The Dark Side of Personality: Understanding the Shadow in Personality Disorders

Specifically, this review pursues five objectives:

• To outline the theoretical foundations of the shadow within analytical psychology;

• To examine its relevance to contemporary conceptualizations of personality disorders;

• To synthesize empirical evidence supporting shadow-consistent psychological processes;

• To explore clinical implications for assessment and psychotherapy; and

• To identify methodological limitations and future research directions.

The shadow in Jungian analytical psychology

Within analytical psychology, the shadow refers to the range of psychological qualities that a person does not experience as part of their conscious identity and therefore keeps outside awareness.^[3,5,6] Jung proposed that the shadow is composed of traits, impulses, emotions, and capacities that are experienced as incompatible with one’s preferred self-image. These disowned aspects are not limited to negative or antisocial tendencies; they may also include constructive or adaptive qualities, such as assertiveness, dependency needs, emotional sensitivity, or creativity, when these have been judged as unacceptable within the individual’s developmental or cultural environment. The shadow develops through early relational and socialization processes. As individuals grow, they learn which feelings and behaviors are met with approval and which evoke disapproval, rejection, or withdrawal of care. To preserve attachment and a sense of belonging, aspects of experience that threaten these bonds are gradually excluded from conscious awareness. This process is largely unconscious and represents an adaptive strategy for maintaining psychological and interpersonal stability. Over time, these excluded experiences coalesce into an enduring unconscious organization that continues to influence perception, affect, and behavior across the lifespan.^[2,3,5] A key element of Jung’s formulation is the compensatory function of the shadow. When the ego becomes strongly invested in a particular identity, such as being consistently good, controlled, independent, or emotionally restrained, opposing tendencies are increasingly relegated to the unconscious. The more rigid and idealized the conscious self-concept becomes, the more psychological energy accumulates in what has been disowned. This tension may express itself indirectly through emotional outbursts, impulsive actions, somatic symptoms, or recurring interpersonal difficulties. Jung understood these phenomena not simply as pathological, but as meaningful signals indicating the need for greater integration of disavowed aspects of the self.^[2,5,6]

This perspective offers a useful lens for understanding personality disorders, which are often characterized by inflexible self-concepts and pronounced difficulties with affect regulation. From a shadow-informed viewpoint, such disturbances can be understood as reflecting a deep division between what the person allows themselves to be and what they cannot tolerate acknowledging within themselves. Accordingly, the shadow can be seen as a central organizing influence in the development and expression of personality pathology.

Persona, identity formation, and failures of integration

Jung emphasized that the shadow cannot be understood independently of the persona, the socially adapted aspect of the personality that mediates between the individual and the external world. The persona enables social functioning by providing a coherent, culturally intelligible identity. However, overidentification with the persona restricts psychological flexibility and intensifies unconscious counterforces.^[3,6] From a developmental perspective, healthy identity formation involves the gradual integration of contradictory self-aspects, including ambivalence, moral conflict, and emotionally charged impulses. Jung argued that psychological maturity depends on the ego’s capacity to tolerate such internal contradictions without resorting to excessive repression or denial. When this integrative capacity is compromised, disowned self-aspects remain segregated, increasing reliance on defensive operations. Contemporary research on personality disorders strongly supports this view. Dimensional models consistently identify identity diffusion, unstable self-esteem, and polarized self-representations as core features of personality pathology. ^[1,2,5,7]Individuals with personality disorders often experience themselves in fragmented or mutually exclusive self-states, oscillating between idealized and devalued identities. These empirical observations closely parallel Jung’s description of an ego undermined by unintegrated shadow material. From this perspective, personality pathology reflects not merely maladaptive traits but a structural failure of integration. Defensive strategies such as splitting, projection, and moral rigidity function to preserve a coherent persona by externalizing or suppressing unacceptable self-aspects. While adaptive in the short term, these strategies ultimately perpetuate internal conflict and relational dysfunction.

