Shame vs. Guilt

Introduction

Shame and guilt are often classified as self-conscious emotions, arising from reflections on oneself in light of personal or social standards (Tangney & Dearing, 2002). While these emotions frequently occur together and can feel remarkably similar, they represent fundamentally different psychological experiences. Most researchers and therapists draw a crucial distinction: guilt typically focuses on a specific behavior or mistake ("I did something bad"), whereas shame reflects a negative judgment about one's entire self ("I am bad") (U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, 2019).

Understanding this distinction carries important implications for mental health, self-concept, and self-acceptance. Guilt can motivate individuals to make amends for harm they have caused, supporting moral responsibility and social cohesion (Baumeister et al., 1994). When someone experiences guilt, they often demonstrate genuine contrition and actively work to prevent similar behaviors in the future. Shame, by contrast, is linked to a more global sense of inferiority or defectiveness, often triggering a desire to hide or withdraw (Gilbert, 2009) rather than repair. Shame manifests as the felt sense that one is fundamentally flawed, unlovable, or "never good enough." Persistent shame has been associated with depression, low self-esteem, and trauma-related disorders (Gilbert & Andrews, 1998), whereas guilt, when proportionate to the situation, can sometimes be adaptive by guiding ethical behavior and promoting moral development. Importantly, when shame is the predominant emotion, individuals may not exhibit authentic contrition and could repeat the same behaviors despite their distress. This happens because shame is about the core self rather than about the specific behavior, leaving the underlying issues unresolved. While guilt typically motivates corrective action, shame often leads to painful self-scrutiny and a focus on the self as fundamentally defective, resulting in withdrawal rather than reparation (Lewis, 1971). Therefore shame can perpetuate cycles of unhelpful behaviors, as individuals who feel inherently flawed often struggle to initiate genuine change or contrition. Their sense of defectiveness feels immutable, leading them to repeat the same behaviors rather than engage in corrective action. Thus, someone overwhelmed by shame may engage in self-sabotaging patterns repeatedly without meaningful behavioral change, whereas if the emotion was guilt, this would foster learning and accountability.

However, guilt can also become maladaptive when it is excessive, misplaced, or when individuals find themselves unable to change their behavior despite genuine remorse. This is particularly evident in conditions such as ADHD, addictions, OCD, and other impulse control difficulties, where neurobiological factors may impede behavioral change regardless of the person's moral intentions or feelings of guilt.

I will take a multi-framework look at shame and guilt, from developmental perspectives and through the lens of various therapeutic approaches in order to bring an understanding from various angles that can benefit both therapists and anyone interested in personal growth.

Adult looks back with compassion at his younger self who is experiencing shame

Psychodynamic Origins: Object Relations and Attachment Theory

Early childhood experiences lay the foundation for how individuals experience shame and guilt throughout their lives.  Object relations theory, a branch of psychodynamic theory focusing on internalised relationships, provides a lens to understand how these emotions form through our earliest attachments. In infancy and childhood, we begin to internalise our caregivers’ responses as “internal objects” or voices that shape our sense of self. When caregivers are warm, validating, and consistent, the child is more likely to develop a secure sense of self-worth. However, if caregivers are highly critical, shaming, or emotionally absent, the child is likely to internalise a sense of being defective or unlovable, fostering proneness to shame (Fairbairn, 1952; Winnicott, 1965). Children who receive consistently negative messages often develop a ‘deep-seated sense of unworthiness’.

Attachment theory emphasises that a child's early bond with caregivers teaches them fundamental lessons about their own value and worth. Children with insecure attachments, often due to neglect or inconsistent care, tend to develop feelings of inadequacy and self-doubt (Bowlby, 1969; Ainsworth et al., 1978). In such environments, it can feel safer for the young mind to conclude “Something is wrong with me” (shame) rather than “Something is wrong with my caregiver,” because the latter threatens the very source of security and survival. This dynamic, of “better to be a bad child in a good world than a good child in a bad world,” preserves an illusion of control and maintains their attachment to a "good" caregiver (Miller, 1981). 

