Personality and Individual Differences 41 (2006) 95–103

www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

The Internalized Shame Scale: Temporal stability, internal

consistency, and principal components analysis
Peter M. del Rosario *, Royce M. White
Marist College Psychology Department, 3399 North Road, Poughkeepsie, NY 12601-1387, USA

Received 18 October 2004; received in revised form 1 September 2005; accepted 1 October 2005
Available online 27 March 2006

Abstract

The temporal stability, internal consistency, and underlying factor structure of the 30-item Internalized
Shame Scale (ISS) were examined. The inventory was administered to 184 college students, and then re-
administered 14 weeks later. The stability of the ISS scales would be expected to be high since trait shame
is a relatively enduring and stable personality characteristic. Analyses yielded significant test–retest corre-
lations of the shame and self-esteem subscales of .81 and .75, respectively. Coefficient alphas for the shame
and self-esteem subscales were examined and compared with those reported by Rybak and Brown (1996).
The resulting high internal consistency alpha coefficients (.88 to .96) mirrored those previously reported.
Overall, the ISS scales demonstrated high temporal stability and high internal consistency. Though the
24-item shame subscale was designed to consist of one underlying factor, principal components analysis
revealed an underlying structure of one dominant factor, termed Inferiority, and two lesser factors, termed
Fragility/Exposed and Empty/Lonely. Implications of these findings are discussed.
Ó 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Internalized shame scale; Test–retest reliability; Stability; Reliability; Internal consistency; Components;
Factor structure; College students

*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 845 575 3000; fax: +1 845 575 3965.
E-mail address: [email protected] (P.M. del Rosario).

0191-8869/$ - see front matter Ó 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.10.026
96 P.M. del Rosario, R.M. White / Personality and Individual Differences 41 (2006) 95–103

1. Introduction

Shame is an emotion of negative self-evaluation and loss of standing in one’s own eyes or those
of others – a feeling that results when one’s self-image and identity are called into question (Bed-
ford & Hwang, 2003). Shame can be experienced in two ways. When one experiences shame as an
acute, transient feeling in certain situations, one is experiencing state shame. When one experi-
ences shame in a more pervasive, internalized manner, one possesses internalized shame or trait
shame (Goss, Gilbert, & Allan, 1994). In this case, one feels a fundamental sense of incompetence
and inferiority that results from enduring and intense levels of shame during development (Claes-
son & Sohlberg, 2002).
There has been an explosion in the number of theoretical and research articles focusing on
shame’s role in the dynamics of psychopathology during the last two decades. From 1965 to
1974, there were only 122 PsychINFO database references to shame. The number increased to
only 293 from 1975 to 1984. Then, from 1985 to 1994, the number of references more than tripled
to 942 compared to the previous 10 years. The most recent decade has seen that number almost
double to over 1788 references during 1995 to 2004. The growth in the number of such investiga-
tions has necessitated the development of reliable and valid psychometric instruments to assess
shame.
With regard to trait shame in particular, theorists and researchers have published studies that
related internalized shame and numerous variables, including abandonment and rejection (Claes-
son & Sohlberg, 2002), addiction (Cook, 1991; Fischer, 1987; Wells, Bruss, & Katrin, 1998),
attachment (Cook, 1991; Wells & Hansen, 2003), cross-cultural shame (Bedford & Hwang,
2003), eating disorders (Murray & Waller, 2002), homosexuality (Allen & Oleson, 1999; Wells
& Hansen, 2003), identity (Wells & Hansen, 2003), narcissistic personality (Gramzow & Tangney,
1992; Grosch, 1994; Morrison, 1983, 1999), sexual abuse and trauma (Feinauer, Hilton, & Calla-
han, 2003; Murray & Waller, 2002; Wells et al., 1998; Wong & Cook, 1992), and violence and rage
(Balcom, 1991; Grosch, 1994).
Theory development and research involving trait shame naturally required a device that would
measure this form of shame. The Internalized Shame Scale (ISS; Cook, 1987, 1994, 2001) is such a
device: a 30-item self-report inventory designed to measure trait shame in adolescents and adults.
There are two subscales: a 24-item scale measuring internalized shame, and a 6-item self-esteem
scale. As described in the ISS Technical Manual (Cook, 1994, 2001), the device is useful not only
for research purposes, but also as a clinical screening and treatment monitoring tool. Based on a
PsychINFO database search, the ISS has been used in more than 58 research articles involving
trait shame, including many of those identified above and a significant number of doctoral
dissertations.
When the ISS was first being developed in 1984, it was not based on any specific theory of
shame, but rather, was based on experiential descriptions of shame from alcoholism treat-
ment patients. After the ISS evolved to its current version, Cook (1994, 2001) recommended
that ISS results be understood and interpreted within the biologically based theoretical frame-
work proposed by Donald Nathanson (1992). According to his theory, there are eight catego-
ries of shame cognitions that are reactions to biological triggers. The shame cognitions
function to motivate an individual to maintain or increase positive affect and diminish negative
affect.
 P.M. del Rosario, R.M. White / Personality and Individual Differences 41 (2006) 95–103 97

