Motivation and emotion/Book/2015/Guilt and motherhood

Guilt and motherhood:
Why do some mothers experience guilt
and what can be done to alleviate it?

Multimedia presentation (3 min)

Overview

Core learning outcomes Understand guilt Identify the social and cultural factors contributing to the experience of guilt in motherhood Reframe the experience of guilt in a more positive tone Develop strategies to combat maladaptive guilt

The experience of guilt in motherhood is considered a widespread phenomenon, affecting women regardless of their age, culture, the ages of their children and their working status (Liss, Schiffrin, & Rizzo, 2013). Guilt is a universally recognised and experienced emotional state, and is commonly thought to be associated with negative affect and poor outcomes for one’s psychological health and well-being. This chapter explores the complex and multifaceted nature of guilt, providing insight into the current conceptual definition and examining relevant psychological theories. Furthermore, this chapter explores guilt within the context of motherhood, illuminating the most common antecedents and consequences for psychological well-being, and exploring the social and cultural contributions to this phenomenon.

This chapter reframes the experience of guilt in a more positive tone through highlighting its adaptive nature and role in promoting pro-social behaviours. However, it also acknowledges chronic, excessive and unfounded guilt has the potential to negatively impact mothers’ psychological health and functioning. Subsequently, it points towards a number of strategies and potential resources to assist women regulate and reduce the negative affect associated with guilt.

Introduction

What is guilt?

Our conceptualisation of guilt has evolved from an internally experienced emotional state, arising from the violation of a sin or a law, to a more dynamic and complex description relating to the thoughts, feelings and behaviours motivated by the perceived transgression of an internalised moral value or norm (Banmen, 1988; Pennington, & Staples 2011). Guilt is understood as an emotional state involving dimensions of affect, cognition, and behaviour (Bybee, J. (Ed.), 1997; Kubany, & Watson, 2003).

Affect	Cognition	Behaviour
Feelings of tension, agitation and regret.	Beliefs pertaining to the desire to have thought, felt or acted differently in regards to a specific event.	Reflected in the concern for how others are affected by one's behaviour.

The psychological literature on emotion primarily concerns the identified six basic emotions (anger, fear, disgust, sadness, happiness and surprise), given their proven biological foundation, universality across cultures, and distinct and observable accompanied facial expressions. Guilt is regarded as belonging to a subset ‘family’ of emotions, referred to as the self-conscious emotions. Self-conscious emotions are complex in that they have distinct features and processes. Namely, they are cognitive dependent, meaning they require self-awareness and self-representations and do not arise in response to a significant life event. Furthermore, self-conscious emotions develop through socialisation processes, do not have universal facial expressions, are considered moral emotions as they motivate individuals to abide by social norms and personal standards, and serve to safeguard significant social relationships (Tracey, & Robins, 2004).

This conceptualisation of guilt as a self-conscious emotion highlights the dual processes of subjective interpretation and social, learning and cultural factors involved in experiencing the emotion. Furthermore, guilt has distinct meaning across a number of psychological perspectives. For example; Freudian theory proposes guilt originates from a childhood fear of parental loss of love as a consequence for violation of an internalised societal standard, whereas analytical psychology suggests guilt emerges from an individual’s inability to integrate undesirable parts of oneself into the consciousness and accept themselves completely (Banmen, J. 1988).

What is the difference between guilt and shame?

Although guilt and shame are considered distinct emotions, they are often used interchangeably in everyday conversation, and occasionally in academic literature. It is thought that people confuse the experience of shame with the experience of guilt, as both emotions arise from similar situations and involve similar experiences of negative affect. However, extensive research suggests they vary in a number of crucial ways, namely in their nature and the consequences they evoke (Janhunen, & Rotkirch, 2009). Whereas guilt relates to the thoughts, feelings and behaviours regarding a specific event, shame relates to global feelings of inferiority and negative evaluation of one’s entire self. Specifically, shame arises from the fear of negative evaluation or judgement from others relating to moral or non-moral acts, and is associated with feelings of unworthiness and poor self-image (Benetti-McQuoid, & Bursik, 2005). It is important to distinguish among these two emotions as they can lead to different behavioural consequences and motivations. Shame induces the natural instinct to protect oneself and restore ones self-image, potentially motivating avoidance or withdraw behaviours, especially if the situation or act of reparation id perceived as socially risky. Conversely, guilt primarily leads to approach behaviours involving acts of reparation (Bybee (Ed.), 1997).