It is well known that abused children often blame themselves for maltreatment, as imagining a caregiver as unloving or dangerous is psychologically devastating (van der Kolk, 2014). Over time, these children grow into adults whose core beliefs revolve around the idea of being fundamentally to blame, a schema that leaves them vulnerable to intense shame and self-criticism throughout life.

This dynamic becomes particularly complex in conditions such as ADHD, where impulse control difficulties can create a unique relationship with shame. When individuals with ADHD act on impulses, choosing an immediately rewarding activity over a necessary but less preferred task, they may experience shame rather than guilt because part of them identifies with and would repeat the behavior despite negative consequences. Unless there are clear, immediate negative repercussions that outweigh the positive aspects of the impulsive choice, shame predominates over guilt. This creates a pervasive sense of moral failure rather than specific behavioral regret.

Object relations theorists note that individuals debilitated by shame often carry an internal "bad object" - an inner representation of a critical other that constantly reinforces their sense of inadequacy (Fairbairn, 1952).  A child who repeatedly heard "You should be ashamed of yourself!" may develop an internal voice that triggers shame reflexively, even in situations where external criticism is minimal or absent. 

Guilt, however, follows a different developmental trajectory within object relations theory. While shame often arises from empathic failures in caregiving that leave children feeling unseen or fundamentally "bad," guilt is associated with the child's developing capacity for concern and reparation in relationships. Melanie Klein described how infants initially split their world into "good" and "bad" objects in what she termed the paranoid-schizoid position (Klein, 1946). As cognitive development progresses, children begin to recognize that the loved and frustrating caregiver are the same person, ushering in Klein's "depressive position."

This developmental milestone brings with it the recognition that one's own aggressive feelings or actions might hurt the very person they love and depend upon. The resulting guilt - "I'm sorry, Mummy" - represents a crucial psychological achievement, indicating that the child has developed a stable internal representation of others as whole persons and has begun to develop genuine empathy. In healthy development, guilt motivates reparative action, leading to forgiveness and strengthened relationships rather than the withdrawal and self-attack characteristic of shame.

Donald Winnicott's concept of the "good-enough mother" illustrates how secure attachment environments foster healthy guilt without destructive shame (Winnicott, 1953). When a child misbehaves, the good-enough parent provides correction while maintaining fundamental acceptance - conveying that "you did a bad thing, but you're not a bad person, and you can make it better." This allows children to develop moral awareness without losing their sense of inherent worth.

However, when caregiving environments lack this safety, the balance shifts dangerously. Children who never receive forgiveness or who are consistently shamed for mistakes begin to collapse the crucial distinction between behavior and identity. Without empathetic responses from caregivers, guilt transforms into shame through repeated experiences where love feels conditional on perfection.

Kohut’s (1977) self-psychology adds another dimension, emphasising that children require empathic attunement to develop a cohesive self. Without such mirroring, the self can fragment, leaving individuals vulnerable to chronic shame. Defences like grandiosity or perfectionism (a need to overcompensate) often mask deeper feelings of unworthiness, creating a “false self” (Winnicott, 1965) that hides the shame-driven belief that they are fundamentally bad. 

Attribution Patterns: Internalisation and Externalisation

The causal attribution and relational self-reference that children make is what determines whether we internalise or externalise. These patterns represent opposing ways of understanding causality and responsibility, typically forming early and becoming integral to personality structure and coping style.

Ultimately, children learn patterns of attribution from caregivers and early life experiences, shaping whether they internalise or externalise blame. We have discussed that in environments where children are routinely criticised or made to feel personally responsible for problems, they are more likely to develop an internalising style. Instead of hearing that their behaviour was problematic, they often receive the message that they themselves are bad, naughty, or selfish.

Conversely, externalisation involves attributing blame outward toward other people or circumstances. This coping style may develop in environments where a child feels that acknowledging fault threatens their already fragile sense of self, or where children are excessively shielded from appropriate responsibility. The core belief becomes "Nothing is my fault - if something went wrong, someone else caused it or circumstances were unfair."  While this protects against immediate feelings of inadequacy, it can impair empathy and accountability over time. A child who consistently externalises blame may grow into an adult who finds it difficult to accept personal responsibility, often perceiving themselves as a perpetual victim of circumstance.

