Define "guilt trip?"

[Jenny in Florida]

I'm sure this is one of those things that we all think we know when we hear it, but it's a source of contention in my house. So, I figured I'd ask here.

 

How would you define "guilt trip?"

 

In my head, someone who is "guilt tripping" another person is purposely phrasing an expression of his or her feelings in a way that is designed to induce a feeling of guilt or remorse.

 

This is different, for me, from a person expressing his or her feelings in an honest way, even if the person expressing the feelings suspects that the person hearing that expression may feel remorse.

 

The first is an attempt to manipulate, while the second is intended as communication.

 

Unless I have reason to believe that the person is intentionally presenting and/or phrasing that expression in a way that is designed to manipulate me unfairly into feeling guilt, it's not a guilt trip. 

 

From my perspective, if someone tells me how my actions made that person feel and I feel badly about it, that's my own conscience kicking in and doing what it's designed to do. It's my job to take that feeling on board and decide how to deal with it. If I feel it's justified, I can apologize or try to make amends or explain my own position, and I can try to remember in the future how my actions affected that person and try to do a better job.

 

Am I wrong?

 

Unless I have reason to believe that the person is intentionally presenting and/or phrasing that expression in a way that is designed to manipulate me unfairly into feeling guilt, it's not a guilt trip. 

[Suzanne in ABQ]

I agree exactly, except you state it much more clearly than I would.  Guilt trip definitely involves manipulation.

 

 

 

Edited July 4, 2016 by Suzanne in ABQ

[Crimson Wife]

Just because something is true does NOT mean it should be expressed. Yes, people should be honest but people should also be considerate of others' feelings. If you can't say something nice, often it's best to say nothing at all.

 

There's a great Facebook meme that reads:

 

T- is it true?

H- is it helpful?

I- is it inspiring?

N- is it necessary?

K- is it kind?

 

The "true" part does not cancel out the other 4 considerations.

[Crimson Wife]

This is a big bone of contention between the Myers-Briggs "T" vs. "F" personalities in my extended family.

[Jenny in Florida]

Just because something is true does NOT mean it should be expressed. Yes, people should be honest but people should also be considerate of others' feelings. If you can't say something nice, often it's best to say nothing at all.

 

There's a great Facebook meme that reads:

 

T- is it true?

H- is it helpful?

I- is it inspiring?

N- is it necessary?

K- is it kind?

 

The "true" part does not cancel out the other 4 considerations.

.

I think we have to also define "helpful" and "necessary," though.

 

To the person having the feelings, it may well be necessary and helpful to express them. To a person who can accept hearing those feelings in the spirit I explained above, it may be helpful to understand how his or her actions affect those around them. And to nurture a relationship that involves mutual trust and consideration, it may well be necessary for each person to be aware of the feelings of the other.

 

Looking at it your way, a person who feels legitimately hurt or wronged shouldn't say anything because it might hurt the other person, which feels pretty one-sided and non-productive to me. I fail to see how that nurtures any kind of meaningful relationship.

[Janie Grace]

I agree with your definitions. They are very well put. My only addition would be that a guilt trip is a monologue, while expressing one's feelings is (ideally) a conversation (with opportunities for the listener to express understanding or not, ask questions, etc).

[MaeFlowers]

A guilt trip can also be repeating what is true over and over again. You should be able to express your feelings, just not over and over again.

(I've known people who do this.)

[gardenmom5]

you expressed the difference well, however . . . .

 

My grandmother would deny until the cows came home that she was laying a guilt trip and being manipulative.  (she would then swoon onto her chaise - if she had a chaise.) 

 

iow: just because someone might think in their mind they are "only" expressing how they feel, doesn't mean they either (or both) are using words with the person to whom they are speaking that are interpreted as manipulative/ does not have a relationship where honesty is conducive to open communication.

 

if the person doing the "expressing" is having their words interpreted as manipulation (and that SINCERELY is not their intention) - they need to reexamine *how* they are expressing their thoughts.

 

eta: iow: - she would *say* she wasn't being manipulative - but you'd better believe her intention  was manipulative to get you to do what she wanted you to do.

Edited July 3, 2016 by gardenmom5

[lllll]

nm

Edited July 9, 2016 by ~ d9n

[gardenmom5]

For years, I had ti easy--if the words came out of my mil's mouth, it was intended to induce a guilt trip! The iconic Jewish mother had NOTHING on that woman!

