See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/327920443

Differential Roles of Shame and Guilt in L2 Learning: How Bad Is

Bad?

Article  in  Modern Language Journal · September 2018

DOI: 10.1111/modl.12511

CITATIONS READS

55 1,618

1 author:

Yasser Teimouri
Georgetown University
17 PUBLICATIONS   584 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

L2 psychological variables and L2 achievement View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Yasser Teimouri on 27 September 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Differential Roles of Shame and Guilt
in L2 Learning: How Bad Is Bad?
YASSER TEIMOURI
Georgetown University, Department of Linguistics, Poulton Hall 240, 1421 37th St, N.W., Washington, DC
20057–1051 Email: yt329@georgetown.edu

This article aims to introduce shame and guilt from social psychology into second language acquisition
(SLA), to validate their psychometric measurement, and to examine their effects on second language
(L2) learners’ motivation and language achievements. In Study 1, the prevalence of shame and guilt
reactions in L2 settings was explored. Moreover, the Second Language Test of Shame and Guilt Affect
(L2-TOSGA) was developed and validated to measure L2 learners’ individual differences in terms of
proneness to shame and guilt during L2 learning. The results of qualitative and quantitative analyses
evidenced the pervasiveness of shame and guilt in an L2 context, and attested to the reliability, stability,
and validity of L2-TOSGA subscales. In Study 2, the effects of learners’ shame and guilt reactions on
their motivation and language achievements were probed. The results showed that shame strongly but
negatively affected L2 learners’ motivation and language achievements, whereas guilt had positive effects
on their motivation and language achievements.
Keywords: shame; guilt; L2 motivation; language achievement

FOR DECADES, RESEARCH INTO SECOND
Language (L2) learners’ emotions witnessed a
theoretical lull after the introduction of language
anxiety in the field of second language acquisition
(SLA). The disproportionate volume of research
on language anxiety (for reviews, see Gkonou,
Daubney, & Dewaele, 2017; Horwitz, 2017; Mac-
Intyre, 2017) stymied research developments in
other emotions that may be experienced during
L2 learning. In addition, the scope of emotion re-
search itself has been traditionally conceptualized
within broad categories of negative and positive
emotions. That is, a variety of negative emotions,
such as anxiety, embarrassment, fear, nervous-
ness, sadness, and shame, were lumped together
under the rubric of language anxiety (e.g., Gard-
ner, 1985; Horwitz, Horwitz, & Cope, 1986; Mac-
Intyre & Gardner, 1994a), whereas a list of positive
affects, such as creativity, enjoyment, fun, interest,
pride, and support, was assembled under the sin-
gle heading of language enjoyment (e.g., Dewaele
& MacIntyre, 2014). No further attempts were
The Modern Language Journal, 0, 0, (2018)
DOI: 10.1111/modl.12511
0026-7902/18/1–21 $1.50/0