Adults who habitually externalise rarely experience conscious guilt or shame, automatically attributing problems to external factors. In extreme cases, this pattern is associated with personality disorders where there is marked absence of guilt or shame even when the person has objectively caused harm. It is important to emphasise that neither internalisation nor externalisation is pathological as this only refers to causal attribution; most people fluctuate between internalising and externalising depending on context. Problems arise when one pattern dominates rigidly. 

Therapeutic Implications

From a therapeutic standpoint, the goal involves helping clients achieve accurate attribution and balanced responsibility. A well-adjusted individual can accurately discern when they are responsible and take reparative action, while also recognising when circumstances are beyond their control and releasing unwarranted guilt. Chronic internalisers require support in developing more compassionate, reality-based self-views, learning to recognise external factors and others' contributions to situations. Therapeutic techniques include perspective-taking exercises ("What would you tell a friend in this situation?") and systematic evaluation of their actual versus assumed responsibility in specific scenarios. For example, understanding that a failed project might result from unrealistic timelines rather than personal incompetence helps disrupt the automatic self-blame cycle. 

For chronic internalisers, the process of moving away from toxic shame towards externalising causality. This shift can initially provoke resistance, as it may involve confronting painful realities - such as recognising that abusive or neglectful caregivers were at fault. Accepting this can unleash difficult emotions like anger, which many shame-prone individuals are reluctant to feel. Anger challenges internalised loyalties and may necessitate significant life changes, such as setting boundaries or re-evaluating relationships. Consequently, individuals often remain trapped in guilt and depression rather than risk the destabilisation that anger and externalisation might bring. Encouraging clients to accurately redistribute blame involves gently expanding and challenging their internal narratives. 

An important therapeutic consideration involves the movement from self-blame toward appropriate anger. Individuals transitioning away from chronic self-blame often begin to experience anger toward those who hurt them in the past, or toward perceived injustices and transgressions in current relationships. This anger, while initially uncomfortable, represents healthy progress toward more accurate attribution of responsibility and can motivate necessary life changes, such as setting boundaries or leaving harmful relationships. However, many individuals resist this progression, remaining trapped in depression and guilt because acknowledging anger toward attachment figures requires fundamental shifts in how they perceive these relationships. The cognitive and emotional work of recognising failures in parents or partners can feel overwhelming, particularly when it implies the need for significant life changes or relationship restructuring.

Therapeutic work with pronounced externalisers proves more challenging, as this pattern often serves as a deeply entrenched defense against underlying shame or inadequacy. Treatment may involve gentle confrontation of inconsistencies and gradual development of empathy and self-reflection as many of these individuals who appear shameless often harbor unconscious reservoirs of shame that their externalising behavior protects them against. When therapeutic safety allows this hidden shame to surface, the work then involves learning to tolerate imperfection without resorting to blame-shifting defenses. For example, if a client describes conflicts in every work environment but consistently blames incompetent colleagues, the therapist might explore alternative explanations, such as the client’s own interpersonal style. Building trust is crucial; only in a safe therapeutic space can individuals begin to confront the shame that underlies their defensiveness. The therapeutic task then consists in helping clients tolerate and integrate these feelings without collapsing into despair or defensiveness. Gradually, they can learn to own imperfections while maintaining self-worth, developing what psychodynamic theorists refer to as “narcissistic defences” into more mature coping mechanisms (Kernberg, 1975).  In Jungian terms, acknowledging and articulating shame allows individuals to “stop defending against it and open a window onto the shadow” -  the hidden parts of the self that shame has kept in darkness (Jung, 1959/1968). The individual begins to separate past from present, recognising, for instance, “I felt unlovable because my father was incapable of showing love - that wasn’t my fault.” These insights, especially when supported by a validating therapeutic relationship, allow shame to transform, not just intellectually, but emotionally,  often moving through grief and ultimately toward self-acceptance.