Personal and collective dimensions of the shadow

A further theoretical contribution of Jung’s model lies in his distinction between personal and collective dimensions of the shadow. The personal shadow reflects elements disowned through individual developmental history, whereas the collective shadow encompasses culturally shared values, fears, and impulses that are systematically excluded from conscious acknowledgement within a given society.^[5,6,8] This distinction has important implications for understanding personality disorders within a sociocultural context. What is relegated to the shadow is not determined solely by individual psychology but also by prevailing cultural norms regarding autonomy, emotional expression, aggression, dependency, gender roles, and morality.^{[5, 9-11]} Traits such as vulnerability, emotional need, or assertiveness may be differentially shadowed depending on cultural expectations, shaping both identity development and psychopathology. Contemporary narrative and sociocultural models of mental health echo this insight, emphasizing that individuals internalize culturally mediated meaning systems that structure self-experience and relational expectations.^[12,13] From this standpoint,personality disorders may be understood as emerging at the intersection of personal biography and collective symbolic systems, rather than as exclusively intrapsychic phenomena. Integrating Jung’s distinction between personal and collective shadow with modern dimensional models allows for a more context-sensitive understanding of personality pathology. It highlights how individual identity disturbances may reflect broader cultural tensions, while still acknowledging the unique developmental pathways through which shadow material is formed and maintained.

Relevance of the shadow to contemporary personality theory

Although Jung’s theory predates modern diagnostic systems, the shadow remains conceptually compatible with contemporary structural and dimensional models of personality disorders. Both emphasize identity coherence, affect regulation, and the integration of conflicting self-representations as central to psychological health. Where Jung differs is his explicit focus on meaning, symbolism, and unconscious conflict as the organizing principles of personality. When viewed as a heuristic framework rather than a diagnostic construct, the shadow offers a language for articulating how disowned aspects of self-experience continue to shape behaviour and relationships. Its relevance lies not in empirical precision but in its capacity to integrate diverse clinical phenomena, shame, projection, aggression, and dependency into a coherent explanatory model that complements contemporary research.

The shadow as a transdiagnostic process

Although personality disorders differ in phenomenological presentation, contemporary dimensional models emphasize that they share common underlying disturbances in identity integration, affect regulation, and interpersonal functioning.^[1–3]From a Jungian perspective, these shared disturbances can be understood as variations in how disowned aspects of the self—the shadow—are managed, externalized, or rigidly controlled.

Jung conceptualized the shadow not as a static structure,but as a dynamic process arising from the ego’s attempts to preserve a coherent self-image.^[5,6] This process-oriented understanding closely parallels modern psychodynamic and relational models, which view personality pathology as reflecting maladaptive strategies for regulating internal conflict rather than fixed trait abnormalities. Within this framework, shadow dynamics operate transdiagnostically, shaping defensive styles, relational expectations, and patterns of affective response across diagnostic categories.

Empirical research supports this transdiagnostic view. Processes such as projection, splitting, chronic shame, and identity diffusion are observed across multiple personality disorders and predict functional impairment more robustly than categorical diagnoses alone.^[7–9] Conceptualizing these processes as expressions of shadow dynamics provides an integrative account that links subjective experience, defensive functioning, and interpersonal behaviour within a unified explanatory model.

Borderline personality disorder: Fragmentation and oscillating shadow states

Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is characterized by marked affective instability, identity disturbance, impulsivity, and intense, unstable relationships.^[5,8,10] From a shadow-informed perspective, these features reflect profound difficulty integrating contradictory self-states, particularly those involving aggression, dependency, and fear of abandonment. Rather than being symbolically integrated, these effects tend to emerge in dissociated or polarized forms. Jung’s description of an ego overwhelmed by unintegrated shadow material offers a clinically resonant account of the rapid shifts between idealization and devaluation observed in BPD [Table 1]. Disowned aggression is frequently projected onto others, who are then experienced as hostile or rejecting, while disowned dependency may surface as intense fear of abandonment or emotional collapse. These oscillations not only reflect but also contribute to dysregulation and deeper instability in self-representation. Contemporary empirical studies corroborate this formulation. Research consistently documents identity diffusion, unstable self-esteem, impaired mentalization, and reliance on primitive defenses in individuals with BPD.^[8,10,11] These findings support the view that borderline pathology involves failures of integration rather than isolated behavioral dyscontrol. Therapeutically, this underscores the importance of facilitating reflective awareness and gradual integration of disowned self-aspects within a stable relational context.

