneself and regretting the transgression.

The second construct, Shame Displacement, reflects a defensive and externalizing reaction to internal feelings of shame. Individuals scoring high on Shame Displacement tend to shift blame onto others, deny responsibility, or seek retribution. These maladaptive reactions are frequently linked to destructive interpersonal conflict, organizational toxicity, and the perpetuation of negative workplace dynamics. The scale operationalizes these constructs using a scenario-based approach to capture state-level emotional responses rather than trait-level tendencies.

Validity

The MOSS-SASD demonstrates strong face validity, utilizing a clearly defined and relatable workplace scenario—criticizing a co-worker in public—to elicit the target emotions. The scale items themselves are theoretically grounded in models linking moral emotions (shame and pride) directly to organizational behavior and restorative justice theory, supporting its conceptual framework.

The instrument was developed as part of a larger research project investigating the influence of organizational context on shame and pride responses, suggesting successful theoretical validation. Further psychometric validation, detailed in the full publication, confirms that the items accurately reflect the hypothesized constructs of acknowledgment and displacement as distinct response styles.

Reliability

The internal consistency of both MOSS-SASD subscales demonstrates strong reliability, as indicated by the Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients reported by Braithwaite and Ahmed (2011). These statistical measures confirm the internal cohesion of the items within each factor.

• The Shame Acknowledgment subscale (6 items) achieved a high level of internal consistency with a Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient of 0.80 (Scale mean = 2.28, SD = 0.83).
• The Shame Displacement subscale (4 items) demonstrated even stronger internal consistency, yielding a Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient of 0.86 (Scale mean = 2.29, SD = 1.13).

These reliability values comfortably exceed the standard acceptable threshold of 0.70 for psychological research instruments, confirming that the items within each subscale reliably measure their respective latent constructs.

Factor Analysis

Although the provided excerpt does not detail the exact methodology of the factor analysis (e.g., Exploratory Factor Analysis or Confirmatory Factor Analysis), the successful division of the MOSS-SASD into two distinct and reliable subscales—Shame Acknowledgment and Shame Displacement—strongly implies that a robust factor structure was empirically confirmed. This methodology was crucial in ensuring that the items loaded cleanly onto their intended factors, supporting the hypothesized bi-dimensional nature of shame management responses in the workplace.

The clear statistical separation and high internal consistency coefficients observed for both resulting factors provide empirical evidence that acknowledgment and displacement are independent, measurable psychological responses to a shame-inducing workplace scenario. This confirms the conceptual distinction between adaptive and maladaptive responses to moral failure.

Instrument

Test Type: Scenario-based self-report psychological scale

Format: 5-point Likert scale (1 = definitely not, 5 = definitely)

Language Available: English (Original)

Population Group: Working professionals, employees, and individuals within an organizational context.

Age Group: Adults (Implied working age population)

Population Details: The scale is contextually focused on interactions between co-workers and subordinates.

Test Methodology: Respondents are presented with a specific negative workplace scenario and asked to rate the likelihood of experiencing a list of subsequent emotional and behavioral responses.

Keywords

Moral Emotions, Organizational Justice, Shame Management, Conflict Resolution, Psychometrics, Defensive Behavior, Accountability, Australian National University.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: N/A (Not provided in source)

Affiliation Email addresses: [email protected]

Correspondence Address: Australian National University (ANU), Canberra, Australia (Implied)

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The scale was developed and published in 2011. The instrument is part of academic research conducted by the Australian National University (ANU) and is publicly accessible via the provided academic publications. Researchers seeking to utilize the scale should cite the original work and may need to contact the authors directly for commercial or large-scale applications. The original PDF containing the instrument can be downloaded here: http://www.anu.edu.au/fellows/jbraithwaite/_documents/Articles/wrkbullyvalelizajohn.pdf

Reference’s

• Braithwaite, V., & Ahmed, E. (2011). Management Of Shame State-Shame Acknowledgment and Shame Displacement.
• Ahmed, E. (2011). Shame, pride and workplace bullying. In S. Karstedt, I. Loader, & H. Strang (Eds.), Emotions, Crime and Justice (1st ed., pp. 93–94). Hart Publishing, Oxford.
• Braithwaite, V., Ahmed, E., & Braithwaite, J. (2011). Workplace Bullying and Victimization: The Influence of Organizational Context, Shame and Pride. International Journal of Organisational.
• The instrument can be found on pages 93-94 of Workplace Bullying and Victimization: The Influence of Organizational Context, Shame and Pride, available online at: http://regnet.anu.edu.au/publications/shame-pride-and-workplace-bullying

Items of the Management Of Shame State-Shame Acknowledgment

The MOSS-SASD utilizes the following scenario:

MOSS-SASD Scenario: Suppose you just had voiced a ‘criticism of work and undervalued the efforts’ of a co-worker in front of other staff, including subordinates of the co-worker. How likely is it that you would feel the following …

The items are rated on a 5-point scale where 1 = definitely not, 2 =unlikely, 3 = unsure, 4 = probably, 5 = definitely.

Shame Acknowledgment

1. ashamed of yourself
2. you had let down your co-workers
3. regretting what you have said
4. concerned to put matters right and put it behind you
5. you have harmed your professional reputation
6. feel hesitant to come at the office

Shame Displacement

1. angry with your co-workers
2. unable to decide, in your mind, whether or not you had done the wrong thing;
3. placing the blame somewhere else for what you said
4. you wanted to get even with someone else