Cognitive-Behavioral Approaches, EMDR and other somatic approaches

Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) addresses shame and guilt through systematic examination of thought patterns and behavioral responses that maintain these emotional states. The approach identifies specific cognitive distortions that fuel disproportionate shame and guilt, particularly in trauma survivors who develop exaggerated senses of responsibility over traumatic events (Kubany & Watson, 2003) or continue to feel powerless and in imminent danger long after the events took place.

Common guilt and shame related distortions include hindsight bias, where knowledge of outcomes creates false beliefs about predictability (“I should have known better,” or “If only I had left earlier” , and inflated responsibility beliefs ("I could have prevented it if I had acted differently"). Trauma survivors often prefer self-blame over acknowledging powerlessness, as responsibility provides an illusion of control even when it generates intense guilt and shame.

Cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) addresses this by targeting distorted thoughts and maladaptive behaviours. Trauma-focused CBT often employs exposure techniques, helping individuals gradually revisit and process traumatic memories in a safe environment. By recounting the memory repeatedly (imaginal exposure) or facing real-life reminders (in vivo exposure), clients learn that revisiting the trauma is not as dangerous as it feels, reducing avoidance and emotional reactivity over time. Importantly, this creates opportunities for cognitive restructuring. As clients process the event, they can challenge distorted beliefs and develop more balanced attributions: “I did the best I could under the circumstances,” or “It wasn’t my fault; the situation was beyond my control.”

A key behavioural component of trauma-focused therapy is breaking the avoidance cycle characterised by withdrawal from relationships, avoiding triggers, and silencing their pain which reinforces the belief that the shame is justified and that the individual is fundamentally flawed. Through graded and prolonged exposure where clients are able to both access the limbic system (where trauma memory responses are stored) and the neocortex (where more rational appraisals are created), clients recount traumatic memories in detail, allowing emotional processing to occur and habituation to take place and thus make room for an alternative, and more adaptive narrative to develop. This can include imaginal exposure (revisiting the memory in detail in therapy) and in vivo exposure (gradually facing real-life reminders they’ve been avoiding). Moreover, clients learn that discussing trauma doesn't result in anticipated catastrophic judgments from others, helping to dismantle shame-based beliefs about being fundamentally damaged or unacceptable.

Therapies like EMDR (Eye Movement Desensitisation and Reprocessing) similarly target the emotional core of traumatic memories. EMDR facilitates the reprocessing of distressing experiences, allowing the brain to reconsolidate memories with new, less shame-laden meanings (Shapiro, 2001). Clients often report that after EMDR sessions, the trauma feels “farther away” and less emotionally charged, and their accompanying self-beliefs shift from “I’m to blame” to “I did what I could.”

Increasingly, EMDR clinicians integrate principles from Internal Family Systems (IFS) therapy to work more directly with shame-laden parts of the self. IFS, developed by Schwartz (1995), views the mind as composed of discrete subpersonalities or "parts," each with its own perspectives, feelings, and roles. In the context of shame, parts that hold intense feelings of worthlessness are often hidden away, while other protective parts, such as critical inner voices, arise to shield the individual from re-experiencing the vulnerability associated with shame. Paradoxically, these shaming protective parts aim to prevent further hurt or rejection by preemptively criticising the self; in essence, if they can punish the self first, they might prevent even harsher judgment from others.

Within EMDR sessions, therapists may use parts work to help clients identify these shame-holding and protective parts and then invite new internal resources to engage with them. For instance, clients may be guided to develop or imagine an ideal nurturer, wise figure, or protective presence (sometimes referred to as a "resource figure"), to bring compassion and acceptance to the parts of themselves that carry shame. This allows for a gentle reworking of internal dynamics, where the protective parts no longer need to shame or attack, and the vulnerable parts can receive the care and acceptance they lacked during the original traumatic experience.

Specific protocols like the "Loving Eyes" technique (Luber, 2010) are designed to facilitate this process. In Loving Eyes, clients are encouraged to view their younger, wounded parts through the compassionate gaze of a caring other, real or imagined, thus providing corrective emotional experiences that foster healing. Through this method, clients not only reprocess traumatic memories but also begin to shift deeply entrenched shame-based self-concepts toward greater self-acceptance.