C National Federation of Modern Language Teachers
Associations
made to provide a theoretical framework describ-
ing the underlying social, cognitive, affective, and
motivational components of each emotion. This
research tradition in SLA, however, is undergoing
a rapid change with a renewed interest directed
at both extending and deepening our under-
standing of L2 learners’ emotions during L2
learning.
A recent wave of research has emerged stretch-
ing the emotional spectrum that L2 learners may
experience, such as amusement, anger, contempt,
desire, disgust, embarrassment, enjoyment, grati-
tude, hate, interest, joy, love, pride, sadness, and
serenity (e.g., Dewaele, 2015; Dewaele & MacIn-
tyre, 2014, 2016; Dewaele et al., 2017; MacIntyre
& Gregersen, 2012; MacIntyre, Gregersen, & Mer-
cer, 2016; MacIntyre & Mercer, 2014; MacIntyre &
Vincze, 2017; Motha & Lin, 2014; Ross & Stracke,
2017; Teimouri, 2017). Inspired by a complex dy-
namic systems approach in SLA (Larsen–Freeman
& Cameron, 2008), a few studies have also inves-
tigated the simultaneous interactions of L2 learn-
ers’ emotions (e.g., Dewaele et al., 2016) as well as
their fluctuations over time (e.g., Gregersen, Mac-
Intyre, & Meza, 2014).
In addition, the need for new theoretical per-
spectives in emotions research has been high-
lighted (e.g., Dewaele & MacIntyre, 2014; Gkonou
2 The Modern Language Journal 0 (2018)
et al., 2017; MacIntyre & Vincze, 2017; Şimşek &
Dörnyei, 2017). For instance, Dewaele and Mac-
Intyre (2014) have cast doubt on the adequacy
of the positive versus negative approach underly-
ing emotions research in SLA. Alternatively, they
have called for more specific theories targeting
the functions of emotions. The multifaceted na-
ture of emotions has been emphasized in some
other studies while documenting the emotional
experiences of learners in L2 settings (e.g., Imai,
2010; Motha & Lin, 2014; Ross & Stracke, 2017;
Şimşek & Dörnyei, 2017; Teimouri, 2017). The so-
cial turn in SLA (see Block, 2003) has also led
to the emergence of post-structural/discursive ap-
proaches toward exploring emotions as socially
constructed notions (e.g., Benesch, 2012, 2017).
The present article aims to introduce shame
and guilt from social psychology into the realm of
SLA and to examine their effects on students’ mo-
tivation and language achievement. Among the
emotions that L2 learners are likely to feel dur-
ing language learning are the painful emotions of
shame and guilt. For instance, when experiencing
a negative event, such as receiving a low grade on
an exam, receiving negative feedback in the pres-
ence of others, or failing to communicate one’s in-
tended message during a social interaction, an L2
learner may feel ashamed or guilty, especially if he
or she believes others are passing negative judg-
ments about his or her personal characteristics
or behaviors. Of critical note, L2 learners’ lack of
proficiency in the target language and its under-
lying sociocultural norms and standards may lead
to their occupation of a low social status among
the members of the new target community. Such
an undesirable low social status poses a chronic
threat to L2 learners’ social self, which may even-
tually generate feelings of shame and guilt.
While research on shame and guilt is flourish-
ing in social and educational psychology for their
profound effects on one’s motivation, interper-
sonal behaviors, and academic performance (e.g.,
Tracy, Robins, & Tangney, 2007; Turner, Husman,
& Schallert, 2002), these two emotions have not
received proper attention in SLA. The need to fill
this research gap becomes even more important
given the fact that few studies have provided suf-
ficient evidence on the pervasiveness of shame in
L2 context and its negative effects on L2 learn-
ers (e.g., Cook, 2006; Galmiche, 2017; Teimouri,
2017; Wang, 2016). Although a few studies have
addressed the negative role of shame, no research
report to date has closely examined the role of
guilt in SLA. As we will see later, research into
guilt offers significant pedagogical implications
because of its positive role in students’ motivation.
Using a mixed-method design, then, this article
aims to provide evidence on the occurrence of
shame and guilt during L2 learning and to empir-
ically examine their effects on L2 learners’ moti-
vation and language achievements.
Furthermore, a scenario-based questionnaire
will be developed and validated to specifically
measure L2 learners’ shame and guilt experiences
in L2 settings. The need to develop L2-specific
measures has been emphasized in past emotion
research in SLA (e.g., Horwitz, Horwitz, & Cope,
1986; Horwitz, 2001, 2017; MacIntyre & Gardner,
1991; MacIntyre, 2017). While the use of general
instruments from psychology in early anxiety re-
search in SLA generated inconsistent findings,
the development and application of language-
specific anxiety questionnaires—for instance, For-
eign Language Classroom Anxiety (FLCA) (Hor-
witz et al., 1986)—led to more consistent findings
regarding the role of anxiety in language achieve-
ments of students (MacIntyre, 2017; Teimouri,
Goetze, & Plonsky, 2019). Although a plethora of
L2 anxiety measures have been developed since
the conceptualization of L2 anxiety as a situation-
specific emotion, there is a scarcity of measures
for assessing other emotions of learners in L2 sit-
uations. The need to fill this measurement gap
gains even more significance given the rapid ex-
tension of emotion research in SLA.
Although scenario-based questionnaires have
been previously used as data collection tools in
SLA research (e.g., Borg, 2009; Oxford, 2017),
the present article is the first to develop and use
a scenario-based questionnaire to measure spe-
cific emotions in L2 settings. Compared to pre-
vious emotion questionnaires used in SLA (e.g.,
Dewaele & MacIntyre, 2014; Gardner, 1985; Hor-
witz et al., 1986; MacIntyre & Gardner, 1994a;
MacIntyre & Vincze, 2017; Spielberger, 1983),
a scenario-based questionnaire provides a more
trustworthy instrument for assessing L2 learners’
emotions. Each scenario presents a unique con-
text. A context, though not real, is perceived as
real by L2 learners through the power of visualiza-
tion. Not only can L2 learners imagine themselves
in the situations, but they can also feel their pres-
ence in them (e.g., Dörnyei, 2014). As a result,
they may evaluate and express their emotional
reactions in those situations more accurately. A
scenario-based questionnaire allows for the mea-
suring of various emotions simultaneously; it also
allows for the exploration of the dynamic interac-
tions between different emotions within a partic-
ular context and examination of their combined
effects. The use of scenario-based questionnaires,
thus, advances research in line with the new
Yasser Teimouri
complex, dynamic turn in SLA, which focuses on
the interaction of learner factors within a partic-
ular context (e.g., Larsen–Freeman & Cameron,
2008).
L2 LEARNERS’ FEELINGS OF SHAME AND
GUILT
Shame and guilt belong to the family
of self-conscious emotions (shame, guilt,
embarrassment,1 and pride) as opposed to the
family of so-called basic emotions (anger, fear,
sadness, enjoyment, disgust, and surprise) (Ek-
man, 2003; Izard, 1991; Tracy et al., 2007). From
a functional perspective, self-conscious emotions
are thought to have evolved through natural selec-
tion to facilitate the attainment of complex social
goals (or identity goals), such as maintenance or
enhancement of one’s social status, gaining social
acceptance, or avoiding group rejection (Leary,
2007; Tracy & Robins, 2004). On the other hand,
basic emotions have evolved to facilitate one’s
survival and reproductive needs (Lazarus, 1991).2
Self-conscious emotions are often referred to
as social emotions or other-oriented emotions
(Tracy et al., 2007). This is because a person’s
active appraisal of other people’s thoughts, judg-
ments, and feelings plays a substantive role in his
or her feelings of shame, guilt, embarrassment,
and pride (e.g., Gruenewald, Dickerson, & Ke-
meny, 2007). According to Leary (2007), “funda-
mentally, self-conscious emotions evolved not to
respond to people’s private evaluations of them-
selves but rather to regulate their interactions and
relationships with other people” (p. 46). In the
following sections, social, cognitive, affective, and
behavioral underpinnings of shame and guilt are
described in detail.
Shame
In a prototypical shame experience, L2 learn-
ers’ primary concern is with their global self as a
person and how this self is perceived, evaluated,
and judged by others (Lewis, 1971; Tangney, 1990,
1995; Tangney & Dearing, 2003). In the midst
of a shame experience, an L2 learner may crit-
ically direct her attention toward the self, nega-
tively scrutinize every aspect of it, and harshly per-
ceive herself as an incompetent, flawed L2 learner
or a defective, undesirable speaker of an L2 in the
minds of others in the target language commu-
nity. The counter-factual thinking processes in-
volved in feelings of shame are typically directed
at L2 learners’ selves, such as ‘If and only if I was
not a such-and-such L2 learner/user’ (Tangney,
3
1995). Upon receiving a low grade on an L2 writ-
ing assignment, for instance, a shamed learner
might think “If and only if I was not such a poor
L2 writer.” The shamed learner may feel exposed;
that is, her perceived defects or shortcomings
have been exposed before an audience. The audi-
ence, of particular note, does not need to be real,
or physically present during the shame-inducing
event (e.g., Leary, 2007; Tangney et al., 1996); its
presence, in fact, is often imagined by L2 learners.
Not only does a learner envision the presence of
others while reflecting on her characteristic self
and behaviors but she also envisions their reac-
tions, thoughts, evaluations, and judgments. Such
negative thoughts, eventually, will trigger feelings
of being small, inferior, powerless, and hopeless
(Tangney & Dearing, 2003; Tangney et al., 1996).
Shame motivates avoidance or withdrawal re-
sponses (Lewis, 1971; Nathanson, 1992; Tangney
et al., 1996). As noted, since shame involves a feel-
ing of exposure of one’s defective, unattractive
self before a real/imagined audience, a shamed
learner is more likely to report a desire to flee
the shame-inducing situation. In other words, the
shamed learner seeks a way to hide from others
in order to escape the overwhelming feelings of
shame (Tangney & Dearing, 2003). Avoidance or
withdrawal responses associated with feelings of
shame may reveal themselves either during actual
use of the L2, for instance, when L2 learners move
away from a conversation or a group activity, or at
L2 learners’ intentional levels, for instance, when
L2 learners show less desire to participate in L2
class activities or to use the L2 in social interac-
tions. Feelings of shame, hence, will negatively af-
fect L2 learning by reducing L2 learners’ amount
of L2 contact or hampering their motivation or
willingness to use the L2.
Shame may also motivate learners to adopt de-
fense mechanisms (Lewis, 2000, Tangney et al.,
1996). Not only may a shamed L2 learner adopt
avoidant behaviors, he or she may also blame oth-
ers, real or imagined, for their involvement in the
shame-inducing event. Thus, the learner changes
the direction of acute pain of “humiliated anger”
(Lewis, 1971) from his self toward others. Oth-
ers are harshly criticized and blamed because they
are held responsible for the learner’s painful ex-
perience of shame. Receiving a low grade on a fi-
nal exam, for instance, the shamed student—who
feels inferior compared to other students—may
redirect his anger to the teacher (e.g., “the teacher
was harsh on me”) or other relevant factors (e.g.,
“the exam was too difficult”). This other-oriented
hostility can be conceived of as a defensive strat-
egy used by shamed learners to regain a sense of
4 The Modern Language Journal 0 (2018)
FIGURE 1
Differential Features of Shame and Guilt
agency or control impaired during the shame ex-
perience (Tangney, 1990, 1995).
Guilt
In sharp contrast to shame, in a prototypi-
cal guilt experience, L2 learners’ primary con-
cern is with their specific behaviors, rather than
their global self (Lewis, 2000; Tangney & Dear-
ing, 2003). In the midst of a guilt experience, an
L2 learner may critically direct her attention to-
ward her behavior, negatively scrutinize every as-
pect of it, and carefully examine ways to undo it.
The counter-factual thinking processes involved
in feelings of guilt are typically directed at L2
learners’ alternative behaviors, such as ‘if and only
if I had [not] done such-and-such’ (Tangney et al.,
1996). Upon receiving a low grade on an L2 writ-
ing assignment, for instance, a guilty learner may
think “if and only if I had invested more time and effort
in the writing assignment.” Such negative thoughts,
consequently, may lead to subjective feelings of
tension, regret, and remorse.
Guilt motivates reparative actions (Tangney &
Dearing, 2003) and, since an L2 learner’s self re-
mains unified and intact, feelings of guilt are less
painful and devastating than feelings of shame
(Lewis, 1971). Given that guilt involves a negative
evaluation of one’s behaviors and not one’s self, a
guilty student is more likely to accept responsibil-
ity for her behavior and less likely to blame others.
Feeling guilty, thus, the L2 learner is more willing
to take corrective action to undo her wrongdoing
(Tangney et al., 1996; Tangney & Dearing, 2003).
Considering the previous example, an L2 learner
feeling guilt may attribute the cause of the low
grade to her lack of effort rather than lack of abil-
ity and try hard to compensate for it. The differ-
ences between shame and guilt are summarized
in Figure 1.
L2 Learners’ Individual Differences: Anticipatory and
Consequential Shame and Guilt
L2 learners’ experiences of shame and guilt
are not solely dependent on their actual behav-
iors in real, social events. In fact, L2 learners
may also anticipate their likely emotional experi-
ence of shame and guilt by imagining and evalu-
ating the potential consequences of their alterna-
tive behaviors in different situations (Tangney &
Dearing, 2003). These forms of forecasted shame
and guilt experiences are referred to as anticipa-
tory shame and guilt, and should be distinguished
from consequential shame and guilt reactions that
happen in real time (Tangney et al., 1996). More-
over, there is an important functional relation-
ship between L2 learners’ anticipatory and conse-
quential shame and guilt reactions. L2 learners’
likely feelings of shame and guilt in future events
are inferred from past experiences of shame and
guilt in similar events. In other words, past expe-
riences provide critical feedback for L2 learners
to assess affective responses to similar behaviors
in future events (Tangney et al., 1996). For in-
stance, a learner may anticipate shame reactions
during an incoming phone conversation with a
native speaker if he or she had shame reactions
in similar situations in the past. Consequently,
the learner may opt for other means of com-
munication (e.g., email). Taken together, shame
and guilt responses, both anticipatory and con-
sequential, exert a strong influence on motiva-
tion and interpersonal behaviors of L2 learners
via providing critical feedback on their self and
behaviors.
Yasser Teimouri
So far, L2 learners’ emotional experiences of
shame and guilt, as well as their distinct motiva-
tional effects on L2 learners, have been discussed
as emotional states in different real/imaginary sit-
uations. As is often the case in emotion research
in general, and in emotion research in SLA specif-
ically, emotions are also studied as dispositional
traits or tendencies (e.g., Spielberger, 1983). An
emotion disposition is defined as the propensity
or inclination to experience a specific emotion
in a range of relevant situations (Tangney et al.,
1996). Within this perspective, shame-proneness
or guilt-proneness characterize those L2 learners
who are more susceptible to emotional experi-
ences of shame and guilt—both anticipatory and
consequential—compared to less shame-prone or
guilt-prone learners.
Shame and Guilt in SLA: Preliminary Evidence
As noted, a few studies have investigated shame
experiences of L2 leaners in SLA. Cook (2006)
examined effects of shame and anxiety on learn-
ing English as a second language in 30 college
students in the United States. In his mixed-design
study, students’ shame and anxiety experiences
were assessed through in-depth interviews and
self-report questionnaires. Interview data evi-
denced pervasiveness of shame in L2 context.
Many interviewees instanced multiple shame
episodes while learning and using English as a
second language. Perceived deficiency in one’s
L2 ability was identified as a main cause of the stu-
dents’ shame reactions. Moreover, shame-prone
students were found to be more likely to avoid
participation in situations wherein English was
spoken. A shame–fear sequence was detected for
the students’ L2 avoidance behaviors. That is,
students’ fear of shame reactions in L2 settings
prevented them from fully investing in L2 learn-
ing activities. A shame–anger sequence was also
identified indicating that shame reactions of L2
learners may be followed by unconstructive anger
as a defense strategy. The results of correlational
analyses, however, revealed no relation (r = .04)
between shame, measured using the TOSCA-3
questionnaire (Tangney et al., 2000), and L2
anxiety, measured using FLCA questionnaire
(Horwitz et al., 1986).
