This document summarizes a study examining the relationship between shame, stigma, and children's learning outcomes in four low- and middle-income countries. The study found that poverty, parental education levels, and feelings of inclusion were associated with children reporting higher levels of shame at age 12. It also found evidence that earlier feelings of shame at age 12 were linked to lower performance on math, vocabulary, and reading/writing tests at ages 12 and 15. This suggests shame may independently impact learning and human capital development, with implications for policies aiming to promote more inclusive systems and social mobility.

1. Does shame and stigma undermine children’s
learning? Evidence from four low- and middle-
income countries
July 2015
Paul Dornan and Maria Jose Ogando Portela,
paul.dornan@qeh.ox.ac.uk

2. Background
1. Young Lives is a longitudinal study of child poverty
2. The social protection floor and decent work agendas and
widened interest in multidimensional poverty in SDGs
3. Recent policy attention to: (a) human capital development, (b)
inequalities, (c) behaviour and decision making
-> poverty induced shame important to these debates. If
shame affects how children and families engage in
communities and/or with policies, it will affect life chances
4. Aim: examine the following questions quantitatively using multi-
country data:
(a). What is associated with children’s reported feelings of shame
and stigma?
(b). How is earlier shame associated with later learning?

3. Study countries
1. One low-income country (Ethiopia), two lower-middle-
income countries (Vietnam and India), and one upper-
middle-income country (Peru)
2. Experiences of relatively fast economic growth with falling
absolute poverty rates in decade after 2000 but ongoing
vulnerability
3. Increased basic services and scope of public interventions
and policy innovation: social protection (PSNP, Juntos,
MGNREGA, health insurance)
4. Ongoing marginalisation (poverty and ethnicity/ caste) and
questions about inclusivity of growth, effectiveness of
public services and growing privatisation in schooling in
some countries

4. AGES: 1 5 8 12 15
YOUNGERCOHORT
Following 2,000 children
OLDERCOHORT
Following 1,000 children
AGES: 8 12 15 19 22
Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 5
2002 2006 2009 2013 2016
Young Lives cohort study
Same age children at
different time points
Qualitative nested sample
1 2 3 4
Linked
school surveys

5. Advantages and limitations of the data for
this question
Advantages
1. Longitudinal approach
2. Detailed multicounty
data
3. Qualitative and
quantitative data
4. Data collected directly
from children as well
as caregivers
Limitations
1. Reliant on available
questions
2. Techniques identify
underlying associations, but
not causal analysis
3. Analysis not tied to specific
programmes
4. Sentinel site, not national
random sampling

6. Analytic approach
Poor children feel shy in front of their friends because
they don’t wear clothes and shoes the same as them. They
dislike interacting with rich children. They hate their
school and their living areas
Quote from a focus group of girls in Addis Ababa aged 16-
17
Quantitative approach:
1. Define/ operationalize ‘shame’
2. Identify what was associated with shame at 12 years
3. Identify associations between shame at 12 years, and
learning indicators at 12 years and at 15 years

7. Measure
of shame
Housing: 'I feel proud to show my friends or other
visitors where I live’
Clothing: 'I am ashamed of my clothes‘
School: 'I am often embarrassed because I do not have
the right books, pencils and other equipment for school'
Work: 'The job I do makes me feel proud'
Index 8 questions which measure children’s feelings in
domains of their lives. Questions are indirectly related to
poverty
1. Measuring ‘shame’ at 12 years of age

8. 0
20406080
100%
(poorest) 2 3 4 (least poor)
Ethiopia
0
20406080
100%
(poorest) 2 3 4 (least poor)
Andhra Pradesh
0
20406080
100%
(poorest) 2 3 4 (least poor)
Peru
0
20406080
100%
(poorest) 2 3 4 (least poor)
Vietnam
Poor children more likely to feel shame
2. Which children report shame at 12 years old?
Simple descriptive analysis:
-> Poverty and
parental education level
both associated with shame.
Nationally specific patterns
by location, ethnicity and
gender.
Regression results:
-> Consumption level and
parental education remain
important.
-> In an extended model,
feelings of inclusion and
caregiver’s higher feelings of
shame also important.

9. 3. How was earlier shame associated with
learning? – approach
• Examine associations between shame reported at 12 years
and learning (and related) outcomes at 12 and whether
associations persist at 15 years.
• At 15 years we take account also of prior achievement
levels and so measure change after 12 and before 15 years
• Multivariate analysis account for key household and child
circumstances, including the index of shame

10. 3. How was earlier shame associated with
learning? – findings
On top of other household and child circumstances, including
poverty:
-> At 12 years
• Evidence linking shame with lower maths, vocabulary, and
reading/writing simple sentence performance in three
countries (not Vietnam), significant in half the models tested.
-> By 15 years
• Shame at 12 years associated with lower maths, vocabulary by
15 years. Also with school exit in Andhra Pradesh (only), again
significant in half the models tested.
• When controlling for prior scores, disadvantage persists–
suggesting change between 12 and 15 years
• Shame felt at 12 years predicts shame felt at 15 years in two
countries, but strongly only in one (Peru), suggesting potential
for change

11. Implications
Findings:
• Household expenditure and parental education were each
independently associated with feelings of shame at age 12. It is likely
that feelings of inclusion are also important. There is also an
association between parental and child feelings of shame.
• Examining associations between shame and learning indicators,
suggests evidence shame was associated with independent effects on
learning with some evidence from each country, and across different
measures.
Implications:
1. Shame/ stigma cause indignity. Contribution of this evidence is to
highlight potential impacts on human capital development also.
Consistent with more inclusive systems producing better human
development
2. Specifically shame/stigma likely to be one way undermining social
mobility
3. Building knowledge about mechanisms linking shame and human
development – in research and in policy evaluations

12. Thank you