Thoughts accompanying the experience of shame can involve:

1. Personal Attributes
2. Dependence/Independence
3. Competition
4. Sense of Self
5. Personal Attractiveness
6. Sexuality
7. Issues of Seeing and Being Seen
8. Wishes and Fears about Closeness

Nathanson (1992) also proposed that there are four possible defensive reactions to the experi-
ence of shame affect and cognitions: Withdrawal, Attack Self, Avoidance, and Attack Others. ISS
results might be more clinically useful when placed in the context of these cognitions and reactions
(Cook, 1994, 2001).
Surprisingly, little published information has been available regarding the reliability and valid-
ity of the ISS. In particular, no independent ISS test–retest stability research has appeared in pro-
fessional journals. Thus, the first purpose of our study was to examine the ISS test–retest stability.
As personality traits are relatively stable and enduring characteristics, the reliability coefficients
were expected to be relatively high, particularly for the 24-item internalized shame subscale.
With respect to internal consistency, Rybak and Brown (1996) conducted a study to assess
internal reliability and construct validity of the ISS. They administered the ISS to undergraduate
students from clinical and non-clinical groups (N = 159). They sought to establish the construct
validity of the ISS by comparing ISS results with other affect constructs theoretically linked with
shame, such as anxiety, hostility, depression, and positive affect. In addition to finding significant
correlations between the shame subscale and measurements of these variables, their results indi-
cated that the ISS possessed high internal consistency. Their work represents the only published
research examining ISS internal consistencies. Thus, a second purpose of our study was to exam-
ine the ISS internal consistencies. Our study inspected internal consistency across three data sets:
comparing alpha coefficients from our test and retest data, and those from Rybak and Brown
(1996).
Regarding factor structure, our search through the literature found no factor analysis of the
current ISS version. The ISS Technical Manual (Cook, 1994, 2001) proposed a conceptualization
of trait shame as having a single underlying factor, termed Inferiority – one’s self-evaluation as
being deeply inferior. One might expect that given Nathanson’s (1992) conceptualization of shame
as involving eight cognitive areas and four defensive reactions, an approach to trait shame that
involves multiple factors may be appropriate. Indeed, earlier versions of the ISS included more
items and consisted of multiple factors, labeled Inadequate/Deficient, Embarrassed/Exposed,
Fragile/Out of Control, and Empty/Lonely (Cook, 1987). Furthermore, Goss et al. (1994) pro-
posed that trait shame includes not only self-evaluations of inferiority, but also perceived evalu-
ation of the self by others. They modified the current ISS shame scale and reduced it to 18 items
that focus on beliefs about how others evaluate the self (The Other As Shamer Scale; OAS). The
OAS was administered it to 156 university students. A principal components analysis with
varimax rotation yielded a three factor solution for trait shame that they called: Inferiority,
98 P.M. del Rosario, R.M. White / Personality and Individual Differences 41 (2006) 95–103

Emptiness, and How-others-behave-when-they-see-me-make-mistakes. Thus, the third purpose of

our study was to examine the underlying factor structure of the current 24-item shame scale and
examine whether it consists of a single or multiple factors.

2. Method

2.1. Participants

A total of 184 undergraduate students (152 females, 31 males, and one missing the gender
datum) at a small, private, liberal arts college in the northeastern United States participated in
the study. While the subjects were predominantly female, it should be noted that research has
not identified any consistent gender differences in responses to the ISS (Cook, 1994, 2001; Rybak
& Brown, 1996). Age of participants ranged between 18 and 53 years, with an average of 21.37
years (SD = 5.92). Students were permitted to self-identify their race in more than one category.
The racial/ethnic composition was 91.3% White (n = 168), 3.8% Latino (n = 7), 1.1% African–
American (n = 2), 1.1% White and Latino (n = 2), 1.1% White and Native American Indian
(n = 2), .5% African–American and Latino (n = 1), .5% African–American and Native American
Indian (n = 1), and .5% Asian American (n = 1).