In another mixeddesign study, Wang (2016)
investigated shame experiences of 143 Chinese
college learners of English in China. Using the
shame scale of the Achievement Emotions Ques-
tionnaire (AEQ) (Pekrun, Elliot, & Maier, 2006),
the results of the study revealed that shame ex-
periences of the students were positively related
5
to their feelings of hopelessness in English class.
Moreover, shame was found to be negatively as-
sociated with students’ positive feelings of hope
and enjoyment in their L2 class. The results
of interviews also pinpointed several sources of
shame reactions common among the students,
such as meeting others’ expectations (e.g., failure
to meet professors’ expectations), social compar-
ison (e.g., not being able to speak the L2 as well
as other students), personality traits (e.g., being
timid in speaking in public), or L2 competence
(e.g., not being able to communicate effectively
in L2 with native speakers).
Teimouri (2017) also examined shame expe-
riences of L2 learners within Dörnyei’s L2 mo-
tivational self system (Dörnyei, 2009). The re-
sults of a survey of 524 Iranian students of
English as a foreign language (EFL) revealed that
all L2 learners, regardless of their motivational
types (ideal L2 self vs. ought-to L2 self), are sus-
ceptible to some extent to the emotional reaction
of shame—although those students with stronger
social and personal obligations for learning En-
glish (i.e., ought-to L2 self/others and ought-to
L2 self/own) were found to be more vulnerable
to feelings of shame.
Finally, Galmiche (2017) investigated shame
experiences of L2 learners within the foreign
language (FL) context of France. The results of
in-depth interviews with 30 L2 learners from dif-
ferent language backgrounds revealed shame as
a recurrent emotion among L2 learners. Shame
was by far the most reported negative emotion
in French class (56%) in comparison to other
negative emotions, such as frustration (14%) and
anxiety (10%). Shame was also found to have
debilitative effects on the students’ linguistics
confidence, sense of identity, and self-esteem.
Furthermore, shame-prone L2 learners reported
more anxiety about L2 failures and more inclina-
tion toward avoiding L2 interactions and learning
activities.
Consistent with the phenomenological char-
acteristics of shame, the results of these studies
in various foreign or second language contexts
(i.e., United States, China, Iran, and France) al-
together present a convincing case on the preva-
lence of shame in L2 settings and its negative ef-
fects on L2 learners. The present article aims to
further investigate shame and its negative role in
L2 learning. Moreover, guilt and its potential pos-
itive role in L2 learning will be explored for the
first time in SLA research. While these few stud-
ies utilized interviews or general instruments from
psychology to capture shame experiences of L2
learners (with the exception of Teimouri, 2017),
6 The Modern Language Journal 0 (2018)
in the present article a new language-specific mea-
sure of shame and guilt will be also developed and
validated.
The Measurement of Shame and Guilt
Because shame and guilt do not involve clear-
cut universal features (e.g., Izard, 1991), verbal
reports of people about their negative feelings
have been used as an optimal means for their
assessment. Although a review of all the existing
measures of shame and guilt goes beyond the pur-
pose of the current article (see Tangney & Dear-
ing, 2003, for a comprehensive review), two major
issues should be highlighted here. First, theoreti-
cal distinctions between shame and guilt must be
clearly reflected in any instruments intended to
measure these two emotions (Tangney & Dearing,
2003). The violation of theoretical assumptions
in an instrument will seriously undermine its
construct validity and may result in misleading
findings. Second, explicit use of the terms shame
and guilt must be avoided in their measurement
because respondents are usually unable to distin-
guish these two related emotions in an abstract
way (Tangney & Dearing, 2003). The target lan-
guage and culture may also inhibit explicit mea-
surement of shame and guilt. For instance, Mac-
Intyre and Vincze (2017) encountered difficulty
translating the term shame from English to Ital-
ian in their questionnaire. In short, researchers
are advised to measure shame and guilt indirectly
within a context by focusing on their distinctive
affective, cognitive, and behavioral features.
Presently, Tangney and her associates’ scenario-
based questionnaire—Test of Self-conscious Af-
fect (TOSCA) (Tangney, 1990)—and its various
versions are used frequently in social psychology
as a valid and reliable measure of shame and
guilt.
Instead of using TOSCA in the present study,
however, a new L2-specific measure of shame and
guilt (with a similar format to TOSCA) was de-
veloped. This decision is in line with the latest
advances in emotions research in SLA regarding
measurement of learners’ emotions. The incon-
sistent findings of early research on the role of
anxiety in L2 learning, as noted, have led SLA
researchers to emphasize the need to theorize
and operationalize emotional constructs in re-
lation to L2 settings (e.g., Horwitz, 2010, 2017;
MacIntyre, 2017; Scovel, 1978; see also Dörnyei,
2005). They have questioned research using mea-
sures that are not specific to language and have
cast doubts on their findings. According to Hor-
witz (2017), “it seems unlikely that insect anxiety
has anything to do with one’s response to or ul-
timate success in language learning even though
entomophobia is subsumed under the general
label of anxiety” (p. 32). Likewise, it seems un-
likely a L2 learner’s response to the scenario
“You wake up one morning and remember it’s your
mother’s birthday. You forgot to get her something”
(TOSCA-3; Tangney et al., 1990) has anything to
do with his or her L2 learning experiences even
though this scenario measures shame or guilt
reactions.
THE PRESENT STUDY
This article seeks to probe the prevalence
of shame and guilt reactions in an L2 learn-
ing context and to examine their effects on
L2 learners’ motivation and language achieve-
ment. A scenario-based questionnaire—the Sec-
ond Language Test of Shame and Guilt Affect
(L2-TOSGA)—is also developed and validated to
measure learners’ individual differences in prone-
ness to shame and to guilt in L2 settings. More
specifically, this article aims to answer the follow-
ing research questions:
RQ1. Do L2 learners experience shame and
guilt in L2 settings? If so, how likely may
students encounter shame-inducing or
guilt-inducing situations in the process
of L2 learning?
RQ2. To what extent is the L2-TOSGA a reli-
able, stable, and valid tool for measur-
ing L2 learners’ proneness to shame and
proneness to guilt during L2 learning?
RQ3. How do L2 learners’ tendencies to expe-
rience shame and guilt affect their moti-
vation and language achievements?
In order to answer these three research ques-
tions, two separate studies were conducted. Study
1 addresses the first two research questions in
three stages: In Stages 1 and 2, the occurrence
of shame and guilt reactions among L2 learn-
ers are explored through qualitative analyses of
their reports of negative L2 learning experi-
ences (RQ1); students’ responses are also used as
sources of information to develop the L2-TOSGA
questionnaire. In Stage 3, the psychometric prop-
erties of the questionnaire, including its reliability
and construct validity, are assessed (RQ2). Study
2 addresses the last research question (RQ3)
by empirically examining the links between
learners’ shame-proneness and guilt-proneness,
and their language learning motivation and
achievement.3
Yasser Teimouri
STUDY 1
Stage 1
The first stage of Study 1 was conducted to serve
two main goals: (a) to present some initial evi-
dence on the occurrence of shame and guilt re-
actions among students in L2 settings and (b) to
provide reliable sources of data for developing the
questionnaire: Writing up scenarios that allow for
the assessment of L2 learners’ tendencies to ex-
perience shame and guilt in L2 context. An open-
ended questionnaire was developed and given to
86 students studying EFL in two private English in-
stitutes in Iran. The questionnaire prompted stu-
dents to narrate any events related to learning and
using English in which they experienced negative
emotions, such as anxiety, fear, shame, and embar-
rassment. Students were encouraged to provide as
many examples as they could recall.
Before answering the questionnaire, students
were informed about the purpose of the re-
search and ensured that their answers would re-
main confidential. No background information
was gathered to maximize the anonymity level at
this stage. The questionnaires were handed out
to students in envelopes during class time. Stu-
dents were asked to return the envelopes the
next session. All the responses were provided in
Farsi, the official language of Iran. Four expe-
rienced English teachers were also interviewed
about their insights on some common negative,
face-threatening situations in English class that
might put L2 learners at discomfort.
A qualitative analysis of students’ past negative
experiences during L2 learning revealed multiple
instances of shame and guilt episodes. Of 58 L2-
related negative events recounted by the students,
more than half of them (57%) involved situations
in which the students expressed shame or guilt re-
actions, or a mixture of both. Most of these shame
and guilt experiences were identified by exam-
ining phenomenological characteristics of shame
and guilt as reflected in students’ reports. In some
other instances, students explicitly used the words
shame or guilt, or closely related words, such as
humiliation, embarrassment, or regret. These re-
sults provide some preliminary evidence that L2
learners do experience shame and guilt during L2
learning.
In the next step, all the responses collected
from the students and the teachers were used as
sources of information for writing L2 scenarios.
A pool of 20 L2 scenarios was initially generated.
Next, 15 scenarios were selected based on the fol-
lowing guidelines: The scenarios should (a) allow
7
measuring shame and guilt tendencies, (b) cover
different aspects of learning and using the L2,
such as reading, writing, listening, and speaking,
and (c) be likely to be experienced or encoun-
tered by L2 learners.
Stage 2
Like Stage 1, the second stage also had a
twofold aim: (a) to present further evidence on
shame and guilt reactions of learners in L2 learn-
ing context and to empirically assess the likeli-
hood of their occurrence, and (b) to generate
an item pool capturing students’ emotional reac-
tions to the scenarios (shame, guilt, etc.) for de-
veloping the questionnaire. A new questionnaire
was developed including all 15 mini-scenarios se-
lected at stage 1. The questionnaire was adminis-
tered to 112 Iranian English learners at a differ-
ent private language institute (65 females and 47
males). No further background information was
collected to maximize the anonymity level. Stu-
dents were instructed to read each scenario care-
fully; to imagine themselves in the scenario; and fi-
nally, to express their thoughts and feelings on the
scenario in one or two brief sentences. To better
understand how likely each scenario may occur,
students were asked to check the box (yes or no)
in front of each scenario to indicate whether they
had had such an experience before or not. It took
about 15 minutes for the students to complete the
questionnaire. Students responded in Farsi.
All the students’ responses were first compiled
under their respective scenarios. The initial item
pool contained a total of 1,062 responses; this
number, however, was reduced to 998 when sim-
ilar or unrelated responses were excluded. Each
scenario elicited a minimum of 51 and a maxi-
mum of 89 responses. Next, two raters (the au-
thor and a PhD student in applied linguistics) clas-
sified responses to each scenario into categories
of shame and guilt (Kappa’s interrater reliabil-
ity = .95). This classification was done based on
the cognitive, affective, and behavioral features
underlying each construct (e.g., Tangney et al.,
1996). For instance, if the focus of negative eval-
uation was on an L2 learner’s global self (e.g., I
would feel dumb), the item was classified as shame;
however, if the focus of negative criticism was di-
rected toward L2 learner’s specific (mis)behavior
(e.g., I should have studied more), the item was cate-
gorized as guilt.
Of the 998 responses reflecting students’ emo-
tional reactions to all the scenarios, two thirds of
them (76.84%) were representative of shame and
8 The Modern Language Journal 0 (2018)
guilt emotions. Six scenarios generated mostly
shame-related responses. For instance, the sce-
nario “In class, the teacher asks you a ques-
tion in English. You don’t understand the ques-
tion. The teacher asks the question in a different
way. Again, you don’t understand the question”
mostly elicited shame reactions among students
(56.16%), such as “I would feel incompetent af-
ter spending so much time learning English,” “I
would definitely feel ashamed,” “I would feel hu-
miliated,” “I would think of myself as an illiter-
ate,” “I would feel stupid,” “I would feel disap-
pointed in myself,” “I would think I know nothing
[about English],” “I would be mad at myself be-
cause I couldn’t do anything about it,” “I would
feel weak,” “I would lose my self-confidence,” etc.
On the other hand, eight scenarios generated
mostly guilt-related responses. For instance, the
scenario “At the end of the term, you realize that
your progress in learning English is not satisfac-
tory” mostly elicited guilt-reactions among the stu-
dents (78.65%), such as “I would try harder next
term,” “I wish I had participated more in class dis-
cussions,” “I would feel bad, but would keep try-
ing,” “I didn’t work hard,” “I would repeat the
course; learning is more important than passing
levels,” “I would feel bad because I didn’t try and
didn’t pay enough attention,” “I would feel sad,
but would try hard to compensate for it,” “this is
because I didn’t practice enough,” “I would try to
find my weaknesses and compensate for them in
the next term,” and so forth.
The results of frequency analysis concerning
the occurrence of each scenario also revealed that
nearly all scenarios have been experienced by at
least one third of the students. In fact, nine scenar-
ios were reported to be experienced by more than
half of the students. Scenario 6 was the only ex-
ception, with just 11% of students reporting its oc-
currence, which was removed from further analy-
ses. Furthermore, nearly all the students (98.2%)
reported that they had experienced at least one
of the scenarios before; almost 70% of the stu-
dents indicated they had experienced at least 6
of these scenarios (see Tables S1, S2, and S3 in
the Online Supporting Information, Part A, for
a detailed description on frequency of each sce-
nario along with students’ responses). Overall,
these results provide strong evidence for the per-
vasiveness of shame and guilt reactions among L2
learners.
The second aim of this study was to develop
subject-generated items for each scenario reflect-
ing L2 learners’ shame and guilt emotions. Two
responses, each measuring shame and guilt, were
selected from the larger pool of responses for
each scenario. The selection of these responses
was guided by two main criteria: The items should
(a) unambiguously measure shame and guilt, and
(b) represent common reactions among the par-
ticipants (i.e., a response more frequently re-
ported by the students).
Two additional scales—externalization and
detachment—were also developed based on the
students’ responses to each scenario following the
same guidelines. The externalization scale mea-
sures L2 learners’ tendency to blame others for
their transgressions, errors, or failures (e.g., the
teacher doesn’t like me), whereas the detachment
scale represents students’ lack of concern or emo-
tional involvement in those situations (e.g., what’s
done is done). The inclusion of these two scales in
the questionnaire serves a twofold aim. First, be-
cause other options are available, learners are not
forced to select only shame and guilt responses in
each scenario. Second, the discriminant validity of
shame and guilt can be further investigated by ex-
amining their relationships with these two scales
(Tangney, 1990, 1993). The interrelationships be-
tween the four subscales included in the question-
naire will be discussed in detail later.
Taken together, a questionnaire including
14 scenarios with 56 corresponding items (re-
sponses) was created. All the item responses were
elicited using 6-point Likert scales with “1” be-
ing ‘not at all’ and “6” being ‘very much.’ All
the scenarios as well as the corresponding items
were randomized throughout the questionnaire.
The questionnaire will be referred to as the L2-
TOSGA for the remainder of the article (see On-
line Supporting Information, Part C). The ques-
tionnaire can be accessed by readers in the IRIS
digital repository (http://www.iris-database.org).
Stage 3
The third stage of Study 1 was conducted to
assess the reliability and validity of the L2-TOSGA
in measuring students’ proneness to shame and
to guilt. The questionnaire was administered
to 395 English learners at four different private
language institutes. The sample included 220
females (55.7 %) and 175 males (46.3 %), whose
age ranged from 10 to 46 years (M = 19.07;
SD = 6.69). In terms of educational backgrounds,
