Why Shame Should Not Be Used to Gain Compliance from Students

A Trauma-Informed Perspective for Educators Working with Students with Emotional and Behavioral Needs

At some point, almost every educator has worked with a student whose behavior crossed serious boundaries. In those moments, educators are often faced with a difficult question:

How do you hold a student accountable for harmful behavior without humiliating them?

This question becomes even more important when working with students who have emotional disabilities, autism, trauma histories, social-processing deficits, or difficulties understanding relationships and boundaries.

In schools, especially therapeutic and special education settings, there can be a temptation to use shame as a shortcut to compliance:

• “What is wrong with you?”

• “How could you think that was okay?”

• “You should know better.”

• “Do you realize how creepy that is?”
  

While these reactions may come from frustration, research and experience consistently show that shame rarely produces lasting behavioral growth. More often, it produces confusion, withdrawal, emotional dysregulation, aggression, rumination, or a damaged sense of self.

The goal of intervention should not be to make a student feel worthless. The goal should be to help a student understand boundaries, develop insight, and build safer behaviors.

Case Study #1: “James” — Accountability Without Humiliation

“James” was a 17-year-old student who repeatedly violated the boundaries of a 13-year-old female student. His behaviors included:

• making sexually explicit comments,

• touching the student’s face,

• blocking her from exiting a staircase,

• and repeatedly attempting contact after being told to stop.
  

What made the situation particularly challenging was that James genuinely struggled to understand why his behavior was inappropriate. Even after multiple conversations, he appeared confused about why others viewed his actions as alarming.

Over time, something concerning became visible: James began internalizing the situation in a deeply unhealthy way. Rather than understanding:

“My behavior crossed boundaries and must stop,”

he seemed to be moving toward:

“I am a disgusting person.”

That distinction matters enormously.

A student cannot effectively grow when accountability becomes fused with toxic identity shame.

After continued boundary violations, James was temporarily separated from the broader school community to work restoratively. During this process, he:

• answered reflective questions,

• engaged in structured conversations,

• processed the impact of his behavior,

• and explored boundaries, consent, and emotional regulation.
  

One particularly important aspect of the intervention was James’ intense need for closure. He desperately wanted to explain himself to the female student and repair the relationship. However, he struggled to understand that some relationships cannot immediately be repaired simply because one person wants resolution. To help him process this safely, a guidance counselor participated in a proxy restorative conversation, representing the perspective of the female student. This allowed James to hear how his actions affected others without violating the other student’s boundaries or forcing contact.

Throughout the process, there were moments where frustration naturally emerged. There were moments where it would have been easy to say:

“Why don’t you get it?”

But statements like that, while emotionally understandable, can quickly become shaming rather than corrective. And for students already struggling with emotional regulation, identity development, trauma, or social cognition, shame can become psychologically destabilizing.

Case Study #2: “Albert” — Firm Boundaries Without Personal Attacks

Another student, “Albert,” displayed similarly concerning boundary difficulties.

Albert twice went to the home of a female staff member and asked whether he could have a romantic relationship with her. Even after clear conversations about appropriateness and professional boundaries, he continued struggling to regulate his attachment and behavior.

Importantly, staff did not respond by humiliating him.

No one said:

• “What is wrong with you?”

• “That’s disgusting.”

• “You’re acting like a predator.”
  

Instead, the response remained calm, factual, direct, and firm.

Albert was repeatedly told:

• students and staff members cannot have relationships,

• the behavior was inappropriate,

• the staff member’s home was off-limits,

• and boundaries had to be respected immediately and consistently.
  

The conversations were not sugarcoated. The seriousness of the behavior was communicated clearly. But the intervention focused on behavior and safety — not character assassination. This distinction is critical. Albert also had a history of emotional dysregulation and violent outbursts. In situations like this, shame-based approaches can become dangerous. Students who already struggle with self-regulation may respond to humiliation with:

• aggression,

• self-harm,

• obsessive rumination,

• emotional shutdown,

• revenge fantasies,

• or worsening behavioral escalation.
  

The staff member involved was highly skilled at maintaining firm, unwavering boundaries while avoiding emotionally reactive responses. That balance helped preserve safety while also reducing escalation.

The Difference Between Accountability and Shame

Many educators fear that avoiding shame means “letting students off the hook.”

It does not.

Students absolutely need:

• consequences,

• boundaries,

• direct feedback,

• supervision,

• restorative work,

• and accountability.