2.2. Instrument

As noted, the ISS is a 30-item self-report inventory designed to measure trait shame and is com-
posed of two subscales: a 24-item subscale that produces the ‘‘Total Shame’’ score and is the core
measure of trait shame experience, and a 6-item self-esteem subscale that produces a ‘‘Total Self-
Esteem’’ score. The latter items are adapted from the Rosenberg (1965) Self-Esteem Scale and are
used in the ISS to prevent response set bias. The self-esteem subscale is not designed to be an inde-
pendent measure of self-esteem, though Cook (1994, 2001) suggests that these items can be used as
a cursory indication of positive self-esteem. Respondents must rate each self-statement on a Lik-
ert-type scale from 0 to 4, with each number anchored to the words, ‘‘Never’’, ‘‘Seldom’’, ‘‘Some-
times’’, ‘‘Often’’, and ‘‘Almost Always’’, respectively.
In terms of the reliability, the ISS Technical Manual (Cook, 1994, 2001) reports test–retest reli-
ability correlations from a 7 week interval of .84 and .69 for the shame and self-esteem subscales,
respectively, based on a sample of 44 graduate students. Regarding internal consistency, the Man-
ual reports shame subscale alpha coefficients of .95 and .96 for non-clinical (N = 645) and clinical
(N = 370) samples, respectively. Self-esteem subscale alpha coefficients were .90 and .87, respec-
tively. Rybak and Brown (1996) reported similar alpha coefficients of .97 and .90 for shame
and self-esteem subscales, respectively, based on a mixed, non-clinical and clinical sample
(N = 159).
As described earlier, from the start of its development in 1984 to its current 30-item version, the
underlying factor structure of the shame subscale progressed from being comprised of multiple
factors to ‘‘a single-factor test in which the core experience being measured (i.e., internal-
ized shame) cannot be adequately divided into other independent factors’’ (Cook, 1994, 2001,
p. 16).
 P.M. del Rosario, R.M. White / Personality and Individual Differences 41 (2006) 95–103 99

2.3. Procedure

The participants volunteered to participate in a study that required them to complete a demo-
graphic questionnaire and three surveys, including the ISS, at two points in time. Participants re-
sponded anonymously and all scales were administered in a classroom setting. Thus, the ISS was
completed during the first week of a college semester and again near the end of that semester,
approximately 14 weeks later, for an average test–retest interval of about 98 days.

3. Results

All statistical analyses were performed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
(SPSS), version 10.1.

3.1. Basic statistics and stability

Table 1 presents the test and retest means, standard deviations, and test–retest stability coeffi-
cients for the ISS Scales. The stability correlations for both the shame (r = .81) and self-esteem
(r = .75) subscales were high and significant, p < .01, suggesting that, the personality characteristic
of trait shame was highly stable.

3.2. Internal consistency

Table 2 presents a comparison of the internal consistency coefficient alphas (Cronbach, 1951)
for the ISS scales from the test, retest, and Rybak and Brown’s (1996) research based on a sample
of 159 undergraduate students. The coefficient alphas for the shame subscale were nearly the
same: .95, .96, and .97, respectively. Likewise, coefficient alphas for the self-esteem subscale were
nearly the same: .89, .88, and .90, respectively.

3.3. Factor structure

The 24 shame subscale items from the initial test administration were subjected to a principal
components analysis with varimax rotation. A factor loading of 0.4 was used for the inclusion of a
variable in the interpretation of a factor. On the basis of standard scree plot and eigenvalue (>1)
criteria, three factors resulted accounting for 61.76% of the total variance.

Table 1
Test–retest means, standard deviations, and correlations for ISS scales (N = 184)
Scale Test Retest Test/retest
M SD M SD r
Shame 27.48 (15.76) 27.65 (16.69) .81*
Self-esteem 17.52 (4.25) 17.51 (4.27) .75*
*
p < .01, two-tailed.
100 P.M. del Rosario, R.M. White / Personality and Individual Differences 41 (2006) 95–103

Table 2
Test, retest, and previously reported coefficient as, and number of items for ISS
Scale Test Retest Reported No. of items
a a b
a a a
Shame .95 .96 .97 24
Self-esteem .89 .88 .90 6
a
n = 184.
b
n = 159.