8 students were from elementary school (2%), 87
from junior high school (22%), 156 from senior
high school (39.5%), and 91 from university
(23.2%). Thirty-nine students reported having a
highschool diploma (9.9%) and 7 an associate
degree (1.7%). Students’ language learning
experience also ranged from 1 to 156 months
Yasser Teimouri
TABLE 1
The Results of Reliability Analyses of the L2-TOSGA Subscales
Variables Mean
1 Shame-proneness 2.09
2 Guilt-proneness 4.69
3 Externalization 2.25
4 Detachment 2.56
FIGURE 2
Scree Plot of the Component Eigenvalues
(M = 36.58; SD = 27.72). As it can be seen, the
sample represents wide diversity in terms of age,
educational backgrounds, and language learning
backgrounds. This heterogeneity of participants
will add more support to the validity and relia-
bility of the L2-TOSGA since the results of the
statistical analyses are not affected due to the
characteristics of a single demographic.
A number of private language institutes were
contacted in order to administer the question-
naire, and four institutes permitted the study to
be conducted during regular classes. The volun-
tary and confidential nature of the responses were
emphasized while informing students about the
purpose of the study. Students were further as-
sured that their performance on the question-
naire would have no effect on their class grades.
The questionnaire, which took about 20 min-
utes to complete, was administered during class
time.
Item Response Analysis. The initial item analy-
ses revealed that all items have a good amount of
variability, with standard deviations ranging from
1.13 to 1.79. The item–total correlation (ITC) was
the next criterion for examining the coherence
9
SD α 95% CI
.84 .87 2.01 2.17
.82 .86 4.61 4.77
.83 .72 2.17 2.33
.88 .83 2.47 2.65
of each scale. Items with ITCs below .30 were con-
sidered suspicious (Field, 2013). Consequently,
the items of one scenario, five items from the
externalization scale, and one item from the
detachment scale were excluded. Overall, 13
scenarios with 46 corresponding items remained
after the initial item analysis. Cronbach’s alpha
coefficients also provided further evidence for
the reliability of the subscales (see Table 1). The
average internal consistency of the four scales
equals .82, which is excellent considering that
subscales were made up of a variety of different
scenarios.
Principal Component Analysis. All 46 items
measuring shame-proneness, guilt-proneness,
externalization, and detachment were submitted
to factor analysis using principal component anal-
ysis (PCA) with the oblimin rotation method (see
Online Supporting Information, Part B, for an
examination of the assumptions). The scree plot
was the initial criteria examined to determine the
number of components (e.g., Plonsky & Gonulal,
2015). As seen in Figure 2, the scree plot is clearly
indicative of four components. Next, the eigen-
values of components were examined. Given the
10 The Modern Language Journal 0 (2018)
shortcomings of eigenvalues greater than one for quence or a guilt–shame sequence. On the
determining the number of components (e.g., other hand, the correlation between shame
overestimation) (e.g., Patil et al., 2008), parallel and guilt should be modest or weak so that
analysis (PA) was run to compute the criteria the distinction between them is not vio-
eigenvalues. Presently, PA is considered the most lated. A weak, positive correlation (r = .14,
accurate and objective technique for determin- p = .005, BCa 95% CI [.04, .24]) attested
ing the number of components in PCA (e.g., to the validity of this assumption and war-
Field, 2013). In this procedure, the eigenvalues ranted the theoretical distinction between
from the original data should be compared to shame and guilt.
those calculated from random values of the same 2. Shame should be positively correlated with
dimensionality (i.e., sample size and the number externalization. Although shame and exter-
of variables). PCA eigenvalues greater than PA nalization might seem unrelated and dia-
eigenvalues should be retained as significant metrically opposite, because the former in-
components, and those falling below should be volves blaming one’s self (internal) and the
discarded as spurious (Patil et al., 2008). latter blaming others (external), external-
The results revealed that the raw eigenvalues ization is a defensive maneuver of shame-
of components 1, 2, 3, and 4 are greater than prone L2 learners. That is, L2 learners try to
their corresponding PA eigenvalues, suggesting distance themselves from the overwhelming
the existence of only four significant components pain of shame by simply putting the blame
(Table S4, Online Supporting Information, Part on others.
A). Taken together, the results of the scree plot
In contrast, guilt should be negatively corre-
and PA both confirmed a four-component so-
lated with externalization. Guilt involves a neg-
lution. This is also consistent with the theoreti-
ative evaluation of one’s specific behavior and
cal underpinnings of the constructs included in
partial acceptance of one’s wrongdoing. Further,
the questionnaire. Component 1 (eigenvalue =
guilt is less painful than shame simply because an
6.83), component 2 (eigenvalue = 5.87), com-
L2 learner’s global self is not involved. Hence,
ponent 3 (eigenvalue = 3.76), and component
the L2 learner is more inclined to take repara-
4 (eigenvalue = 2.01) accounted for 15%, 13%,
tive actions to compensate for her shortcomings
8%, and 4% of the variance, respectively. In to-
rather than blaming others. The positive relation-
tal, the four-component solution accounted for
ship (r = .30, p = .000, BCa 95% CI [.19, .41])
40% of variance in the data. A close look at
between shame and externalization of blame, and
the composite items of each component revealed
the negative association between guilt and exter-
that the items representing the students’ shame-
nalization (r = −.15, p = .004, BCa 95% CI [−.26,
proneness, guilt-proneness, externalization, and
−.03]) lent empirical support to the validity of
detachment were neatly loaded onto four distinct
these theoretical hypotheses.
components (Table S5, Online Supporting Infor-
mation, Part A). 3. Shame and guilt should be inversely related
to detachment. Because shame and guilt in-
Correlational Analyses. As noted, externaliza-
volve negative evaluations of one’s global
tion and detachment subscales were included
self or specific behavior, they both have lit-
in the questionnaire to shed more light on
tle in common with a lack of caring mea-
the discriminant validity of the shame and guilt
sured by the detachment scale. The results
scales. In other words, shame and guilt should
showed that detachment was not related to
be differentially related to externalization and
shame (r = −.04, p = .458, BCa 95% CI
detachment in a theoretically consistent manner
[−.13, .06]) and negatively correlated with
(Tangney, 1990, 1995). The following hypotheses
L2 guilt (r = −.24, p = .000, BCa 95% CI
were stated and evaluated based on the results of
[−.37, −.11]).
correlational analyses:
4. Detachment and externalization of blame
should be positively correlated. In external-
1. Shame and guilt should be positively cor- ization, because an L2 learner’s personal
related. Shame and guilt are both negative self is not involved, she is more likely to
self-conscious emotions involving a negative adopt a detached attitude toward the situ-
evaluation of one’s self or one’s behavior. In ation. This hypothesis was confirmed by a
addition, shame and guilt can co-occur in positive correlation (r = .35, p = .000, BCa
the same situation (Lewis, 1971) with stu- 95% CI [.24, .46]) between detachment and
dents experiencing either a shame–guilt se- externalization.
Yasser Teimouri
Summary
The results of Study 1 substantiated the per-
vasiveness of shame and guilt reactions in L2
situations. A qualitative analysis of 198 L2 learn-
ers’ reports of negative experiences at Stage 1
& 2 provided strong evidence that L2 learners
often experience shame and guilt during L2
learning, and shame-inducing and guilt-inducing
events occur frequently in L2 settings. Based
on L2 learners’ responses, furthermore, the L2-
TOSGA questionnaire was developed to measure
L2 learners’ proneness to shame and to guilt
during the process of L2 learning. The results of
psychometric work—descriptive analyses, relia-
bility analyses, factor analyses, and correlational
analyses—all provided solid evidence of the
reliability and validity of the questionnaire.
STUDY 2
The results of Study 1 on the frequent occur-
rence of shame and guilt among L2 learners war-
rant further investigation of these two neglected
emotions in SLA. Similar to previous L2 emo-
tions research (Horwitz et al., 1986; MacIntyre &
Vincze, 2017; Teimouri et al., 2019), the effects
of students’ shame and guilt experiences on their
motivation and language achievements are em-
pirically investigated in Study 2. Further evidence
of the stability, reliability, and validity of the L2-
TOSGA questionnaire are also presented.
Participants
A total of 174 English-major university students
were surveyed in this study. The sample con-
sisted of 117 females and 57 males, and their ages
ranged from 18 to 58 years old (M = 30; SD =
8.23). Most of the students self-reported their lan-
guage proficiencies as Intermediate Mid or In-
termediate High (ACTFL, 2012). The language-
learning experience of the students ranged from
1 to 240 months (M = 26; SD = 34.23).
Instrument
A three-part questionnaire was developed in
this study for data collection. The first section
of the questionnaire included the L2-TOSGA. It
consisted of 46 items that measured students’
proneness to shame and to guilt in 13 different
L2 scenarios. The second section of the question-
naire consisted of 11 items measuring L2 learn-
ers’ motivation. In order to capture the effects
of shame and guilt on students’ motivation to
11
learn English, three qualitatively distinct descrip-
tors of motivation—intended effort, second lan-
guage willingness to communicate (L2 WTC),
and attention—were measured in this study.
Intended effort assesses students’ intention
to invest time and effort into learning English
(Taguchi, Magid, & Papi, 2009). This construct
has been used frequently in many L2 motivation
research studies as an important descriptor of
students’ overall motivation (e.g., Dörnyei, 2009;
Taguchi et al., 2009). Intended effort has also
been used as a criterion measure in some stud-
ies examining influence of emotions on students’
motivation (e.g., MacIntyre & Vincze, 2017). L2
WTC refers to students’ “readiness to enter into
discourse at a particular time with a specific per-
son, using a L2” (MacIntyre et al., 1998, p. 547);
like intended effort, it represents students’ in-
tention to use the target language voluntarily
in class. L2 WTC has been used as an impor-
tant criterion variable assessing the influence of
both negative and positive emotions in past re-
search. For instance, anxiety has been found as
a negative predictor and enjoyment as a posi-
tive predictor of learners’ L2 WTC in class (e.g.,
Khajavy, MacIntyre, & Barabadi, 2017). Of par-
ticular note, both intended effort and L2 WTC
represent L2 learners’ intentions to spend time
and energy studying and using the L2. Since in-
tentions are the most immediate and important
antecedent of one’s behaviors (Sheeran, 2002),
the inclusion of intended effort and L2 WTC in
the present article offers valuable insights into the
effects of shame and guilt on students’ motiva-
tional behaviors. The logical assumption here is
that “people do what they intend to do and do
not do what they do not intend” (Sheeran, 2002,
p. 1). Past research has shown that intended ef-
fort is highly related to actual effort (Lake, 2013)
and L2 WTC is closely associated with actual L2
use (e.g., Hashimoto, 2002; MacIntyre & Charos,
1996).
Attention measures students’ motivation in
terms of their actual level of mental attentiveness
in class, such as how much attention they pay
to their teachers, classmates, and class activities.
According to Kanfer and Ackerman (1989),
motivation is “the direction of attentional effort,
the proportion of total attentional effort directed
to the task (intensity), and the extent to which
attentional effort toward the task is maintained
over time (persistence)” (p. 661). The very close
relation between students’ attention and their
motivation has also been highlighted by some
L2 motivation researchers (Crookes & Schmidt,
1991; Trembley & Gardner, 1995). The results of
12
Trembley and Gardner’s (1995) study have evi-
denced attention as a major reflector of students’
motivational behaviors. While past research
has extensively explored students’ motivation
in terms of intended effort and L2 WTC, the
magnitude and direction of students’ attention
during L2 learning as another major indicator
of motivation has been neglected. In the present
study, the inclusion of intended effort and L2
WTC as immediate predictors of students’ behav-
iors, and attention as a descriptor of students’
actual behaviors, will allow us to delineate a clear
picture about the effects of shame and guilt on
students’ motivation in L2 learning.4
Three items were adopted from Taguchi et al.
(2009) to measure students’ intended effort (e.g.,
I would like to spend lots of time studying English);
four items were adopted from Yashima (2002) to
measure students’ L2 WTC (e.g., If you were free to
choose, how much would you like to speak English in the
class); and four items were newly developed by the
researcher to measure students’ attention in class
(e.g., How much attention do you pay to your teacher
when she is speaking in English class). All the item
responses were elicited using 6-point Likert scales
anchored at 1 strongly disagree or not at all and 6
strongly agree or very much.
The third section of the questionnaire elicited
background information, such as students’ age,
gender, language-learning experience, and per-
ceived language proficiency. To further examine
the effects of shame and guilt reactions on stu-
dents’ language achievements, students’ grades in
three English courses—Grammar Course, Labo-
ratory Course, and Speaking Course—as well as
their GPAs were also collected in this section. The
aim of the Grammar Course was to enhance stu-
dents’ knowledge of English grammar and its us-
age. Students were taught English grammar rules
explicitly and were given relevant grammar ex-
ercises and activities. The focus of the Labora-
tory Course was on boosting the listening skills
of students through a range of different listening
and speaking activities, whereas in the Speaking
Course students practiced different target tasks in
various situations to improve their speaking skills
in English. The final grade for each course was
computed based on students’ mid-term and final
exams.
Procedure
The questionnaire was administered to the stu-
dents during their class time. Before filling out
the questionnaire, students were informed of the
purpose of the questionnaire, the confidentiality
The Modern Language Journal 0 (2018)
of their answers, and their right to withdraw from
participating in the study. It took about 25 min-
utes for the students to complete the question-
naire. Of note, 53 students in the research sample
retook the L2-TOSGA after a 1-month period to
allow for the test–retest reliability of the question-
naire to be determined. A total of 91 students gave
consent to the researchers to access their course
grades.
Data Analysis
To further assess the reliability of the L2-
TOSGA questionnaire, a test–retest reliability
analysis was first computed for the part of the sam-
ple that took the questionnaire twice (n = 53).
Next, Cronbach’s alpha for all variables was cal-
culated and reported based on the whole sample
(N = 174). Finally, a series of multiple regression
analyses were conducted to examine the causal re-
lations between L2 learners’ self-conscious emo-
tions of shame and guilt, and their motivation
and language achievements. The analyses were
all bootstrapped based on 1,000 samples and
95% confidence intervals for bootstrapped es-
timates were calculated using accelerated bias-
correction (BCa) (Field, 2013). Assumptions un-
derlying each of these statistical analyses were also
examined (see Online Supporting Information,
Part B).
Results
Reliability Analyses. Table 2 shows the results
of the test–retest reliability analysis, as well as de-
scriptive analyses for L2-TOSGA subscales (n =
53). As seen, students’ mean scores for each sub-
scale at Time 1 and Time 2 are highly similar. The
dispersion of scores for each scale, however, was
reduced slightly at Time 2. All the subscales also
exhibited high reliability coefficients in both ad-
ministrations. Test–retest reliability of L2-TOSGA
was calculated by running correlations between
students’ scores in Time 1 and Time 2. The results
revealed correlation coefficients beyond .95 for
all the subscales of L2-TOSGA, providing further
evidence for its stability and precision in measur-
ing the shame and guilt experiences of students
across time.
Table 3 also shows the results of reliability anal-
yses and descriptive analyses for all the variables
based on the whole sample. Cronbach’s alpha co-
efficients provide evidence of high internal con-
sistency for each scale. As seen, students’ scores
for guilt reactions are almost twice the scores for
shame reactions. Moreover, students reported low
Yasser Teimouri 13
TABLE 2
The Results of Test–Retest Reliability Analyses for L2-TOSGA Sub-scales