Narcissistic personality disorder: Grandiosity as defense against the shadow

In narcissistic personality disorder, shadow dynamics take on a distinctive configuration. Grandiosity, entitlement, and diminished empathy are often interpreted as expressions of inflated self-regard. However, both Jungian theory and contemporary dynamic models suggest that these features function defensively, protecting against disowned vulnerability, dependency, and shame [Table 1].^[7,12,13] From this perspective, narcissistic grandiosity represents an overidentified persona that wards off awareness of fragile or devalued self-states relegated to the shadow. Experiences of inadequacy or emotional need are perceived as threats to identity coherence and are therefore denied or projected. When these defenses are destabilized by criticism or failure, shame may emerge abruptly, often accompanied by rage, withdrawal, or interpersonal devaluation. Empirical research supports this dynamic understanding of narcissism. Studies demonstrate heightened sensitivity to ego threat, unstable self-esteem, and reliance on external validation for self-regulation.^[9,12,14] These findings align closely with Jung’s assertion that rigid ego identification amplifies unconscious counterforces. Clinically, work with narcissistic pathology requires careful attention to shame-laden shadow material, which often emerges indirectly through interpersonal enactments rather than explicit self-report.

Antisocial personality disorder: Ego–shadow fusion and moral disconnection

Antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) presents a markedly different pattern of shadow dynamics. Whereas many personality disorders involve repression or projection of aggression, ASPD may reflect a relative fusion between the ego and aggressive shadow elements. Traits such as dominance, exploitation, and disregard for others’ rights are often ego-syntonic, while capacities for empathy, guilt, and relational dependency appear diminished or disowned [Table 1].^[10,11,15] From a Jungian standpoint, this configuration can be understood as a reversal of the typical ego–shadow relationship. Rather than disowning aggression, the individual identifies with it, while affiliative and moral capacities are relegated to the unconscious. Empirical research supports this interpretation, demonstrating deficits in affective empathy and moral emotions alongside relatively intact cognitive understanding of social norms.^[7,10,15,16] These findings suggest dissociation rather than complete absence of moral awareness. This formulation has important clinical implications. It cautions against conceptualizing antisocial pathology solely as a lack of conscience and instead highlights profound disturbances in the integration of relational and moral self-aspects. Where intervention is possible, therapeutic work must address not only behavioral regulation but also the re-emergence of disowned affiliative capacities.

Avoidant and obsessive–compulsive personality disorders: Overcontrol and constricted shadow expression

Avoidant personality disorder (AvPD) is characterized by social inhibition, hypersensitivity to negative evaluation, and pervasive feelings of inadequacy.^[10,11,17] shadow dynamics in AvPD often involve the suppression of assertiveness, anger, and desire for closeness, impulses experienced as dangerous due to anticipated rejection or humiliation [Table 1]. The resulting self-organization prioritizes safety and self-effacement, while disowned needs persist in the shadow, contributing to chronic shame and loneliness. Obsessive–compulsive personality disorder (OCPD) reflects a contrasting but structurally related pattern. Here, the ego frequently identifies with control, moral rectitude, and productivity, while emotional spontaneity, dependency, and playfulness are relegated to the shadow. Empirical studies highlight elevated perfectionism, cognitive rigidity, and moralization in OCPD, alongside restricted emotional awareness and flexibility.^{[12,14,15,17,18]} In Jungian terms, both AvPD and OCPD involve overidentification with a constricted persona, resulting in intensified ego–shadow polarization. Although these configurations may confer functional advantages in specific contexts, they often lead to interpersonal strain and internal tension. Clinically, shadow-informed work emphasizes expanding affective tolerance and facilitating symbolic engagement with disowned emotional states.

Diagnostic diversity, shared shadow processes

Across personality disorders, shadow dynamics manifest in diagnostically distinct yet structurally related forms. Whether expressed through fragmentation, compensatory grandiosity, ego–shadow fusion, or rigid overcontrol, the central theme remains a persistent difficulty in integrating disowned aspects of self-experience into a coherent identity. This transdiagnostic perspective aligns closely with contemporary dimensional models and supports the relevance of Jung’s Shadow as a heuristic framework for understanding personality pathology.