 

I'll just sit here in the dark . . . . .

 

that was my grandmother.

[poppy]

Sometimes it is both a and b. An honest expression but with a twinge of pleasure at twisting the knife/

[regentrude]

T- is it true?

H- is it helpful?

I- is it inspiring?

N- is it necessary?

K- is it kind?

 

The "true" part does not cancel out the other 4 considerations.

 

But the "necessary" trumps the other four.

[nd293]

I like the THINK before you speak acronym (in fact it's a poster in our study and for a long time was the screensaver on my phone and used with the children almost daily), I also think the ideas of a guilt trip as a monologue that gets repeated are helpful. If someone is accusing you of laying on a guilt trip, you're definitely not involved in a conversation and what you said was neither Helpful nor Necessary (if they are feeling remorse they probably already knew they were in the wrong, if not, they're now focused on resentment). I don't think we need to express every hurt or try to 'teach' others when we're hurt. If someone's behaviour was out of line I'll call them on it because it objectively wasn't OK, rather than because of how it made me feel. But I agree, this is probably very much a personality issue.

[Crimson Wife]

.

I think we have to also define "helpful" and "necessary," though.

 

To the person having the feelings, it may well be necessary and helpful to express them. To a person who can accept hearing those feelings in the spirit I explained above, it may be helpful to understand how his or her actions affect those around them. And to nurture a relationship that involves mutual trust and consideration, it may well be necessary for each person to be aware of the feelings of the other.

 

Looking at it your way, a person who feels legitimately hurt or wronged shouldn't say anything because it might hurt the other person, which feels pretty one-sided and non-productive to me. I fail to see how that nurtures any kind of meaningful relationship.

 

Venting can be important, but it doesn't have to be done to the person who caused the upset. It could be written down in a journal, confided to a close friend/relative, discussed with a mental health professional and/or spiritual advisor, etc. I don't see how making the other person feel awful about himself/herself is nurturing the relationship.

 

There is also a difference between gently suggesting how things could be done differently in the future and complaining about something that cannot be changed.

[Crimson Wife]

But the "necessary" trumps the other four.

 

Sometimes. But making someone whom you care about feel bad is generally not necessary. Even when there is something that needs to change, there are ways to frame that in a positive manner. That old saying about catching more flies with honey than vinegar...

[Jenny in Florida]

If someone is accusing you of laying on a guilt trip, you're definitely not involved in a conversation and what you said was neither Helpful nor Necessary 

 

Or, that person is attempting to manipulate the speaker into shutting down in order to avoid having to admit (to him/herself) any responsibility.

[Jenny in Florida]

Venting can be important, but it doesn't have to be done to the person who caused the upset. It could be written down in a journal, confided to a close friend/relative, discussed with a mental health professional and/or spiritual advisor, etc. I don't see how making the other person feel awful about himself/herself is nurturing the relationship.

 

There is also a difference between gently suggesting how things could be done differently in the future and complaining about something that cannot be changed.

 

Please notice that I did not suggest the speaker was "venting." Nor did I suggest the speaker was "making the other person feel" anything at all. In our hypothetical situation, one person has engaged in a series of behaviors -- many of which have been called out and discussed previously -- that have hurt the feelings of the other person. The second person is trying to explain how the first person's actions have affected him/her and is being told, essentially, to "quit guilt tripping" the first person.

 

It seems to the speaker that the second person is using the "guilt trip" accusation as a way to avoid meaningful discussion of the underlying issues.

 

Writing feelings in a journal or venting to a friend do absolutely nothing to open dialogue about how to change the tone of the interactions between these two people.

Edited July 4, 2016 by Jenny in Florida

[Jenny in Florida]

Sometimes. But making someone whom you care about feel bad is generally not necessary. Even when there is something that needs to change, there are ways to frame that in a positive manner. That old saying about catching more flies with honey than vinegar...

 

I just want to make sure I understand your position. As I read your comments, you seem to be suggesting that one person should expect to be able to behave in a way that is hurtful to another person and not be called out on it or have to endure being told that he/she hurt another person's feelings, because listening to the person who feels hurt express his/her feelings might make the person "feel bad."

 

This person, apparently, should not be expected to bear any sense of responsibility for how his/her actions affected the other person.