But accountability says:

“Your behavior was unsafe, inappropriate, or harmful.”

Shame says:

“You are broken, disgusting, or fundamentally bad.”

That difference changes everything.

Students who already struggle with social understanding or emotional regulation often interpret criticism globally. They do not hear:

“This behavior needs to change.”

They hear:

“I am hated.”

What Research Says About Shame in Education

Research increasingly shows that shame-based educational approaches can have significant negative consequences.

Studies have found that shame can:

• reduce self-regulation,

• lower academic engagement,

• increase withdrawal behaviors,

• intensify emotional dysregulation,

• contribute to aggression,

• and worsen mental health outcomes.
  

Research also shows that students experiencing shame often become:

• secretive,

• isolated,

• avoidant,

• or reactive toward authority figures.

Some studies have connected unresolved shame with aggressive externalizing behaviors and violence escalation in vulnerable individuals.

Trauma-informed educational literature further emphasizes that punitive or humiliating disciplinary responses can retraumatize students and intensify behavioral crises rather than resolve them.

Importantly, research suggests that students learn more effectively when correction occurs inside psychologically safe relationships rather than environments dominated by humiliation or fear.

Students with Disabilities May Process Shame Differently

Students with autism, emotional disabilities, trauma histories, attachment difficulties, or cognitive delays may experience shame in amplified or distorted ways.

Some students:

• perseverate on criticism,

• internalize negative identities,

• struggle to separate behavior from self-worth,

• or become fixated on repairing relationships that cannot currently be repaired.
  

Others may become explosive when they feel embarrassed or rejected. This does not excuse harmful behavior. But it does mean educators must be intentional about how correction is delivered.

What Educators Can Do Instead

When addressing serious boundary violations, educators should strive to:

1. Stay factual

Describe behaviors concretely and specifically.

Instead of:

“You’re being creepy.”

Say:

“You touched her face after she did not want physical contact.”

2. Separate behavior from identity

Correct actions without defining the student as permanently bad.

3. Be firm and repetitive about boundaries

Students struggling with social understanding often require repeated, concrete explanations.

4. Avoid emotionally loaded public confrontations

Public humiliation often escalates dysregulation rather than insight.

5. Use restorative and reflective practices

Students benefit from structured opportunities to:

• reflect,

• process impact,

• explore alternatives,

• and build emotional understanding.
  

6. Recognize that understanding may develop slowly

Some students intellectually understand rules long before they emotionally grasp why those rules exist.

Educators are sometimes asked to do extraordinarily difficult emotional work :to protect vulnerable students, maintain safety, hold students accountable, and still preserve the dignity of the student causing harm. That balance is not softness. It is professionalism.

Students with serious boundary issues must be redirected, supervised, and held accountable. But shame should never become the intervention itself.

Because when educators use humiliation to gain compliance, they may achieve temporary obedience while quietly deepening confusion, dysregulation, self-hatred, or aggression underneath the surface.

The ultimate goal is not simply to stop a behavior in the moment. The goal is to help students develop the internal understanding, emotional regulation, and relational skills necessary to function safely and respectfully long after they leave school.

Teacher Worksheet_ Why Shame Should Not Be Used to Gain Compliance from Students_ A Trauma.

Download • 148KB

Bibliography

Brunzell, T., Stokes, H., & Waters, L. (2016). Trauma-informed positive education: Using positive psychology to strengthen vulnerable students. Contemporary School Psychology, 20(1), 63–83. https://www.edutopia.org/article/culturally-responsive-trauma-informed-teaching-strategies/

Harper, F. W. K., & Arias, I. (2004). The role of shame in predicting adult anger and depressive symptoms among victims of child psychological maltreatment. Journal of Family Violence, 19(6), 367–375. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1828211/

Innovative Schools Summit. (n.d.). Trauma-informed teaching strategies to support student well-being. https://innovativeschoolssummit.com/blog/trauma-informed-teaching-strategies-to-support-student-well-being/

Kim, S., Thibodeau, R., & Jorgensen, R. S. (2011). Shame, guilt, and aggressive behavior: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 137(1), 68–96. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1359178919302046

EBSCO Information Services. (n.d.). Trauma-informed schools. EBSCO Research Starters. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/education/trauma-informed-school

Seattle Pacific University. (2020). The relationship between shame, withdrawal, and aggression in adolescents [PDF]. Digital Commons @ SPU. https://digitalcommons.spu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1068&context=cpy_etd