Defensive processes: Projection, splitting, and externalization

Defense mechanisms remain a core focus of empirical research on personality pathology. Numerous studies demonstrate that individuals with personality disorders rely disproportionately on maladaptive or immature defenses, particularly projection, splitting, denial, and externalization, compared with both non-clinical populations and individuals with other psychiatric conditions.^[7–9] These defenses function to manage internal conflict by displacing disowned affects or self-representations onto external objects, a process that closely parallels Jung’s account of shadow projection. Observer-rated and self-report studies of defensive functioning show that reliance on projection and splitting is strongly associated with identity disturbance, interpersonal instability, and symptom chronicity.^[8,11,13] In borderline and paranoid personality pathology, externalization of hostility and mistrust has been shown to mediate the relationship between early attachment disruption and later relational dysfunction.^[8,10,19] Such findings support the view that disowned internal states are experienced as originating from others rather than from the self. Importantly, contemporary research conceptualizes defensive processes as context-sensitive and dynamically activated, particularly under conditions of interpersonal stress or emotional arousal. This process-oriented view aligns closely with Jung’s formulation of the shadow as an active, compensatory system rather than a static repository of traits.

Shame, moral emotions, and disowned self-experience

Shame occupies a central position in both Jungian theory and modern empirical accounts of personality disorders. Jung regarded shame as a signal of conflict between ego identity and shadow contents, arising when disowned aspects of the self threaten conscious recognition.^[5,6] Over the past decade, empirical research has increasingly identified shame as a core affective vulnerability across multiple forms of personality pathology. Elevated levels of trait and state shame have been documented in borderline, avoidant, narcissistic, and obsessive–compulsive personality disorders, with shame-proneness predicting affective instability, interpersonal withdrawal, and defensive anger.^[12,17,20] Notably, studies indicate that shame is often poorly differentiated from other negative affects in personality-disordered populations, increasing the likelihood that it will be regulated through externalization, hostility, or compulsive control rather than reflective processing. Research on narcissistic pathology provides particularly strong empirical support for a shadow-informed interpretation of shame. Experimental and clinical studies demonstrate that grandiosity and entitlement frequently function as defenses against underlying shame and vulnerability.^[12–14] When these defenses are disrupted by perceived criticism or failure, shame may emerge abruptly and is often accompanied by rage, devaluation of others, or social withdrawal. These findings are highly consistent with Jung’s account of compensatory ego inflation in response to disowned shadow material.

Identity diffusion and fragmented self-representation

Identity disturbance is a defining feature of personality disorders in both the DSM-5-TR Alternative Model and the ICD-11 classification.^[1,2,15,17] Empirical research conceptualizes identity pathology in terms of incoherent self-concept, unstable self-esteem, and difficulty integrating contradictory self-representations. These phenomena closely parallel Jung’s description of an ego compromised by unintegrated shadow contents. Cross-sectional and longitudinal studies indicate that identity diffusion predicts poorer psychosocial functioning, increased symptom persistence, and weaker treatment response across personality disorders.^[5,7,21] Individuals with pronounced identity disturbance frequently demonstrate polarized self-representations, alternating between idealized and devalued self-states, with limited capacity to synthesize these representations into a coherent whole. From a shadow perspective, such polarization reflects the segregation of unacceptable self-aspects rather than their symbolic integration. Narrative identity research further supports this formulation. Studies show that individuals with personality disorders often produce autobiographical narratives characterized by fragmentation, thematic inconsistency, and limited integration of morally negative or emotionally painful experiences.^{[13,15,17,22]} Difficulty incorporating such experiences into a coherent life story has been associated with greater interpersonal dysfunction and emotional distress, lending empirical support to Jung’s emphasis on symbolic integration as a marker of psychological maturity.

Affect regulation and neurobiological correlates

Advances in affective neuroscience provide additional, though indirect, support for shadow-consistent processes. Research on personality disorders consistently demonstrates heightened emotional reactivity, reduced top-down regulation of affect, and impaired integration of emotional experience with reflective awareness.^[10,18,23] These patterns are particularly pronounced in disorders characterized by emotional intensity and impulsivity. Neurobiological studies implicate dysregulated limbic–prefrontal circuitry in these processes, suggesting that intense affective states may overwhelm reflective capacities and increase reliance on defensive strategies such as projection, dissociation, or behavioral enactment.^{[16,19,23,24]} While Jung’s theory was not neurobiological in orientation, his emphasis on unconscious affective forces influencing conscious behavior is broadly compatible with these findings. Crucially, affect dysregulation alone does not account for the specific interpersonal patterns observed in personality disorders. Rather, it is the interaction between intense affect and disowned self-representations that appears most clinically consequential. This interactional view aligns closely with the shadow framework, which emphasizes the psychological meaning of affect rather than its intensity in isolation.