A crucial distinction emerges when working with wounded parts: the difference between pity and self-compassion. I often discuss this with clients, particularly those who perceive self-compassion as "weak" or counterproductive to success. Pity operates from emotional distance, feeling sorry for oneself without genuine empathy or understanding. When we engage in self-pity, we're essentially looking down at our own suffering from a place of disconnection, often reinforcing the very shame that created the wound. Pity prevents us from identifying what we can change to care for ourselves more effectively - a process that may involve feeling vulnerable and experiencing healthy guilt. Pity stems from shame-based rejection, keeping us isolated in our pain.

Self-compassion, by contrast, involves moving toward our suffering with genuine empathy and care. Rather than the distant "feeling sorry for" that characterises pity, self-compassion embodies a willingness to approach and understand our pain, not out of obligation or moral duty, but from recognising our shared humanity and from a place of love itself. This approach does not weaken us or undermine accountability; instead, it creates the emotional safety necessary for authentic healing and sustainable change. Many clients fear that treating themselves with compassion will lead to complacency or excuse poor behavior. In reality, the opposite occurs: when we stop rejecting our wounded parts through pity or harsh self-criticism, we create space for genuine growth and resilience to emerge.

EMDR also employs specific techniques that directly address how shame is felt in the body, helping clients develop a more curious and gentle approach to their experience. This facilitates externalising the emotion, helping clients visualise and gradually reduce its intensity. Another technique, the “Video Playback,” encourages clients to watch the traumatic memory as if it were a movie, introducing psychological distance and allowing for cognitive reappraisal. Over time, as the emotional charge of the memory diminishes, clients often experience a profound shift: negative self-beliefs such as “I am a bad person” are replaced with more compassionate and appropriate appraisals. Crucially, this does not just happen at a cognitive level but is felt viscerally, leading to lasting emotional change (Shapiro, 2001).

Somatic therapies further recognise that shame is not only a cognitive and emotional experience but also a deeply embodied one, often manifesting as a shrinking, collapsing posture, a desire to hide, or a pervasive sense of heaviness. Techniques such as Somatic Experiencing (Levine, 1997) focus on helping clients renegotiate and discharge the physiological activation associated with traumatic and shame-based memories. Rather than revisiting traumatic narratives, Somatic Experiencing guides clients to track bodily sensations and complete the defensive responses (such as fight, flight, or freeze) that were thwarted at the time of trauma, thereby restoring balance to the nervous system. Similarly, Sensorimotor Psychotherapy (Ogden, Minton, & Pain, 2006) integrates cognitive and somatic techniques by helping clients develop mindfulness of their physical responses. Clients learn to observe and modify posture, tension, and movement patterns that unconsciously maintain shame states, fostering greater self-regulation and body-based emotional processing.Through these embodied practices, clients learn that they can experience shame without being overwhelmed by it, and in doing so, they expand their capacity for resilience and authentic self-expression. This embodied work complements cognitive and relational interventions, reinforcing the understanding that healing from shame must occur on multiple levels: mind, emotion, and body. In many cases, clients report that working directly with the body allows for breakthroughs that talking alone could not achieve. As shame is so deeply tied to physiological states of collapse and withdrawal, somatic work helps restore a sense of agency and vitality.

Third-wave behavioural therapies such as Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) take a slightly different approach compared to traditional cognitive therapy but with some significant overlap with EMDR and somatic approaches. Rather than focusing on challenging the content of shameful or guilty thoughts, ACT encourages changing one’s relationship to these thoughts and feelings. In ACT, clients are guided to open up to these difficult internal experiences through acceptance and mindfulness strategies. Rather than trying to eliminate thoughts like “I am worthless,” clients are taught to notice these thoughts as mental events -  transient, subjective, and not necessarily true. Cognitive defusion techniques help clients step back from their thoughts, viewing them as passing phenomena rather than objective facts, similar to when clients are observing their experience while engaging in bilateral stimulation in EMDR. For instance, when the thought “I am bad” arises, the client learns to say, “I am having the thought that I am bad,” creating distance and reducing its power. Mindfulness practices within ACT support this process by helping clients stay grounded in the present, anchoring their attention to the current moment, reducing the emotional charge of these memories and fears. Over time, clients learn that their sense of self need not be defined by transient emotional states or intrusive memories. One important concept within ACT is the development of "self-as-context," the idea that we are more than the content of our experiences (akin to the “Self” in IFS and Jungian Psychology). Rather than identifying with shame ("I am bad"), individuals are encouraged to see themselves as the observer of these experiences -  a stable, enduring presence that can hold even painful emotions without being overwhelmed by them (Hayes et al., 1999).

