A Pilot Study Assessing Effectiveness of a Written Shame Induction Protocol With and Without a Social Evaluative Threat Manipulation

This pilot study was the first to evaluate the impact of a social evaluative threat (SET) manipulation on the shame induction effectiveness of a written shame protocol. We randomized seventy participants to three protocols (except n = 5 nonrandomized to control group): a written shame protocol where participants were told their response would be (a) read (shame protocol with SET manipulation [SET]; n = 25); or (b) immediately shredded (shame protocol without SET manipulation [No SET]; n = 25); or (c) a control protocol where participants wrote objectively about their past 24 hr (control protocol [CON]; n = 20). We measured shame immediately before and after the protocols. Shame increased significantly in response to the SET (Pre: 2.89 +/- .1; Post: 3.91 +/- .1; p < .001) and No SET protocols (Pre: 3.00 +/- .1; Post: 4.08 +/- .1; p < .001) but, not the control protocol (Pre: 2.87 +/- .1; Post: 3.00 +/- .1; p = .42). The shame response did not differ between the SET and No SET protocols (Pre: p = .99; Post: p = .73). The written shame induction protocol used in this study, with or without our SET manipulation, is an effective method to induce shame for future psychological and physiological research. We note that the reported SET protocol involved social observation ("responses will be read") providing the potential for negative social evaluation. Future shame research can build on this small sample size pilot study by incorporating more explicit social evaluation elements and quantification of participant perception of evaluation. This will further clarify our burgeoning understanding of the role of SET in shame induction research.