Mentalization, reflective functioning, and shadow integration

Research on mentalization and reflective functioning offers one of the most direct empirical bridges to Jungian concepts of shadow integration. Mentalization refers to the capacity to understand one’s own and others’ behavior in terms of underlying mental states. Deficits in this capacity are robustly documented across personality disorders and are associated with increased reliance on projection, misinterpretation of interpersonal cues, and rigid self–other representations.^{[11,16,18,25]}Empirical studies demonstrate that impairments in mentalization are particularly pronounced under conditions of emotional arousal or attachment threat—contexts in which shadow material is most likely to be activated.^{[10,21,23,25]}When reflective functioning collapses, disowned affects and impulses are more likely to be experienced as external or imposed by others, reinforcing maladaptive interpersonal cycles. From a shadow-informed perspective, improvements in mentalization can be understood as facilitating the symbolic recognition and integration of previously disowned self-aspects. Psychotherapy outcome studies support this interpretation, showing that gains in reflective functioning predict improvements in identity coherence and interpersonal stability across treatment modalities.^[21,23,26]

Empirical convergence without direct operationalization

Taken together, contemporary empirical findings provide substantial indirect support for the core assumptions of Jung’s shadow theory. Although the Shadow itself remains a non-operationalized construct, the psychological processes it describes, defensive externalization, shame dysregulation, identity fragmentation, affective overwhelm, and failures of reflective integration, are well established within modern research on personality disorders. This convergence suggests that the Shadow may function as a higher-order integrative framework that organizes empirically observed mechanisms into a coherent clinical narrative. Its value lies not in replacing operationalized models, but in complementing dimensional and relational approaches by addressing the meaning and subjective organization of disowned self-experience.

Assessment and case formulation

A shadow-informed clinical assessment extends beyond symptom description to examine recurring patterns of disowned experience that shape identity and relationships. Clinically, shadow dynamics may be inferred from persistent interpersonal conflicts, disproportionate emotional reactions, rigid moral self-appraisals, or recurrent experiences of shame and hostility. These patterns often indicate attempts to maintain identity coherence by excluding unacceptable self-aspects.^[5,6,12,14] In case formulation, the shadow provides a conceptual framework for integrating affective, relational, and defensive processes into a coherent explanatory narrative. Rather than conceptualizing behaviors such as aggression, withdrawal, or perfectionism as isolated traits, clinicians can explore how these patterns function to regulate internal conflict and protect a fragile self-structure. This approach is consistent with DSM-5-TR and ICD-11 models that emphasize impairments in identity integration and self-direction as core features of personality pathology.^[1,2,16,18]Importantly, shadow-based formulations should remain provisional and hypothesis-driven. Given the shadow's nonoperationalized nature, clinicians must avoid interpretive overreach or symbolic literalism. Shadow concepts are most useful when employed as exploratory tools that guide clinical inquiry rather than as definitive explanatory constructs.

Psychotherapeutic engagement with shadow material

Therapeutic engagement with shadow material requires careful attention to timing, alliance, and affect tolerance.Disowned aspects of the self are frequently associated with intense shame, anxiety, or fear of rejection, and premature confrontation may intensify defensive functioning or precipitate therapeutic rupture. Jung emphasized that shadow integration is a gradual developmental process dependent on sufficient ego strength and relational safety.^[6,7,10,15]In practice, working with the shadow does not involve encouraging behavioral enactment of disowned impulses. Instead, it focuses on fostering reflective awareness, symbolic recognition, and narrative integration of excluded self-aspects. Interventions such as exploring projections, identifying recurrent relational themes, and facilitating affect labelling are compatible with evidence-based approaches, including psychodynamic psychotherapy, mentalization-based treatment, schema therapy, and integrative models.^[11,21,26]Empirical psychotherapy research indicates that improvements in personality disorders are often mediated by gains in reflective functioning, affect regulation, and identity coherence rather than by symptom reduction alone.^{[10, 13,21,26]} From a shadow-informed perspective, these therapeutic changes reflect increasing capacity to acknowledge and integrate previously disowned self-experience.