 

However, the person who feels hurt does have a responsibility not to injure the feelings of the person who took the hurtful actions in the first place.

 

Is that more or less correct?

[nd293]

Or, that person is attempting to manipulate the speaker into shutting down in order to avoid having to admit (to him/herself) any responsibility.

While I think there's two sides to this and Crimson Wife and I seem to have the opposite approach go you, it's definitely not that I disagree with you speaking up. But I think that once someone is accusing you of a guilt trip they're not listening to you. That quite possibly is to avoid responsibility. It might be that they're just not programmed to deal with difficult emotions. I'm not sure that bringing feelings in to it is the best way to express your position in this case. Would there be a more objective way to express yourself with this person, focusing on actions and results rather than feelings?

[gardenmom5]

Please notice that I did not suggest the speaker was "venting." Nor did I suggest the speaker was "making the other person feel" anything at all. In our hypothetical situation, one person has engaged in a series of behaviors -- many of which have been called out and discussed previously -- that have hurt the feelings of the other person. The second person is trying to explain how the first person's actions have affected him/her and is being told, essentially, to "quit guilt tripping" the first person.

 

It seems to the speaker that the second person is using the "guilt trip" accusation as a way to avoid meaningful discussion of the underlying issues.

 

Writing feelings in a journal or venting to a friend do absolutely nothing to open dialogue about how to change the tone of the interactions between these two people.

 

in the case described, it could sound like person b is accusing person a to stop "guilt-tripping" them becasue they've screwed up, and don't like being called on it.

[Jenny in Florida]

While I think there's two sides to this and Crimson Wife and I seem to have the opposite approach go you, it's definitely not that I disagree with you speaking up. But I think that once someone is accusing you of a guilt trip they're not listening to you. That quite possibly is to avoid responsibility. It might be that they're just not programmed to deal with difficult emotions. I'm not sure that bringing feelings in to it is the best way to express your position in this case. Would there be a more objective way to express yourself with this person, focusing on actions and results rather than feelings?

 

I actually have not indicated which -- if either -- of the two people I am in this scenario.

 

And I don't want this to spin out into a larger discussion, because I'm really focused on the question of defining what it means to "guilt trip" someone and whether the mere accusation of "guilt trip" should be enough to shut down discussion.

[kewb]

A guilt trip is passive aggressive manipulation. It's only purpose is to make someone feel bad about a choice and do what you want.

Edited July 4, 2016 by kewb

[Guest]

It's the manipulative thing. It is right and appropriate that a person learning they behaved hurtfully should feel guilty, but that is not the same as someone trying to induce guilt in a manipulative way.

 

From a real-life situation:

Guilt-tripping: "If YOU don't take Fluffy while we go on vacation then we will have no option but to get rid of Fluffy."

Not guilt-tripping, "i just don't know what we can do to take care of Fluffy if you aren't available. Do you know anyone who can do it very inexpensively? With her medications, it's too expensive to take her to the kennel."

 

From a true story. (The guilt-trip version.)

[Another Lynn]

It's the manipulative thing. It is right and appropriate that a person learning they behaved hurtfully should feel guilty, but that is not the same as someone trying to induce guilt in a manipulative way.

 

From a real-life situation:

Guilt-tripping: "If YOU don't take Fluffy while we go on vacation then we will have no option but to get rid of Fluffy."

Not guilt-tripping, "i just don't know what we can do to take care of Fluffy if you aren't available. Do you know anyone who can do it very inexpensively? With her medications, it's too expensive to take her to the kennel."

 

From a true story. (The guilt-trip version.)

 

Nice example!  So, perhaps guilt-trip is related to whose responsibility the issue is.  In the guilt tripping line above, the vacationing person is making Fluffy (and her survival, lol) someone else's responsibility.  In the not guilt-tripping dialogue, the person realizes Fluffy is their own responsibility and is asking for help from that perspective.  

 

In the example of a behavior which hurts someone's feelings, the accusation of guilt tripping allows the person to avoid responsibility for his/her behavior and its result (whether intended or not).  Maybe counseling would help with navigating the issue?

