The Hidden Escalator: How Shame Fuels Conflict, Aggression and Violence

Why understanding shame may be one of the most important advances in conflict management and violence reduction.

By Maybo ThoughtSpace

Conflict isn’t always driven by anger

Sometimes it is driven by something much quieter.

A healthcare assistant gently reminds a patient that they need to stop shouting. The patient becomes more aggressive.

A retail security officer asks someone to empty their pockets. What begins as a routine interaction quickly becomes a confrontation.

A teacher corrects a pupil in front of the class. The behaviour escalates instead of improving.

A manager publicly challenges an employee during a meeting. Rather than accepting the feedback, the employee becomes defensive, withdraws or lashes out.

To an observer, these situations can appear irrational. Why would someone respond to a calm request with aggression? Why does reasonable feedback sometimes produce resistance instead of reflection?

Increasingly, psychology suggests we may be asking the wrong question.

Rather than asking, “Why are they behaving like this?”, we might ask:

One answer, increasingly recognised across psychology, psychiatry and neuroscience, is shame.

Recent research published in The British Journal of Psychiatry argues that shame is far more than an unpleasant emotion. It is a powerful social experience capable of affecting thinking, behaviour, relationships and health.

Left unrecognised, shame can contribute to withdrawal, concealment, self-harm, depression and, importantly for our field, conflict and aggression.

For anyone involved in conflict management, violence reduction or reducing restrictive practice, this raises an important possibility:

Could shame be one of the hidden drivers of the behaviour we are trying to prevent?

Shame isn’t guilt

We often use the words interchangeably, but psychologically they are very different.

Guilt says: “I did something wrong.”

Shame says: “There is something wrong with me.”

Guilt focuses on behaviour.

Shame attacks identity.

That distinction matters.

When people experience guilt, they may remain psychologically able to apologise, repair relationships and change their behaviour.

When people experience shame, their priority frequently becomes protecting themselves.

That protection can take many forms:

• withdrawal;
• denial;
• blame;
• defensiveness;
• avoidance;
• aggression;
• attempts to regain status or control.

None of these responses necessarily indicates bad intent. They may instead reflect an attempt to escape one of the most painful social emotions human beings experience.

Shame is a threat response

The Cambridge paper describes shame as more than embarrassment. It can be experienced as a threat to social identity.

Human beings are profoundly social.

For much of our evolutionary history, belonging was closely connected to survival. Being excluded, rejected or publicly humiliated could represent genuine danger.

Our brains may therefore treat threats to belonging and social standing remarkably seriously.

This helps explain why seemingly small moments can produce disproportionately large reactions:

• being corrected publicly;
• feeling judged;
• being laughed at;
• losing status;
• being ignored;
• feeling exposed;
• being treated as incompetent;
• feeling powerless.

These experiences may activate defensive responses that seem completely out of proportion unless we understand what the person believes is at stake.

They may not simply be protecting an opinion.

They may be protecting their identity.

Behaviour is often the visible part of a much deeper process

One of the biggest mistakes organisations make is treating behaviour as the beginning of the story.

Usually, it is much closer to the end.

By the time aggression appears, a great deal may already have happened:

• thoughts;
• interpretations;
• past experiences;
• social meaning;
• perceived disrespect;
• fear;
• loss of control;
• shame.

Behaviour can become the final expression of everything happening underneath.

This aligns closely with Maybo’s long-standing philosophy of looking behind behaviour.

Rather than asking:

How do we stop this behaviour?

We ask:

What is driving it?

The answer is rarely simple. But shame deserves far greater attention than it currently receives.

Why shame matters in conflict management

Conflict professionals have traditionally focused on observable and practical skills:

• communication;
• positioning;
• verbal de-escalation;
• dynamic risk assessment;
• personal safety.

All remain critically important.

However, understanding shame introduces another dimension. Once shame enters an interaction, people may become:

• less able to think rationally;
• less able to process information;
• less able to hear alternatives;
• less able to tolerate correction;
• more concerned with preserving dignity than solving the problem.

The conversation changes.

Not because the facts changed.

Because the emotional landscape changed.

Humiliation can become an escalation trigger

Many organisations unintentionally create shame, not through malice, but through habit.

• Public criticism.
• Sarcasm.
• Patronising language.
• Dismissive attitudes.
• Threats.
• Blame-focused investigations.
• Rigid hierarchies.
• Language that labels people rather than describing behaviour.