Variables Time Mean SD 95% CI α r

1. Shame-proneness 1 2.29 1.00 2.02 2.57 .93 .98

2 2.48 .88 2.23 2.72 .91
2. Guilt-proneness 1 4.71 .66 4.53 4.89 .87 .95
2 4.52 .56 4.36 4.68 .81
3. Externalization 1 2.62 .95 2.36 2.89 .87 .97
2 2.63 .85 2.39 2.86 .83
4. Detachment 1 2.87 .86 2.63 3.11 .87 .97
2 2.96 .79 2.74 3.18 .82

TABLE 3
The Results of Reliability Analyses for All the Variables (N = 174)

Variables Mean SD α 95% CI

1 Shame-proneness 2.39 1.04 .93 2.23 2.55

2 Guilt-proneness 4.74 .67 .86 4.64 4.84
3 Externalization 2.59 .95 .84 2.45 2.73
4 Detachment 2.84 .79 .83 2.72 2.95
5 Intended Effort 5.00 .85 .81 4.87 5.13
6 Attention 4.64 .72 .72 4.53 4.74
7 L2 WTC 4.08 1.29 .92 3.88 4.27

scores for both externalization and detachment
scales. Of the four subscales of L2-TOSGA, shame
and externalization showed slightly more variance
compared to guilt and detachment subscales.
Considering students’ motivation, intended effort
scored higher than L2 WTC and attention in class.
Students also showed more variance in their re-
sponses to the L2 WTC scale than in those of the
other two motivational variables.
A set of multiple regression analyses using the
Enter method was run to examine the strength of
the L2-TOSGA sub-scales in predicting students’
motivation. Cohen’s f2 of .37, .56, and .59 repre-
sent quite large effect sizes for each regression
model, respectively (Cohen, 1988). As the results
show in Table 4, shame strongly but negatively
predicted L2 learners’ L2 WTC and attention; it
had negligible negative effects on intended ef-
fort, though. In sharp contrast, guilt emerged as
a positive predictor of all the motivational vari-
ables. While externalization was found to be only
a moderate, negative determiner of intended ef-
fort, students’ lack of emotional involvement, that
is, detachment, weakly but negatively predicted
intended effort and attention.
Another set of multiple regression was con-
ducted to examine the strength of the L2-
TOSGA subscales in predicting students’ lan-
guage achievements—course grades and GPA.
Cohen’s f2 of .15, .25, .16, and .20 represent
medium effect sizes for each regression model,
respectively (Cohen, 1988). Table 5 shows the re-
sults of multiple regression analyses. Similar to
previous analyses, shame emerged as a strong,
negative predictor of all the language achieve-
ment measures, whereas guilt positively deter-
mined Grammar Course grade. Both externaliza-
tion and detachment had either a negligible, or
nonexistent effects on the language achievement
outcomes.
DISCUSSION
The first research question explored the
frequency of L2 learners’ shame and guilt
reactions during L2 learning. A qualitative
analysis of 198 L2 learners’ reports of neg-
ative experiences during L2 learning re-
vealed many episodes of shame and guilt
reactions. More importantly, shame-inducing
and guilt-inducing events were found to be fre-
quent in L2 settings. That is, most of the students
have experienced almost half of these situations.
Overall, these results along with the results of
other studies in different contexts (Cook, 2006;
Galmiche, 2017; Wang, 2016), provide strong
 14