Example thought	Emotion	Why?
“I let my child watch too much television today."	Guilt	It refers to a specific event, and relates to the individuals private personal judgement, morals and values.
“I am a bad mother."	Shame	It is a global statement of inferiority and worthlessness, incorporates a public and social evaluation component.

Psychological theories of guilt

Biological and cognitive aspects of emotion

In an effort to understand guilt it can be considered more conducive to focus on the role of cognitive activity, as opposed to the biological aspects of emotion. The biological perspective of emotion focuses on dimensions of arousal in the autonomic nervous system, arousal in the subcortical brain units and facial feedback, and suggests the physiological arousal in response to a stimulus is the direct cause of an emotional experience (Lazarus, 1991). However, there is no evidence to support that guilt has reliably distinct physiological components, rather guilt arises in response to the cognitive evaluation of a significant environmental event. Therefore, the cognitive perspective of emotion which examines an individual’s interpretation of the impact an environmental event has on their personal well-being, and includes dimensions of appraisals, knowledge and attributions is more important (Lazarus, 1991). These dimensions concern how individuals evaluate the impact and significance of an environmental event on their psychological functioning, how they differentiate between the emotions in determining their specific response to an event, and how they explain their emotional response (Lazarus, 1991).

Attribution theory: The role of cognitive appraisals in guilt

It is in our nature to create meaning in our reactions to significant life and environmental events, and develop a rationale for our emotional and behavioural responses. Weiner’s attribution theory of emotion rests on this assumption, proposing people make attributions or identify reasons to explain their responses to environmental events, which leads to an emotional reaction (Moors, Ellsworth, Scherer, & Frijda, 2013). Critically, it is the attribution which causes the emotion, and not the other way round as one might believe. This process of attribution occurs on two levels, and relates the experience of an emotion to the outcome of an event. First, people experience a primary emotion of happy or sad based on whether the outcome was good or bad, then they make a secondary appraisal of the situation which produces a more cognitively complex emotion such as guilt. Attributions are thought to exist across three causal dimensions of locus (whether the perceived cause is internal or external to the individual), stability (whether the cause is perceived to be stable and enduring or unstable and temporary) and controllability (whether the individual had intentional control or not). It has been found guilt is often attributed to internal controllable causes, and more often than not unstable (Weiner, Graham & Chandler, 1982). Attribution theory adds to our understating of the nature of guilt, through exploring the common patterns of reasoning people employ to explain their experience of the emotion.

Example

After a long day at work Wendy is too exhausted to cook dinner for her child Max, so she takes him to McDonalds. Later that night Wendy appraises the event as bad, as it transgresses her moral belief it is a mother’s responsibility to provide nutritious food to their child. She then uses her emotion knowledge to discriminate among the shades of emotions, and recognises her initial bad feelings (frustration or sadness) is more appropriately expressed as guilt. Subsequently, she seeks to explain her reaction and behaviour and attributes her feelings of guilt to her personal controllable actions, and considers it unstable as she can provide a more nutritious food at the next meal

Guilt as a form of cognitive dissonance

Figure 1. A model indicating the underlying motivational processes of cognitive dissonance

Interestingly, it has been proposed the experience of guilt is comparative to the experience of cognitive dissonance, as they share common antecedent conditions and outcomes. Festinger’s (1957, as cited in Stice, 1992) theory of cognitive dissonance proposes one experiences negative psychological affect when two of their cognitions (thoughts, attitudes or beliefs) are inconsistent, and are subsequently motivated to enact a strategy to reduce their discomfort (See Figure 1). Essentially, guilt can be thought to arise out of the same process as cognitive dissonance, as through the act of violating a social norm or value, one is acting in a way that is in conflict with their cognitions, leading to an experience of psychological discomfort. This similarity is sustained in that both experiences produce a motivation within the individual to reduce their discomfort, either through acts of reparation (guilt) or changing one of their cognitions (cognitive dissonance) (Stice, 1992).

The experience of guilt in motherhood

The experience of guilt in women who are mothers, often referred to as maternal guilt, is understood in terms of the relationship between the experience of guilt and the mother’s perception of what they have done, or could do to their child or children (Seagram, & Danuluk, 2002). Guilt is often considered from a social and interpersonal perceptive, which suggests that patterns of guilt are most evident in situations involving strong communal relationships, characterised by expectations of mutual care (Baumeister, Stillwell, & Heatherton, 1994). Therefore, it is understandable that mothers are incredibly susceptible to the experience of guilt in the context of the relationship with their child, as they have a strong desire to nurture, attend to the needs of their child and preserve their social bond. This chapter has so far conceptualised guilt as a highly individualised experience, due to the subjective interpretation of an event in relations to personal morals and values. However, it is important to recognise the most significant and common antecedents of guilt in motherhood, in order to assist mothers (current and future) and their sources of support, to understand their experience, and address psychological distress.