Table 3
Factor loadings for the ISS shame subscale items from the initial test data (N = 184)
Item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Sample
7 .795 Compared to other people, I feel like I somehow
never measure up
6 .740 I feel insecure about others’ opinions of me
3 .735
1 .718
10 .710
8 .689
12 .628 .497
2 .597
16 .588
5 .559
15 .531
11 .432 .416
19 .723 I would like to shrink away when I make a mistake
25 .696 At times I feel so exposed that I wish the earth would
open up and swallow me
24 .688
23 .682
22 .654
17 .585
20 .585
13 .449 .584
26 .832 I have this painful gap within me that I have not been
able to fill
30 .831 I feel like there is something missing
29 .809
27 .807
Eigenvalue 11.48 1.99 1.36
Variance (%) 47.82 8.29 5.66
Note. ISS items are reproduced with permission. Copyright Ó 1994, 2000 Multi-Health Systems Inc. All rights reserved.
In the USA, P.O. Box 950, North Tonawanda, NY 14120-0950, 1-800-456-3003. In Canada, 3770 Victoria Park Ave.,
Toronto, ON M2H 3M6, 1-800-268-6011. Internationally, +1-416-492-2627. Fax, +1-416-492-3343.
Factor 1 = Inferiority, Factor 2 = Fragile/Exposed, and Factor 3 = Empty/Lonely.

As shown in Table 3, Factor 1 consisted of 12 statements accounting for 47.82% of the vari-
ance, and described a state of inadequacy or deficiency, which we labeled Inferiority. The internal
 P.M. del Rosario, R.M. White / Personality and Individual Differences 41 (2006) 95–103 101

consistency of these 12 items was high (a = .92). Factor 2 consisted of eight items that accounted
for 8.29% of the variance. Factor 2 described a tendency towards feeling out of control, being
emotionally unstable, and fearful of being exposed. This factor was termed Fragile/Exposed
and demonstrated a high internal consistency (a = .88). Factor 3 consisted of four statements that
accounted for 5.66% of the variance, and was labeled Empty/Lonely. Despite there being rela-
tively few items, the internal consistency was also high (a = .93). There was noticeable overlap
for only three of the 24 items. Items 11 and 12 primarily loaded above the cut-off on Factor 1,
but also loaded on Factor 2. Item 13 primarily loaded on Factor 3, but also loaded on Factor 1.

4. Discussion

The ISS appears to be a reliable instrument for measuring trait shame. Both subscales demon-
strated a high level of stability across the 14-week test–retest period. Alpha reliabilities across the
test, retest data, and in comparison to Rybak and Brown’s (1996) report of alpha coefficients,
were highly similar. It should be noted that the degree of similarity of alphas for the test and retest
may be related to the fact that the same participants were producing the results. Furthermore, the
similarity of alpha coefficients across the test, retest, and Rybak and Brown analyses may have
also been influenced by a high degree of similarity of test items. Nevertheless, results suggest that
the ISS scales clearly possess the desirable quality of high internal consistency reliability.
The shame subscale was developed to be ‘‘a single-factor test in which the core experience being
measured [i.e., internalized shame] cannot be adequately divided into other independent factors’’
(Cook, 1994, 2001, p. 17). Thus, principal components analysis with varimax rotation was em-
ployed to identify whether the underlying factor structure consisted of a single or multiple factors.
It should be noted that the use of varimax rotation forced the extraction of factors to be indepen-
dent of one another. Although Factor 1 (12 of 24 items) accounted for most of the variance, two
other factors (totaling 12 of 24 items) were clearly present in our sample.
It is possible that the core experience of trait or internalized shame is not covered by one factor,
but is encompassed by multiple categories of thoughts and reactions, perhaps as theorized by
Nathanson (1992). Indeed, most of the Fragile/Exposed (Factor 2) items seem consistent with
Nathanson’s category of shame cognition known as ‘‘Issues of Seeing and Being Seen’’ in which
the basic issue is concern over how one is seen, and what is seen. Further, all of the Empty/Lonely
(Factor 3) items are very consistent with Nathanson’s ‘‘Wishes and Fears about Closeness’’ shame
cognition category, in which one thinks they are unlovable and condemned to being alone.
Interestingly, our 3-factor solution appeared similar to results from Goss et al. (1994) factor
analysis of the OAS scale – the 18-item modified version of the ISS. Two of their factors, Inferi-
ority and Emptiness, appeared to be highly similar to two of the factors of the same label in our
current results. We arrive at a conclusion similar to that of Goss et al. (1994): We must consider
the likelihood that the underlying structure of internalized shame may be multi-factorial.
Future research should examine the nature of this construct as it may be clinically relevant to
evaluate the multiple aspects of shame in various populations. Perhaps multi-factored trait shame
scales might be developed that are driven by particular theories of internalized shame, such as
Nathanson’s (1992). Further research could also examine the distinctions, and areas of overlap,
between trait shame as measured by instruments like the ISS and OAS, and situational or state
102 P.M. del Rosario, R.M. White / Personality and Individual Differences 41 (2006) 95–103