TABLE 4
Regression Analyses of Emotions With Intended Effort, L2 WTC, and Attention as Criterion Measures

Intended effort L2 WTC Attention

BCa 95% CI BCa 95% CI BCa 95% CI

Variables B SE Bias β L U B SE Bias β L U B SE Bias β L U

*** ***
Shame −.07 .08 .007 −.08 −.23 .11 −.47 .11 .005 −.38 −.69 −.22 −.33 .07 .001 −.41 −.47 −.17
Guilt .27 .09 −.005 .21** .09 .43 .56 .14 −.006 .29*** .28 .82 .38 .09 −.002 .31*** .23 .55
Externalization −.22 .09 −.011 −.25** −.43 −.075 −.06 .13 −.010 −.04 −.31 .16 .02 .08 −.004 .02 −.16 .17
Detachment −.17 .09 .006 −.16* −.34 .01 −.22 .12 .000 −.13 −.45 .02 −.17 .08 .005 −.16* −.33 .005
R2 / F .27/15.74*** .36/23.45*** .37/25.06***
Cohen’s f2 .37 .56 .59

Note. Bootsrapped results are based on 1,000 samples.

*P ࣘ 0.05, **P ࣘ 0.01, ***P ࣘ 0.001
The Modern Language Journal 0 (2018)
 Yasser Teimouri

TABLE 5
Regression Analyses of Emotions With Course Grades and GPAs as Criterion Measures

Grammar Course Speaking Course Laboratory Course

BCa 95% CI BCa 95% CI B BCa 95% CI

Variables B SE Bias β L U B SE Bias β L U SE Bias β L U

Shame −.41 .16 −.025 −.32*** −.73 −.18 −.66 .15 −.014 −.48*** −.98 −.41 −.52 .14 −.011 −.37*** −.80 −.29
Guilt .40 .20 .003 .20* −.02 .78 .03 .19 .014 .01 −.34 .42 .23 .27 −.002 .11 −.27 .77
Externalization .25 .20 .011 .16 −.18 .66 .18 .19 .000 .11 −.24 .56 .19 .17 .000 .11 −.16 .54
Detachment −.05 .79 −.005 −.03 −.49 .36 −.17 .23 .025 −.08 −.70 .36 .08 .21 .008 .04 −.38 .48
R2 / F .13/3.176* .20/5.29** .14/3.47*
Cohen’s f2 .15 .25 .16
GPAs BCa 95% CI
Variables B SE Bias β L U
***
Shame −.45 .13 −.015 −.43 −.74 −.23
Guilt .14 .15 .007 .09 −.16 .46
Externalization .13 .15 .007 .10 −.22 .43
Detachment −.07 .17 .001 −.04 −.41 .25
R2 / F .17/4.41??
Cohen’s f2 .20

Note. Bootsrapped results are based on 1,000 samples.