Self-Discrepancy theory and the ‘Motherhood Myth”

The most fundamental cause of guilt in motherhood relates to the internalisation of unrealistic societal standards, expectations and norms of motherhood, and a perceived failure to meet them. This notion can be understood in terms of Higgins (1987) theory of self-discrepancy, which proposes women experience maternal guilt when there is a considerable discrepancy between their actual selves and ideal selves as mothers (Liss, Schiffrin, & Rizzo, 2013). Essentially, the theory proposes we construct three facets or domains of self-image; our actual self which represents the attributes we truly possess, the ideal self which captures the abilities we desire to possess, and the ought self which expresses the attributes we believe we should possess. It is the degree of discrepancy existing between the three domains, which generates the experience of negative affect and psychological dysfunction.

The term the “Motherhood Myth’ refers to the societal, cultural and historical norms enforcing a specific construct of the ideal mother, specifically, that mothers are entirely present, nurturing, kind, and are the central caretakers (Douglas, & Muchaels , 2004). The cultural phenomenon of the motherhood myth serves to increase the discrepancy between a women’s actual self and ideal self as a mother, through perpetuating unattainable ideals regarding maternal investment and the mother role (Janhunen, & Rotkirch, 2009). The literature indicates mothers experience an immense amount of pressure to conform to external expectations of a ‘good mother’, and that immense feelings of guilt arise when they do not meet these ideals (Seagram, & Daniluk, 2002). Furthermore, it is common for women to experience a sense of emotional and/or physical depletion in an effort to meet the overwhelming pressure to have a positive impact on their children and provide adequate care and guidance (Seagram, & Daniluk, 2002).

Example

Wendy has formed a construct of the ideal mother as always being able to nurture and care for her children. One night she has to work late and does not get home in time to say goodnight to her children. The discrepancy between her ideal self as a mother ( always nuturing) and her actual self as a mother( working late) causes guilt.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnYqMh0F2io Click here to watch a
video by Erin Skibinski
reading 'The Perfect Mother' ; a talk aimed at dispelling myths of motherhood.

Other significant causes of guilt in motherhood

Although the experience of guilt in motherhood can arise from a vast range of situations and for different reasons, research suggests there are a number of common themes. Primarily, relating to mother-offspring conflict and expectations surrounding the mothering role (Seagram, & Daniluk, 2002).
Fear for the child's well-being Janhunen and Rotkirch (2009) found that a prominent cause of guilt in motherhood is the notion of aggression (being real or imagined) demonstrated by the mother to their child. This can be in the form of physical aggression such as slapping, pushing or squeezing the child too hard, or non-physical such as shouting, expressing irritation or having thoughts of abuse. Additionally, research has found situations which trigger a mother’s fear for their child’s wellbeing can elicit feelings of guilt if the situation is perceived as preventable, such as a child being ill or disappointed (Seagram, & Daniluk, 2002).	Thoughts of abandonment or ‘exit’ It has been demonstrated that strong feelings of guilt emerge following instances of the mother imagining temporarily or permanently ending her maternal investment, through abandoning her child. This is expressed in the literature as either publicly or privately desiring an escape or a break from the overwhelming and exhausting care-taking responsibilities (Janhunen, & Rotkirch, 2009). Research suggests mothers experience a complete and overwhelming sense of responsibility for all aspects of their child’s wellbeing, in terms of their welfare, health and developmental progress (Seagram, & Daniluk, 2002). However, most people fail to acknowledge the immense challenge mothers face in simultaneously coping with the pressure and difficulty associated with a sense of complete responsibility, and inhibiting thoughts of desire to ‘take a break’ and rest (Seagram, & Daniluk, 2002).
Absence In contemporary Western society, the cultural norms informing parental roles impose a high level of expected parental investment, particularly by the mother. This translates to ample face to face interaction with the child, which involves engaging and educational activities, restrictions on child disciplining, and an emphasis on the mother holding complete responsibility for all components of the child’s health and wellbeing (Janhunen, & Rotkirch, 2009). Subsequently, mothers perceive themselves to be absent, either physically or mentally, if they do not provide extensive care to their child, leading to feelings of guilt (Janhunen, & Rotkirch, 2009). Furthermore, as many mothers feel a deep and meaningful connection to their child, a violation of their bond through any form of perceived absence is particularly painful (Seagram, & Daniluk, 2002).	Preferential treatment For mothers with more than one child, a further cause of guilt arises in situations which involve a perceived demonstration of preferential treatment for one child over another, particularly in terms of attention (Seagram, & Daniluk, 2002).