Crucially, ACT emphasises that committed action (behaviour aligned with one’s values) is the antidote to the paralysis induced by shame encouraging clients to move towards valued goals even in the presence of shame and guilt. For example, someone who deeply values connection might reach out to a friend even when feeling unworthy. Over time, these actions can erode the rigid barriers shame has built, restoring a sense of agency and belonging.

Ultimately, developing self-compassion (especially if clients had little experience of what this was like in their development) is central to this healing process. It involves treating oneself with the same kindness and understanding one would offer a friend facing similar struggles (Neff, 2003) especially when it comes with childhood trauma, and to imagine what it would have felt like to receive it from an ideal caregiver in those  traumatic situations. Brené Brown’s work on shame resilience offers further insights into this process. Brown (2012) argues that shame cannot survive being spoken. When individuals name their shame and are met with empathy, its power diminishes. Her insights recognise that willingness to experience vulnerability is essential to overcoming shame (the willingness to be seen, to risk rejection) and can help reframe clients’ narratives as one of courage. As Brown notes, courage and vulnerability are two sides of the same coin. When individuals share their stories of struggle and are met not with judgment but with understanding, the shame dissipates. This aligns with relational and psychodynamic theories, where the healing of early relational wounds is achieved not only through insight but through corrective emotional experiences within a secure therapeutic relationship.

Self acceptance addresses childhood beliefs that worthiness is conditional: contingent on achievements, moral purity, or other external validations. Therefore, cultivating an unconditional sense of worth counters shame at its roots. This is not to suggest complacency or the denial of responsibility; rather, it frames mistakes as part of the human condition, not as evidence of unworthiness. One practical method to foster this shift is through expressive writing, which research has shown to reduce shame and improve emotional regulation (Pennebaker & Beall, 1986). By writing about their most painful experiences, individuals can organise and make sense of them, externalising emotions that might otherwise remain overwhelming. Similarly, participation in supportive groups, such as 12-step programs, can provide opportunities for individuals to voice their shame and guilt in a community that models acceptance and understanding. Step 5 of Alcoholics Anonymous (admitting to oneself, another human being, and a higher power the exact nature of one's wrongs) is in essence a ritualised shame exposure followed by empathetic witnessing.

Concluding thoughts

Transforming shame into guilt, and ultimately into responsible action and self-acceptance, is not linear. Clients often oscillate between progress and setbacks, moments of insight and periods of doubt. Progress is measured not by the absence of shame or guilt, but by a growing capacity to recognise these emotions, to respond to them with self-compassion, and to act in alignment with one's values despite their presence. Brené Brown’s notion of shame resilience underscores the importance of normalising struggle highlighting that overcoming beliefs against feeling emotionally vulnerable is necessary, where allowing ourselves to be seen even when imperfect, is not only the antidote to shame but also the gateway to deeper connections with others.

Ultimately, the work of differentiating shame from guilt and developing healthier responses to each is a work towards self-integration. When individuals learn to view guilt as a signal for reparative action and shame as a call for self-compassion and acceptance, they reclaim agency over their emotional lives. They move from cycles of avoidance and self-condemnation to cycles of engagement, growth, and connection.

From a therapeutic standpoint, the integration of cognitive, emotional, relational, and somatic approaches offers a comprehensive pathway for addressing shame and guilt. Cognitive strategies help reframe maladaptive beliefs; emotional and relational work fosters empathy and connection; somatic practices rewire the body’s conditioned shame responses. In my experience, working integratively with each modality can create a synergistic effect that can often transform even deeply entrenched patterns. 