* P ࣘ 0.05, ** P ࣘ 0.01, *** P ࣘ 0.001
15
16
evidence on the occurrence of shame and guilt
reactions among learners during the process of
L2 learning and use, and highlight the need
to further investigate their effects on students’
motivation and language achievements.
The second research question addressed the re-
liability, stability, and validity of the L2-TOSGA
developed based on data elicited from L2 learn-
ers’ negative experiences. The results of reliability
analyses and test–retest reliability analyses in both
studies lent solid empirical support to the reliabil-
ity, stability, and precision of the L2-TOSGA. The
high Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of each sub-
scale gain particular significance given the fact
that scenario-based questionnaires, methodolog-
ically speaking, are generally expected to yield
lower reliability because of the extra variance dif-
ferent situations/scenarios may add to each stu-
dent’s responses.
The results of PCA also provided statistical evi-
dence of the construct validity of the L2-TOSGA
consistent with its theoretical underpinnings. The
differential pattern of relations among the sub-
scales of the questionnaire, as well as the differ-
ential pattern of relations between these subscales
and other external criteria (i.e., course grades and
GPA), further corroborated the discriminant va-
lidity and external validity of the questionnaire.
Taken together, the results of both studies pro-
vided strong evidence on the reliability, stability,
and validity of the L2-TOSGA in assessing the
shame and guilt reactions of L2 learners.
The third research question probed the in-
fluence of shame and guilt experiences of the
L2 learners on their motivation and language
achievements. Shame was found as a strong pre-
dictor of L2 learners’ L2 WTC and attention.
These findings are in line with previous theoreti-
cal discussions on the negative effects of shame on
L2 learners’ motivation and interpersonal behav-
iors (e.g., Lewis, 1971; Nathanson, 1992; Tangney,
1990, 1993; Tangney & Dearing, 2003). As noted,
shame involves a negative evaluation of one’s
global self on the appearance of a negative event.
Consequently, the shamed learner may avoid the
negative event, or hide from the others (e.g.,
Cook, 2006). Shame-prone L2 learners are less
willing to voluntarily use the L2 in situations that
are perceived to pose a threat to their social sta-
tus. This finding is also reflective of shame-fear
sequence identified in Cook’s (2006) study. That
is, students’ fear of shame reactions may prevent
them from using the target language in social set-
tings (i.e., anticipatory shame). It is thus not unex-
pected to see less enthusiasm from shame-prone
learners in response to “I would like to voluntarily
The Modern Language Journal 0 (2018)
speak up in class in front of the others” (L2 WTC) if
those situations are judged to be shame-inducing.
The feeling of shame was also found to nega-
tively predict L2 learners’ attention in L2 class.
Self-conscious emotions have evolved through
natural selection to protect one’s social status or
identity goals (e.g., Leary, 2007; Tracy & Robins,
2004). Within this functional perspective, it can
be argued that shame narrows down L2 learn-
ers’ attentional resources toward the source that
threatens their social identity. In the midst of a
shame experience, for instance, receiving nega-
tive feedback in the presence of others, the L2
learner’s attention is mostly focused on apprais-
ing their global self and how it is perceived, eval-
uated, and judged in the minds of others. The
self is split into the judge and the judgee (e.g.,
Tangney & Dearing, 2003), depleting L2 learn-
ers’ attentional resources. The detrimental ef-
fects of negative emotions (i.e., anxiety) in nar-
rowing down L2 learners’ cognitive processing
and attentional resources have also been docu-
mented in past research in SLA (e.g., MacIntyre &
Gardner, 1994a, 1994b).
Shame was also found to be positively and
robustly related to externalization. As noted,
the externalization of blame onto others is a
strategic maneuver that shamed L2 learners use
to distance themselves from painful feelings of
shame. Externalization attributes the cause of
the L2 negative event to external sources outside
the circle of one’s self and consequently helps a
shamed learner feel a sense of power (e.g., Lewis,
1971). This shame-induced strategy, however, is
often irrational, even from the perspective of
L2 learners exercising it (Tangney et al., 1996).
Although this blame-others approach may be
practical in relieving the learner from the pains
of shame temporarily, it will damage his or her
motivation in the long term (e.g., Tangney et al.,
1996). In other words, if others are responsible
for an L2 learner’s failure, why should the learner
take any action? Consistent with this interpreta-
tion, externalization negatively and significantly
predicted L2 learners’ intended effort. Taken
together, both action tendencies of a shamed
L2 learner—avoidant behaviors and external-
ization of blame—will negatively influence the
L2 learners’ language achievements by hamper-
ing their motivation to actively engage in L2
learning opportunities, to willingly use the L2 in
social interactions, and to carefully pay attention
to events unfolding in L2 class. Emergence of
shame as a significant, negative predictor of all
learners’ course grades and GPAs substantiate this
assumption.
Yasser Teimouri
In sharp contrast to shame, guilt motivates
corrective actions (e.g., Lewis, 1971; Tangney &
Dearing, 2003). Since in a guilt experience one’s
attention is focused toward one’s behaviors, the
L2 learners are more likely to accept responsi-
bility for their actions. The partial acceptance of
responsibility is evidenced by the negative rela-
tionship between guilt and externalization. That
is, guilty learners are less likely to blame others
for their shortcomings. Guilt was also found to be
a strong, positive predictor of all different types
of L2 learners’ motivation. Feelings of tension,
remorse, and regret motivate a guilty learner to
eagerly seek new ways to undo his or her previous
misbehaviors (e.g., lack of effort). Consequently,
the learner may attempt to actively invest in
class activities, to willingly use the L2 whenever
an opportunity presents itself, and mentally
attend to L2 class events. These different types
of motivation may eventually repair the damage
caused by the L2 learners’ misbehaviors, and
may even positively influence their language
achievement. As the results suggested, while guilt
did not show any negative effects on students’
language achievement measure, it even slightly
improved the Grammar course grade of the
students. Finally, detachment was found to weakly
but negatively predict L2 learners’ motivation. As
expected, this lack of emotional investment in L2
events in class may reflect a low level of motivation
and engagement on the part of learners.
LIMITATIONS, FUTURE RESEARCH
DIRECTIONS, AND PEDAGOGICAL
IMPLICATIONS
The L2-TOSGA offers an ecologically valid mea-
surement of L2 learners’ proneness to shame and
to guilt through incorporating a set of common
situations that students are more likely to en-
counter while learning an L2; however, some of
these situations may not be applicable in other
contexts given a range of socio-cultural factors
or teaching practices. In other words, some situ-
ations deemed as common in one context might
not be relevant in another context, and vice versa.
Although all the statistical analyses were boot-
strapped based on 1,000 samples, limitations of
the small sample size (n = 91) in Study 2 should
be noted.
Anxiety is the most researched emotion in SLA.
Yet, it remains as one of the most elusive con-
cepts in SLA (e.g., Horwitz et al., 1986; Şimşek &
Dörnyei, 2017). Part of this ambiguity is rooted in
its lack of theoretical clarity involved in anxiety re-
search (Şimşek & Dörnyei, 2017). Another part of
17
this ambiguity can also be related to its (mis)use
as an umbrella term to cover different negative
emotions of L2 learners (Cook, 2006). As noted,
a variety of negative emotions, such as fear, anx-
iety, sadness, embarrassment, nervousness, and
shame, are usually lumped together under the
rubric of language anxiety (e.g., Gardner, 1985;
Horwitz et al., 1986; MacIntyre & Gardner 1994a).
Along with recent theoretical advances in anxi-
ety research, (e.g., Gkonou et al., 2017; Şimşek
& Dörnyei, 2017), future research on examining
the links between anxiety and its masked compo-
nents, such as shame and guilt, may also offer new
insights into its abstract nature. As the results of
past research has shown (e.g., Cook, 2006), L2
anxiety as a future-directed emotion may act as a
defensive mechanism to alert L2 learners of a pos-
sible threat to their social status and its ensuing
shame experiences.
Examining the relationships between shame
and guilt, and other important affective re-
sponses, such as empathy, anger, and aggression
can also offer valuable insights into students’
L2 learning experiences. For instance, the re-
sults of past research have consistently shown that
empathy—a highly valuable, prosocial emotion
that promotes altruistic and supportive behaviors
toward others—is positively related to guilt but
negatively associated with shame (e.g., Stuewig
et al., 2010). Guilt-prone students thus are more
likely to be empathetic toward other people (class-
mates, teachers) in class and more cooperative
in facilitating a supportive, amicable L2 learn-
ing environment than shame-prone students, who
may have “impaired capacity for other-oriented
empathy and a propensity for problematic, ‘self-
oriented’ personal distress responses” (Tangney
& Tracy, 2012, p. 449). Shame-prone students are
also more likely to show unconstructive anger,
aggression, and disruptive behaviors (e.g., blame
others for their own failures) than guilt-prone stu-
dents, who are disinclined toward aggression and
are able to manage their anger constructively (for
a review, see Tangney, Stuewig, & Mashek, 2007;
Wilson, 2016).
Future research on examining antecedents of
shame and guilt (e.g., mindsets, motivational
orientations, personality traits) as well as cross-
cultural differences in this regard (see Wong &
Tsai, 2007) can also open up a new line of re-
search with significant theoretical and pedagog-
ical implications. The co-constructed nature of
shame and guilt, that is, how others’ immediate
responses (e.g., teachers’ responses) to students’
failures may generate shame and guilt, is also an-
other interesting research direction. Last but not
18
the least, research on teachers’ tendencies to feel
shame and guilt and how these feelings may in-
fluence their identity, motivation, and teaching
practices may also offer new insights into the role
emotions play in the process of L2 teaching (e.g.,
Song, 2016; Wolff & De Costa, 2017).
L2 learning occurs in a social context wherein
failures are indispensable. As noted, L2 learn-
ers may feel shame or guilt if they attribute the
cause of failures to their global self or behaviors.
Teachers should therefore direct their corrective
feedback, either negative or positive, toward L2
learners’ behavior. When L2 learners’ behaviors
become the object of corrective feedback rather
than their self, they are more likely to learn from
their mistakes and expand more effort to com-
pensate for their shortcomings. In addition, they
are less likely to feel threatened to use the L2
in social interactions and blame others for their
failures since their global self remains protected
away from the spotlight. Likewise, teachers should
evaluate the L2 achievement of learners based on
their progress toward their desired goals rather
than other students’ performance or some other
external criteria.
CONCLUSION
In this article, social, cognitive, motivational,
and affective aspects of learners’ shame and guilt
experiences during L2 learning were discussed.
Further, pervasiveness of shame and guilt as well
as their effects on L2 learners’ motivation and
language achievements were empirically explored
using both qualitative and quantitative methods.
As the results suggested, not all the negative
emotions of students have detrimental effects on
students’ learning of a second language: While
shame hampers L2 learners’ motivation by impair-
ing their sense of global self, guilt increases L2
learners’ motivation by encouraging corrective ac-
tions to undo their misbehaviors. An L2-specific
measure of shame and guilt was also developed
and validated. The scenario-based nature of the
questionnaire was also argued to represent a more
valid measure of L2 learners’ emotions because of
its context-based assessment.
NOTES
1 Although shame and embarrassment were once as-
sumed to be closely related and were used interchange-
ably in past research (e.g., Kaufman, 1989), research
findings have shown that they are two distinct emotions.
Feelings of shame are intense and enduring resulting
The Modern Language Journal 0 (2018)
from serious transgressions revealing one’s core self-
related flaws, whereas feelings of embarrassment are less
intense, temporarily resulting from unexpected, trivial
mishaps in public. In addition, while feeling ashamed is
associated with self (other)-directed anger and disgust,
embarrassment is associated with smile and humor (see
Tangney et al., 1996).
2 It should be noted that, while both self-conscious
emotions and basic emotions arguably represent two
special classes of emotions, they also have certain fea-
tures in common, which makes the line between the two
categories fuzzy (for a detailed discussion, see Tracy &
Robins, 2004). Hence, some emotion researchers view
basic emotions and self-conscious emotions as two ex-
tremes of a continuum rather than as two distinct cate-
gories (e.g., Kemeny, Gruenewald, & Dickerson, 2004).
3 This research article has been granted exemp-
tion status by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at
Georgetown University.
4 See Online Supporting Information for further sta-
tistical analyses regarding the distinctions between in-
tended effort, L2 WTC, and attention variables.
REFERENCES
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Lan-
guages. (2012). ACTFL proficiency guidelines. Ac-
cessed 22 May 2018 at http://www.actfl.org/sites/
default/fles/pdfs/public/ACTFLProfciencyGuid
elines2012_FINAL.pdf.
Benesch, S. (2012). Considering emotions in critical English
language teaching: Theories and praxis. New York:
Routledge/Taylor & Francis.
Benesch, S. (2017). Emotions and English language teach-
ing: Exploring teachers’ emotion labor. New York:
Routledge/Taylor & Francis.
Block, D. (2003). The social turn in second language ac-