How is guilt maladaptive to psychological wellbeing?

General

It is suggested the negative arousal experienced in guilt is analogous to anxiety, involving elements of emotional distress and discomfort (Tennen & Herzberger, 1987, as cited in Baumeister, Stillwell, & Heatherton, 1994). The primary affective foundations of guilt are empathetic arousal and social exclusion anxiety, with the former comprising of distress in response the suffering of others, and the latter concerning the fear of social rejection due to the transgression (Baumeister, etal., 1994). Furthermore, the experience of guilt is at least partially related to a temporary loss of self-esteem, which is reflected in people’s desire to take corrective action to fix their mistakes, and restore their integrity (Baumeister, etal., 1994). An interesting perspective on the maladaptive nature of guilt lies within Freudian theory, which proposes guilt is a reflection of our unconscious desire for punishment, and we respond to feelings of guilt with self-defeating behaviours. However, there is little empirical support for this (Baumeister, etal., 1994).

Post-natal Depression

The experience of guilt in motherhood can be considered more troubling if it is chronic (occurring continuously for long periods of time) or occurring in the context of Post Natal Depression (PND). PND is the experience of depression or anxiety in mothers following the birth of their child, and can have serious consequences for their wellbeing and their relationship with their child and partner. A critical part of a therapeutic treatment approach is to address feelings of maternal guilt and developing strategies to reduce the associated negative affect (Beck, 2002).

How is guilt adaptive to psychological well-being?

QW Question Mark

Although the experience of guilt is most often associated with an unpleasant or negative affect, many agree that there is a certain amount of truth to the conventional wisdom that guilt can be positive and help us to be ‘good’(Pennington, & Staples 2011). Specifically, it is suggested the adaptive nature of guilt lies in its ability to lead to socially beneficial behaviours, and inhibit undesirable actions. The evolutionary branch of psychology proposes maternal guilt is favoured by natural selection as an adaptive process as it increases the chances of offspring survival. Essentially, the experience of maternal guilt promotes maternal investment, through interfering with and reducing aggression, impulsive action and neglect (Janhunen, & Rotkirch, 2009). Although the concept of maternal investment involves different elements depending on the social, cultural and historical context, the idea of maternal investment being crucial to offspring survival is indisputable, and relevant to contemporary society. For instance, a qualitative research study involving the content analysis of the solicited texts of Finnish mothers, reported the experience of guilt served to moderate and subdue feelings of anger, thoughts of temporary or permanent abandonment and preferential treatment of siblings (Janhunen & Rotkirch, 2009).

The adaptive nature of guilt is best exemplified in the actions taken by the individual to make amends, which arises out of a need to strengthen and preserve socially meaningful relationships (Bybee, (Ed.), 1997). Critically, the experience of guilt promotes victim orientated concerns and empathetic responsiveness, leading to pro-social actions such as apologies, confessions, and reconciliation actions (Benetti-McQuoid, & Bursik, 2005). This is demonstrated in a qualitative research study exploring maternal guilt, with findings suggesting most mothers found guilt inspired them to examine or reflect on their past behaviours towards their children, and motivated them to take action or change their behaviours to better meet the needs of their children (Seagram & Daniluk, 2002).

It is important to highlight the adaptive nature of guilt, so society can start to reframe the experience in more positive terms, and focus on the potential for rewarding outcomes in the form of pro-social behaviours, as opposed to dwelling on the negative affect which can lead to anti-social behaviours such as avoidance and withdraw.

Strategies to address guilt

Emotional Regulation Emotional regulation is defined as the conscious and unconscious processes individuals engage in to moderate their emotions in response to the demands of their environment, and promote adaptive functioning (Aldao, Nolen-Hoeksema, & Schweizer, 2010). An effective emotional regulation strategy is problem solving, which requires the individual to take action towards the problem, through changing or removing the stimuli causing discomfort (Aldao, Nolen-Hoeksema, & Schweizer, 2010). In terms of guilt, this is reflected in the individual’s corrective action attempts, or in other words action to repair the perceived failure. Through making amends the individual is re-affirming their sense of integrity, and removing the source of guilt. A more long term approach to reducing the experience of chronic guilt in motherhood relates to the cognitive perspective of emotion, and involves making new appraisals of the event. Reappraisal involves forming new positive interpretations of a situation, as research has found as appraisals change so does the emotional reaction (Moors, Ellsworth, Scherer, & Frijda, 2013). This could also be achieved through temporal bracketing, a strategy involving reconstructing ones interpretation of the transgression as an isolated incident (Baumeister, et al., 1994).		Problem solving strategies Brainstorming, or planning a course of action to reduce or remove the pressure of external expectation’s and standards. Reducing consumption of media sources perpetuating the motherhood myth. Limiting contact with or communicate discomfort to those people who are imposing unattainable ideals.
		Reappraisal strategies Work with a therapist to develop new appraisals of what it means to be a ‘good mother’. Deconstruct the motherhood myth, and work towards decreasing the discrepancy between ones actual self and ideal self. Attempt to set more realistic and unattainable standards and conceptualisations of responsibilities.