Notably, not all guilt needs therapeutic intervention, as guilt can be a normal, even healthy, part of grief and moral reflection, motivating reparative actions where appropriate and reinforcing social bonds. In some cultural and personal contexts, survivors find meaning by transforming guilt into a commitment - for example, a survivor who feels guilty about living when others did not may choose to honour the deceased by leading a purposeful life. In these cases, guilt acts not as a corrosive force but as a guiding principle toward resilience and ethical living. Therapists working within cognitive-behavioral or integrative frameworks recognise the importance of differentiating between maladaptive guilt that fuels self-punishment and adaptive guilt that fosters personal growth and community responsibility. 

Ultimately, shame and guilt are not emotions to be eradicated, but navigated. They remind us of our imperfections, but also of our capacity for empathy, repair, and growth. When met with compassion rather than judgment, these emotions become guides rather than burdens, pointing the way toward authenticity and connection. In learning to carry them wisely, we do not merely heal; we become more fully human.

References:

Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Lawrence Erlbaum.

Baumeister, R. F., Stillwell, A. M., & Heatherton, T. F. (1994). Guilt: An interpersonal approach. Psychological Bulletin, 115(2), 243–267. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.115.2.243

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. Basic Books.

Brown, B. (2012). Daring greatly: How the courage to be vulnerable transforms the way we live, love, parent, and lead. Gotham Books.

Fairbairn, W. R. D. (1952). Psychoanalytic studies of the personality. Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Gilbert, P. (2009). The compassionate mind: A new approach to life’s challenges. New Harbinger Publications.

Gilbert, P., & Andrews, B. (Eds.). (1998). Shame: Interpersonal behavior, psychopathology, and culture. Oxford University Press.

Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K. D., & Wilson, K. G. (1999). Acceptance and commitment therapy: An experiential approach to behavior change. Guilford Press.

Jung, C. G. (1959/1968). The archetypes and the collective unconscious (R. F. C. Hull, Trans.; 2nd ed.). Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1959)

Kernberg, O. F. (1975). Borderline conditions and pathological narcissism. Jason Aronson.

Klein, M. (1946). Notes on some schizoid mechanisms. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 27, 99–110.

Kohut, H. (1977). The restoration of the self. International Universities Press.

Kubany, E. S., & Watson, S. B. (2003). Guilt: Elaboration of a multidimensional model. Psychological Record, 53(1), 51–90.

Levine, P. A. (1997). Waking the tiger: Healing trauma. North Atlantic Books.

Lewis, H. B. (1971). Shame and guilt in neurosis. International Universities Press.

Luber, M. (2010). Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) scripted protocols: Basics and special situations. Springer Publishing Company.

Miller, A. (1981). The drama of the gifted child: The search for the true self. Basic Books.

Neff, K. D. (2003). Self-compassion: An alternative conceptualization of a healthy attitude toward oneself. Self and Identity, 2(2), 85–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298860309032

Ogden, P., Minton, K., & Pain, C. (2006). Trauma and the body: A sensorimotor approach to psychotherapy. W. W. Norton & Company.

Pennebaker, J. W., & Beall, S. K. (1986). Confronting a traumatic event: Toward an understanding of inhibition and disease. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 95(3), 274–281. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.95.3.274

Shapiro, F. (2001). Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing: Basic principles, protocols, and procedures (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.

Schwartz, R. C. (1995). Internal family systems therapy. Guilford Press.

Tangney, J. P., & Dearing, R. L. (2002). Shame and guilt. Guilford Press.

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. (2019). PTSD: National Center for PTSD: Shame and guilt.

Van der Kolk, B. A. (2014). The body keeps the score: Brain, mind, and body in the healing of trauma. Viking.

Winnicott, D. W. (1953). Transitional objects and transitional phenomena. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 34, 89–97.

Winnicott, D. W. (1965). The maturational processes and the facilitating environment: Studies in the theory of emotional development. International Universities Press.