quisition. Washington, DC: Georgetown University
Press.
Borg, S. (2009). English language teachers’ conceptions
of research. Applied Linguistics, 30, 358–388.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral
sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cook, T. (2006). An investigation of shame and anxiety in
learning English as a second language. (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). University of Southern Cal-
ifornia, Los Angeles, CA.
Crookes, G., & Schmidt, R. W. (1991). Motivation: Re-
opening the research agenda. Language Learning,
41, 469–512.
Dewaele, J.-M. (2015). On emotions in foreign language
learning and use. The Language Teacher, 39, 13–15.
Dewaele, J.-M., & MacIntyre, P. (2014). The two faces of
Janus? Anxiety and enjoyment in the foreign lan-
guage classroom. Studies in Second Language Learn-
ing and Teaching, 4, 237–274.
Dewaele, J.-M., & MacIntyre, P. D. (2016). Foreign lan-
guage enjoyment and foreign language classroom
anxiety: The right and left foot of FL learning. In
Yasser Teimouri
P. D. MacIntyre, T. Gregersen, & S. Mercer (Eds.),
Positive psychology in SLA (pp. 215–236). Bristol,
UK: Multilingual Matters.
Dewaele, J.-M., MacIntyre, P., Boudreau, C., & Dewaele,
L. (2016). Do girls have all the fun? Anxiety and
enjoyment in the foreign language classroom. The-
ory and Practice of Second Language Acquisition, 2, 41–
63.
Dewaele, J.-M., Witney, J., Saito, K., & Dewaele, L.
(2017). Foreign language enjoyment and anxi-
ety in the FL classroom: The effect of teacher
and learner variables. Language Teaching Research.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168817692161
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner:
Individual differences in second language acquisition.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The L2 motivational self system. In
Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, lan-
guage identity and the L2 self (pp. 9–42). Bristol, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
Dörnyei, Z. (2014). Future self-guides and vision. In K.
Csizér & M. Magid (Eds.), The impact of self-concept
on language learning (pp. 7–18). Bristol, UK: Multi-
lingual Matters.
Ekman, P. (2003). Emotions revealed. New York:
Holt.
Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS
statistics. New York: Sage.
Galmiche, D. (2017). Shame and SLA. Apples – Journal of
Applied Language Studies, 11, 25–53.
Gardner, R. (1985). Social psychology and second language
learning: The role of attitudes and motivation. London:
Edward Arnold.
Gkonou, C., Daubney, M., & Dewaele, J.-M. (2017). New
insights into language anxiety: Theory, research and
educational implications. Bristol, UK: Multilingual
Matters.
Gregersen, T., MacIntyre, P. D., & Meza, M. D. (2014).
The motion of emotion: Idiodynamic case studies
of learners’ foreign language anxiety. Modern Lan-
guage Journal, 98, 574–588.
Gruenewald, T. L., Dickerson, S. S., & Kemeny, M. E.
(2007). A social function for self-conscious emo-
tions. In J. L. Tracy, R. W. Robins, & J. P. Tangney
(Eds.), The self-conscious emotions: Theory and research
(pp. 68–87). New York: Guilford Press.
Hashimoto, Y. (2002). Motivation and willingness to
communicate as predictors of reported L2 use:
The Japanese ESL context. Second language Studies,
20, 29–70.
Horwitz, E. K. (2001). Language anxiety and achieve-
ment. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21, 112–
126.
Horwitz, E. K. (2010). Foreign and second language
anxiety. Language Teaching, 43, 154–167.
Horwitz, E. K. (2017). On the misreading of Horwitz,
Horwitz, and Cope (1986) and the need to bal-
ance anxiety research and the experiences of anx-
ious language learners. In C. Gkonou, M. Daub-
ney, & J.–M. Dewaele (Eds.), New insights into
language anxiety: Theory, research and educational
19
implications (pp. 31–50). Bristol, UK: Multilingual
Matters.
Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). For-
eign language classroom anxiety. Modern Language
Journal, 70, 125–132.
Imai, Y. (2010). Emotions in SLA: New insights from col-
laborative learning for an EFL classroom. Modern
Language Journal, 94, 278–292.
Izard, C. E. (1991). The psychology of emotions. New York:
Plenum Press.
Kaufman, G. (1989). The psychology of shame: Theory
and treatment of shame-based syndromes. New York:
Springer.
Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. (1989). Motivation
and cognitive abilities: An integrative/aptitude-
treatment interaction approach to skill acquisi-
tion. Journal of Applied Psychology Monograph, 74,
657–690.
Kemeny, M. E., Gruenewald, T. L., & Dickerson, S. S.
(2004). Shame as the emotional response to threat
to the social self: Implications for behavior, phys-
iology, and health. Psychological Inquiry, 15, 153–
160.
Khajavy, G. H., MacIntyre, P., & Barabadi, E. (2017).
Role of the emotions and classroom environ-
ment in willingness to communicate: Apply-
ing doubly latent multilevel analysis in second
language acquisition research. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0272263117000304
Lake, J. (2013). Positive L2 self: Linking positive psychol-
ogy with L2 motivation. In T. M. Apple, D. D. Silva,
& T. Fellner (Eds.), Language learning motivation in
Japan (pp. 71–225). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Mat-
ters.
Larsen–Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (2008). Complex sys-
tems and applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Leary, M. R. (2007). How the self became involved in af-
fective experience: Three sources of self-reflective
emotions. In J. L. Tracy, R. W. Robins, & J. P.
Tangney (Eds.), The self-conscious emotions: Theory
and research (pp. 38–52). New York: Guilford Press.
Lewis, H. B. (1971). Shame and guilt in neurosis. Psycho-
analytic Review, 58, 419.
Lewis, M. (2000). Self-conscious emotions: Embarrass-
ment, pride, shame, and guilt. In M. Lewis & J. M.
Haviland–Jones (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (2nd
ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.
MacIntyre, P. D. (2017). An overview of language anxi-
ety research and trends in its development. In C.
Gkonou, M. Daubney, & J.–M. Dewaele (Eds.), New
insights into language anxiety: Theory, research and ed-
ucational implications (pp. 11–30). Bristol, UK: Mul-
tilingual Matters.
MacIntyre, P. D., & Charos, C. (1996). Personality, atti-
tudes, and affect as predictors of second language
communication. Journal of Language and Social Psy-
chology, 15, 3–26.
20
MacIntyre, P. D., Dörnyei, Z., Clément, R., & Noels, K. A.
(1998). Conceptualizing willingness to communi-
cate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence
and affiliation. Modern Language Journal, 82, 545–
562.
MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1991). Methods and
results in the study of anxiety and language learn-
ing: A review of the literature. Language Learning,
41, 85–117.
MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1994a). The effects
of induced anxiety on three stages of cognitive
processing in computerized vocabulary learning.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 1–17.
MacIntyre, P., & Gardner, R. (1994b). The subtle ef-
fects of language anxiety on cognitive processing
in the second language. Language Learning, 44,
283–305.
MacIntyre, P. D., & Gregersen, T. (2012). Emo-
tions that facilitate language learning: The
positive-broadening power of the imagination.
Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching,
2, 193–213.
MacIntyre P., Gregersen T., & Mercer S. (Eds.). (2016).
Positive psychology in SLA. Bristol, UK: Multilingual
Matters.
MacIntyre, P. D., & Mercer, S. (2014). Introducing pos-
itive psychology to SLA. Studies in Second Language
Learning and Teaching, 4, 153–172.
MacIntyre, P. D., & Vincze, L. (2017). Positive and nega-
tive emotions underlie motivation for L2 learning.
Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 7,
61–88.
Motha, S., & Lin, A. (2014). Non-coercive rearrange-
ments: Theorizing desire in TESOL. TESOL Quar-
terly, 48, 331–359.
Nathanson, D. L. (1992). Shame and pride: Affect, sex, and
the birth of the self. New York: Norton.
Oxford, R. (2017). Teaching and researching language
learning strategies: Self-regulation in context (2nd ed.).
New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.
Patil, V. H., Singh, S. N., Mishra, S., & Donavan, D.
T. (2008). Efficient theory development and fac-
tor retention criteria: Abandon the ‘eigenvalue
greater than one’ criterion. Journal of Business Re-
search, 61, 162–170.
Pekrun, R., Elliot, A. J., & Maier, M. A. (2006). Achieve-
ment goals and discrete achievement emotions: A
theoretical model and prospective test. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 98, 583–597.
Plonsky, L., & Gonulal, T. (2015). Methodological syn-
thesis in quantitative L2 research: A review of re-
views and a case study of exploratory factor analy-
sis. Language Learning, 65(S1), 9–36.
Ross, A. S., & Stracke, E. (2017). Learner perceptions
and experiences of pride in second language ed-
ucation. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 39,
272–291.
Scovel, T. (1978). The effect of affect on foreign lan-
guage learning: A review of the anxiety research.
Language Learning, 28, 129–142.
The Modern Language Journal 0 (2018)
Sheeran, P. (2002). Intention—behavior relations: A
conceptual and empirical review. European Review
of Social Psychology, 12, 1–36.
Şimşek, E., & Dörnyei, Z. (2017). Anxiety and L2 self-
images: The ‘anxious self.’ In C. Gkonou, M.
Daubney & J.–M. Dewaele (Eds.), New insights into
language anxiety: Theory, research and educational im-
plications (pp. 51–69). Bristol, UK: Multilingual
Matters.
Song, J. (2016). Emotions and language teacher iden-
tity: Conflicts, vulnerability, and transformation.
TESOL Quarterly, 50, 631–654.
Spielberger, C. D. (1983). Manual for the state-trait anxiety
inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists
Press.
Stuewig, J., Tangney, J. P., Heigel, C., Harty, L., & Mc-
Closkey, L. (2010). Shaming, blaming, and maim-
ing: Functional links among the moral emotions,
externalization of blame, and aggression. Journal
of Research in Personality, 44, 91–102.
Tangney, J. P. (1993). Shame and guilt. In C. G. Costello
(Ed.), Wiley series on personality processes: Symptoms of
depression (pp. 161–180). Oxford, UK: John Wiley
& Sons.
Taguchi, T., Magid, M., & Papi, M. (2009). The L2 mo-
tivational self system amongst Chinese, Japanese,
and Iranian learners of English: A comparative
study. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motiva-
tion, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 66–97).
Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Tangney, J. P. (1990). Assessing individual differences
in proneness to shame and guilt: Development of
the Self-Conscious Affect and Attribution Inven-
tory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59,
102–111.
Tangney, J. P. (1995). Shame and guilt in interper-
sonal relationships. In J. P. Tangney & K. W. Fis-
cher (Eds.), Self-conscious emotions: The psychology
of shame, guilt, embarrassment, and pride (pp. 114–
139). New York: Guilford Press.
Tangney, J. P., & Dearing, R. L. (2003). Shame and guilt.
New York: Guilford Press.
Tangney, J. P., Dearing, R. L., Wagner, P. E., & Gramzow,
R. (2000). The Test of Self-Conscious Affect-3 (TOSCA-
3). Fairfax, VA: George Mason University.
Tangney, J. P., Miller, R. S., Flicker, L., & Barlow, D. H.
(1996). Are shame, guilt, and embarrassment dis-
tinct emotions? Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 70, 12–56.
Tangney, J. P., Stuewig, J., & Mashek, D. J. (2007). Moral
emotions and moral behavior. Annual Review of Psy-
chology, 58, 345–372.
Tangney, J. P., & Tracy, R. (2012). Self-conscious emo-
tions. In M. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Hand-
book of self and identity (pp. 446–478). New York:
Guilford Press.
Tangney, J. E., Wagner, E., Burggraf, S. A., Gramzow,
R., & Fletcher, C. (1990). The Test of Self-Conscious
Affect for Children (TOSCA-C). Fairfax, VA George
Mason University
 Yasser Teimouri
Teimouri, Y. (2017). L2 selves, emotions, and motivated
behaviors. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
39, 681–709.
Teimouri, Y., Goetze, J., & Plonsky, L. (2019). Sec-
ond language anxiety and achievement:
A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition.
Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. (2004). Putting the self into
self-conscious emotions: A theoretical model. Psy-
chological Inquiry, 15, 103–125.
Tracy, J. L., Robins, R. W., & Tangney, J. P. (Eds.). (2007).
The self-conscious emotions: Theory and research. New
York: Guilford Press.
Tremblay, P. F., & Gardner, R. C. (1995). Expanding the
motivation construct in language learning. Modern
Language Journal, 79, 505–518.
Turner, J. E., Husman, J., & Schallert, D. L. (2002).
The importance of students’ goals in their emo-
tional experience of academic failure: Investigat-
ing the precursors and consequences of shame.
Educational Psychologist, 37, 79–89.
Wang, Y. (2016). Chinese students’ emotional experiences in
learning English as a foreign language. (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). The University of Texas,
Austin, TX.
Wilson, A. P. (2016). Shame and collaborative learning
in second language classes. Konin Language Studies,
4, 235–252.
Wolff, D., & De Costa, P. I. (2017). Expanding the lan-
guage teacher identity landscape: An investiga-
tion of the emotions and strategies of a NNEST.
Modern Language Journal, 101(Supplement 2017),
76–90.
View publication stats
21
Wong, Y., & Tsai, J. (2007). Cultural models of shame
and guilt. In J. L. Tracy, R. W. Robins, & J. P.
Tangney (Eds.), The self-conscious emotions: Theory
and research (pp. 209–223). New York: Guilford
Press.
Yashima, T. (2002). Willingness to communicate in a
second language: The Japanese EFL context. The
Modern Language Journal, 86, 54–66.
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Additional supporting information may be found
online in the Supporting Information section at
the end of the article.
TABLE S1 Percentage of Students Who Have Ex-
perienced Each Scenario (N = 112)
TABLE S2 Frequency and Percentage of Stu-
dents Who Have Experienced Multiple Scenarios
(N = 112)
TABLE S3 Frequeny of Students’ Emotional Re-
actions to Each Scenario (N = 112)
TABLE S4 The Result of Principal Component
Analysis (PCA) and Parallel Analysis (PA)
TABLE S5 The Results of PCA
TABLE S6 The Results of PCA Concerning the
Motivational Variables: Intended Effort, L2 WTC,
and Attention
TABLE S7 The Results of PCA Concerning the
Motivational Variables: The Eigen Values and Per-
centage of Variance