Summary

Figure 2.Motherhood is a constant balancing act

In our efforts to understand the subjective experience of guilt, we must look to the social, cultural and historical factors which inform an individual’s morals and values. It is universally acknowledged that an inherent part of motherhood is feeling guilty, arising in response to the actions taken to care for a child’s well-being. Although guilt is often associated with negative affect and has the potential to significant impact on psychological well-being, it can also lead to pro-social behaviours and strengthen social bonds. In the context of motherhood, it is important that society works to diminish unrealistic ideals and values imposed on the role of a mother, in order to combat excessive, chronic and unjustified guilt. Furthermore, society needs to work towards creating an accepting and safe place for mothers to understand and communicate their emotional experience.

References

Aldao, A., Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Schweizer, S. (2010). Emotion-regulation strategies across psychopathology: A meta-analytic review. Clinical psychology review, 30(2), 217-237.doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2009.11.004

Banmen, J. (1988). Guilt and shame: Theories and therapeutic possibilities. International journal for the advancement of counselling, 11(1), 79-91. doi: 10.1007/BF00715584

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

Beck, C. T. (2002). Theoretical perspectives of postpartum depression and their treatment implications. MCN: The American Journal of Maternal/Child Nursing, 27(5), 282-287. Doi: 00005721-200209000-00008

Benetti-McQuoid, J., & Bursik, K. (2005). Individual differences in experiences of and responses to guilt and shame: Examining the lenses of gender and gender role. Sex Roles, 53(1-2), 133-142.doi: 10.1007/s11199-005-4287-4

Bybee, J. (Ed.). (1997). Guilt and children. Carlsbad, California: Academic Press.

Douglas, S. and Michaels. M. (2004). The mommy myth: The idealization of motherhood and how it has undermined women. New York: Free Press.

Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: a theory relating self and affect. Psychological review, 94(3), 319. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.94.3.319

Janhunen, K., & Rotkirch, A. (2009). Maternal guilt. Evolutionary Psychology, 8(1): 90-106. Retrieved from: http://evp.sagepub.com/

Kubany, E. S., & Watson, S. B. (2003). Guilt: Elaboration of a multidimensional model. Psychological Record, 53, 51–90. Retrieved from: http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/tpr/vol53/iss1/4

Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Progress on a cognitive-motivational-relational theory of emotion. American psychologist, 46(8), 819.doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.46.8.819

Liss, M., Schiffrin, H. H., & Rizzo, K. M. (2013). Maternal guilt and shame: The role of self-discrepancy and fear of negative evaluation. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 22(8), 1112-1119.doi: 10.1007/s10826-012-9673-2

Moors, A., Ellsworth, P. C., Scherer, K. R., & Frijda, N. H. (2013). Appraisal theories of emotion: State of the art and future development. Emotion Review, 5(2), 119-124. doi: 10.1177/1754073912468165

Pennington, N. C., & Staples, L. H. (2011). The Guilt Cure. Canada: Fisher King Press.

Seagram, S., & Daniluk, J. C. (2002). “It Goes with the Territory” The Meaning and Experience of Maternal Guilt for Mothers of Preadolescent Children. Women & Therapy, 25(1), 61-88.doi: 10.1300/J015v25n01_04

Stice, E. (1992). The similarities between cognitive dissonance and guilt: Confession as a relief of dissonance. Current Psychology, 11(1), 69-7. doi: 10.1007/BF02686829

Weiner, B., Graham, S., & Chandler, C. (1982). Pity, Anger, and Guilt An Attributional Analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8(2), 226-232. doi: 10.1177/0146167282082007

External links

1. Information about Post Natal Depression, such as the symptoms and how and where to receive support
2. Example of a “Happy Mother Pledge”, filled with mantras or sayings a mother could adopt to combat feelings of guilt arising from the motherhood myth