Each may communicate one simple message:

You are the problem.

Once people believe this, constructive dialogue becomes much harder.

Instead of considering change, they may become occupied with self-protection.

Sometimes that protection is silence.

Sometimes it is avoidance.

Sometimes it is aggression.

Sometimes it becomes violence.

The violence reduction paradox

Many organisations genuinely want safer environments.

Yet some of the methods historically used to achieve compliance may unintentionally increase conflict:

• public naming;
• humiliation;
• punitive cultures;
• zero-tolerance language without supportive practice;
• fear-based management.

The paradox is clear.

Attempts to control behaviour can sometimes increase the emotional conditions most likely to produce escalation.

This does not mean organisations should abandon accountability.

Far from it.

Safety requires clear expectations.

Boundaries matter.

Violence is never acceptable.

But accountability and humiliation are not the same thing.

Accountability without shame

One of the most important leadership and practitioner skills is separating behaviour from identity.

Instead of saying:

You’re aggressive.

We might say:

That behaviour felt threatening.

Instead of:

You’re difficult.

Perhaps:

Let’s understand what happened.

Instead of:

You’re the problem.

Maybe:

Something isn’t working. Let’s work out why.

These differences may appear subtle.

Psychologically, they can be enormous.

One threatens identity.

The other invites reflection.

What this means for restrictive practice

The implications extend well beyond everyday conflict.

NHS England’s guidance on identifying restrictive practice represents an important shift in thinking.

Rather than focusing solely on physical restraint, it encourages organisations to recognise wider forms of restriction, including psychological, cultural and relational practices that may undermine dignity and autonomy.

This reflects an emerging understanding.

Restriction is not only about what we do physically. It is also about how people experience power.

Shame can sit at the centre of that experience.

A person who feels humiliated, powerless or devalued may be less likely to:

• feel psychologically safe;
• trust;
• communicate openly;
• consider alternatives;
• remain connected during difficulty.

Reducing restrictive practice therefore involves more than reducing restraint.

It also means reducing avoidable experiences of humiliation and powerlessness.

What good practice looks like

Understanding shame does not mean becoming passive.

Good conflict management remains clear, confident and boundaried. But it also becomes more curious.

Rather than escalating status contests, practitioners create opportunities for dignity.

They:

• correct privately where possible;
• preserve choice wherever it is safe to do so;
• explain decisions transparently;
• acknowledge emotions without necessarily agreeing with the behaviour;
• separate the person from the behaviour;
• provide opportunities to regain dignity without losing face;
• remain respectful while setting firm boundaries.

These are not simply communication techniques.

They are violence reduction strategies.

Creating shame-aware organisations

The Cambridge paper argues that shame is not simply an individual experience.

It is also cultural, organisational and relational.

That means organisations have responsibilities too.

Questions worth asking include:

• Do people feel safe admitting mistakes?
• Can staff challenge decisions without humiliation?
• Are incident reviews about learning or blame?
• Do our records describe behaviour or define people?
• Does our language preserve dignity?
• Do our training programmes model the respect we expect staff to show others?

These questions matter because cultures can either amplify shame or reduce it.

Cultures that reduce shame may increase:

• openness;
• learning;
• innovation;
• psychological safety;
• trust.

They may also become safer.

Leadership sets the emotional climate

Every interaction teaches people something about organisational culture.

When leaders respond to mistakes with curiosity rather than humiliation, people may report concerns earlier.

When managers preserve dignity during difficult conversations, relationships can strengthen.

When investigations seek understanding rather than blame, learning can improve.

When organisations distinguish accountability from punishment, people may become more willing to reflect and change.

Leadership therefore shapes more than behaviour.

It shapes emotional climate.

And emotional climate shapes conflict.

A different question

Conflict management has traditionally asked:

How do we control behaviour?

Perhaps the better question is:

How do we reduce the conditions that make harmful behaviour more likely?

Shame appears to be one of those conditions.

Not the only one.

Not always the primary one.

But often an overlooked one.

Understanding shame does not remove responsibility.

It enhances it.

It reminds us that effective violence reduction is not simply about responding well once conflict begins.

It is also about creating environments in which fewer people feel compelled to defend themselves in the first place.

Further reading

Lawlor, B., Baez, S., Santamaría-García, H. and Ibanez, A. The Harming Power of Shame. The British Journal of Psychiatry.

NHS England. Identifying Restrictive Practice.

```