shame measured by instruments such as the Test of Self-Conscious Affect (TOSCA; Tangney,
1995) and the Adapted Dimensions of Conscience Questionnaire (ADCQ; Gilbert, Pehl, & Allan,
1994). Finally, as pointed out by Bedford and Hwang (2003), theories and research in the area of
shame must take into account the nature of cultural differences in the conceptualization and expe-
rience of shame.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the graduate assistants, particularly Lindsay Hayes, all of the par-
ticipants, and our colleagues who helped make this research possible.

References

Allen, D. J., & Oleson, T. (1999). Shame and internalized homophobia in gay men. Journal of Homosexuality, 37,
33–43.
Balcom, D. (1991). Shame and violence: considerations in couples’ treatment. Journal of Independent Social Work, 5,
165–181.
Bedford, O., & Hwang, K. (2003). Guilt and shame in Chinese culture: a cross-cultural framework from the perspective
of morality and identity. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 33, 127–144.
Claesson, K., & Sohlberg, S. (2002). Internalized shame and early interactions characterized by indifference,
abandonment, and rejection: Replicated findings. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 9, 277–284.
Cook, D. R. (1987). Measuring shame: the internalized shame scale. Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly, 4, 197–
215.
Cook, D. R. (1991). Shame, attachment, and addictions: implications for family therapists. Contemporary Family
Therapy: An International Journal, 13, 405–419.
Cook, D. R. (1994, 2001). Internalized shame scale: technical manual. North Tonawanda, NY: Multi-Health Systems,
Inc.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297–334.
Feinauer, L., Hilton, H. G., & Callahan, E. H. (2003). Hardiness as a moderator of shame associated with childhood
sexual abuse. American Journal of Family Therapy, 31, 65–78.
Fischer, B. (1987). The process of healing shame. Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly, 4, 25–38.
Gilbert, P., Pehl, J., & Allan, S. (1994). The phenomenology of shame and guilt: an empirical investigation. British
Journal of Medical Psychology, 67, 23–26.
Goss, K., Gilbert, P., & Allan, S. (1994). An exploration of shame measures – I: the other as shamer scale. Personality
and Individual Differences, 17, 713–717.
Gramzow, R., & Tangney, J. P. (1992). Proneness to shame and the narcissistic personality. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 18, 369–376.
Grosch, W. N. (1994). Narcissism: shame, rage, and addiction. Psychiatric Quarterly, 65, 49–63.
Morrison, A. P. (1983). Shame, ideal self, and narcissism. Contemporary Psychoanalysis, 19, 295–318.
Morrison, A. P. (1999). Shame, on either side of defense. Contemporary Psychoanalysis, 35, 91–105.
Murray, C., & Waller, G. (2002). Reported sexual abuse and bulimic psychopathology among nonclinical women: the
mediating role of shame. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 32, 186–191.
Nathanson, D. L. (1992). Shame and pride: Affect, sex, and the birth of the self. NY: Norton.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.
Rybak, C. J., & Brown, B. M. (1996). Assessment of internalized shame: validity and reliability of the internalized
shame scale. Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly, 14, 71–83.
 P.M. del Rosario, R.M. White / Personality and Individual Differences 41 (2006) 95–103 103

Tangney, J. P. (1995). Shame and guilt in interpersonal relationships. In J. P. Tangney & K. W. Fischer (Eds.), Self-
conscious emotions: The psychology of shame, guilt, embarrassment, and shame. New York: Guilford Press.
Wells, M., Bruss, K. V., & Katrin, S. (1998). Abuse and addiction: expressions of a wounded self and internalized
shame. Psychology: A Journal of Human Behavior, 35, 11–14.
Wells, G. B., & Hansen, N. D. (2003). Lesbian shame: its relationship to identity integration and attachment. Journal of
Homosexuality, 45, 93–110.
Wong, M. R., & Cook, D. R. (1992). Shame and its contribution to PTSD. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 5, 557–562.