Shame, aggression, and therapeutic containment

Working with people who have personality disorders, therapists often find themselves facing hidden emotions like shame and anger. These feelings don’t always show up in obvious ways. More often, people might criticize themselves harshly, avoid certain subjects, lash out suddenly, or keep their distance. Sometimes, they try to look better by blaming others or acting morally superior. If a therapist doesn’t notice these patterns, it can quietly erode trust and stall the whole process. Jung’s idea of the ‘shadow’ helps therapists remember that these reactions don’t come out of nowhere; they usually signal that someone’s identity feels threatened or shaky.^[10,12,20]Anger isn’t always a problem, either; it can hint at strengths or boundaries that haven’t been expressed well yet. For therapy to work, therapists need to stay calm, curious, and open, giving clients space to make sense of these tough feelings and slowly learn to handle them differently. ^[5,8,10]

The therapist’s shadow and countertransference

Therapists who work with people diagnosed with personality disorders often find themselves experiencing strong emotions, anything from frustration and judgment to the urge to help too much, or even feeling detached. Carl Jung made it clear that therapists aren't untouched by these hidden parts of themselves, sometimes called the “shadow.” Today's therapy approaches also stress how crucial it is for therapists to recognize and think about these personal reactions. These emotional responses can sometimes reveal what a patient is avoiding or can't accept, but this only works if the therapist is honest with themselves.^[6,14,18] Overlooking these hidden feelings can lead to blurred boundaries or a lack of connection with the patient, so regular reflection and professional supervision are vital for anyone in this field.

Integrating shadow theory with evidence-based practice

The shadow should not be treated as a standalone intervention or as a substitute for empirically supported treatment models. Its clinical utility lies in functioning as a meta-theoretical framework that informs understanding of identity disturbance, defensive functioning, and relational patterns. When integrated thoughtfully, shadow theory can enhance clinical formulation and guide the timing and focus of interventions within established therapeutic approaches.

Lack of direct operationalization

The most significant limitation concerns the absence of a psychometrically validated operational definition of the shadow. Empirical support for shadow dynamics remains indirect, relying on convergence with related constructs such as projection, shame, and identity diffusion. This limits the ability to test causal hypotheses, evaluate treatment mechanisms, or falsify shadow-based interpretations.

Theoretical and conceptual overlap

Theoretical heterogeneity presents an additional challenge. Analytical psychology, psychodynamic theory, attachment research, and dimensional diagnostic models differ in epistemological assumptions and levels of abstraction. Without careful conceptual delineation, there is a risk that the shadow becomes an overly inclusive construct that lacks explanatory precision.

Cultural and contextual constraints

Shadow content is shaped by sociocultural norms regarding emotion, morality, autonomy, and relationality. Jung’s formulations emerged within a specific historical context, and their uncritical application across cultures risks ethnocentric interpretation. The relative scarcity of cross-cultural research examining shadow-consistent processes limits generalizability.

Reliance on inferential and narrative evidence

Much of the support for shadow dynamics derives from narrative and inferential data rather than experimental or longitudinal designs. While clinically meaningful, such evidence is vulnerable to confirmation bias and limited reproducibility. These constraints necessitate epistemic humility in clinical application.

Operationalization and measurement

Future research should focus on operationalizing shadow-related processes using composite or latent-variable approaches that integrate existing measures of defense mechanisms, shame-proneness, identity diffusion, and reflective functioning. Multimethod designs combining self-report, observer ratings, and behavioral tasks would enhance construct validity.

Developmental and longitudinal research

Longitudinal studies examining the developmental emergence of disowned self-aspects and their relationships with attachment experiences and socialization practices are essential. Developmental psychopathology frameworks provide a promising context for testing shadow-consistent hypotheses over time.

Neurobiological and affective correlates

Advances in affective neuroscience may clarify the biological substrates of processes Jung described symbolically. Research examining neural correlates of shame, affect suppression, and identity threat may provide convergent evidence for shadow-related dynamics.

Psychotherapy process and outcome studies

Psychotherapy research offers a fertile domain for examining shadow integration. Process studies assessing changes in narrative coherence, mentalization, and tolerance of negative self-aspects may help operationalize symbolic integration in clinically meaningful terms.

Cross-cultural and contextual research

Cross-cultural investigations are essential for refining the shadow concept and preventing ethnocentric application. Research examining culturally specific patterns of disowned traits and moral emotions would strengthen both theoretical and clinical relevance.