[Anne in CA]

The "guilt tripper" may not be a narcissist, but as a couple of previous posters mentioned, they may want meaningful dialogue about hurtful behavior and it may be seen as guilt tripping to someone who isn't ready or willing for deep personal change. Anyone who needs to be forgiven for the same things over and over and accuses the person they have hurt of guilt tripping when they try to talk is desperate to avoid change or make any uncomfortable personal growth. Many, many people go to the grave without changing at all, just revisiting the same behaviors on others. They use the "you haven't forgiven me" as a kind of guilt trip themselves. We had a pastor like this and I've seen it with friends who married abusers. The abuser makes someone prove they have forgiven them, rather than change. They insist on buying expensive things on credit with their abused spouse, for instance, right after a bad abusive episode. The abused spouse must prove they trust and have forgiven the abuser by buying a new car/ boat and signing on the dotted line.

[zoobie]

It's the manipulative thing. It is right and appropriate that a person learning they behaved hurtfully should feel guilty, but that is not the same as someone trying to induce guilt in a manipulative way.

 

From a real-life situation:

Guilt-tripping: "If YOU don't take Fluffy while we go on vacation then we will have no option but to get rid of Fluffy."

Not guilt-tripping, "i just don't know what we can do to take care of Fluffy if you aren't available. Do you know anyone who can do it very inexpensively? With her medications, it's too expensive to take her to the kennel."

 

From a true story. (The guilt-trip version.)

 

I think your second example is also guilt-tripping. The person is still trying to shift responsibility onto you and manipulate your feelings into getting you to do something you don't want to do. Fluffy isn't your pet, and she isn't your problem. It's more sophisticated guilt-tripping, and possibly harder to refuse. The first is so egregious, it would be easier to laugh and say no. Not-guilt tripping would be: "Are you interested in pet-sitting Fluffy the second week of August? No, okay, thank you. Do you know of anyone else who might be interested? Okay, thank you. Please let me know if you think of someone." 

 

In the context of a close relationship (marriage or similar), people do need to do things they don't enjoy on occasion for the sake of the relationship. I'd much rather my DH be up-front and say, "I know you hate going to the movies, but I really want to see XYZ. Would you come with me if I arrange the babysitter?" than for him to mope around, passive-aggressively read me reviews and spoilers, and rewind commercials while sighing. (True story, lol.)

[Guest]

I think your second example is also guilt-tripping. The person is still trying to shift responsibility onto you and manipulate your feelings into getting you to do something you don't want to do. Fluffy isn't your pet, and she isn't your problem. It's more sophisticated guilt-tripping, and possibly harder to refuse. The first is so egregious, it would be easier to laugh and say no. Not-guilt tripping would be: "Are you interested in pet-sitting Fluffy the second week of August? No, okay, thank you. Do you know of anyone else who might be interested? Okay, thank you. Please let me know if you think of someone."

 

In the context of a close relationship (marriage or similar), people do need to do things they don't enjoy on occasion for the sake of the relationship. I'd much rather my DH be up-front and say, "I know you hate going to the movies, but I really want to see XYZ. Would you come with me if I arrange the babysitter?" than for him to mope around, passive-aggressively read me reviews and spoilers, and rewind commercials while sighing. (True story, lol.)

Well, I can see where you would say this, but in the context of my example, the asker was someone with whom I have a close relationship, and the asker is not the most resourceful of people. So it would have been not especially guilt-trippy if the person had asked me if I knew a way to solve the problem besides watching the dog myself. But the guilt-tripper framed it as though keeping the dog with me was the only option besides giving up the dog, which is obviously completely preposterous. The asker notoriously plans poorly and with poor planning comes a reduction in options the closer one gets to the decision day. So, with few options, the asker attempted to shame me i to watching the dog.

[zoobie]

Well, I can see where you would say this, but in the context of my example, the asker was someone with whom I have a close relationship, and the asker is not the most resourceful of people. So it would have been not especially guilt-trippy if the person had asked me if I knew a way to solve the problem besides watching the dog myself. But the guilt-tripper framed it as though keeping the dog with me was the only option besides giving up the dog, which is obviously completely preposterous. The asker notoriously plans poorly and with poor planning comes a reduction in options the closer one gets to the decision day. So, with few options, the asker attempted to shame me i to watching the dog.

 

My mother would use B. Has in fact. No, I didn't drive 45 minutes each way with a newborn who HATED the car to feed her cats and scoop their litter box on a daily basis. ;) 

 

We should have crazy relative bingo on the boards.