James Fitzgerald Therapy PLLC

Contempt is an emotion characterized by a profound sense of disrespect and disdain for another person, group, or idea. When someone experiences contempt, they often see the target of their contempt as inferior, unworthy, or morally flawed. Psychologically, contempt can be understood as having both cognitive and emotional elements: the cognitive aspect involves judgment or evaluation of another as beneath one’s standards, while the emotional aspect manifests as a strong feeling of scorn or repulsion. This attitude frequently arises in contexts of perceived wrongdoing, value clashes, or repeated disappointment, where an individual feels morally or intellectually superior.

Contempt can appear in personal relationships, work environments, and larger social or political arenas. For instance, when individuals repeatedly feel dismissed or harmed by another’s choices, they may develop contempt instead of anger or sadness. Unlike anger, which might still allow for communication and repair, contempt often signals a deeper divide, as it carries a mocking tone that pushes the person into a position of perceived superiority. Over time, contempt can corrode empathy and compassion, making conflict resolution extremely difficult. Research on marital and relationship dynamics, such as that conducted by John Gottman, has shown that contempt is a strong predictor of ongoing conflict and eventual relationship breakdown. This is because contempt stifles the capacity for individuals to communicate respectfully or offer genuine regard toward one another.

Although contempt can sometimes seem justified when directed at harmful or oppressive ideas and actions, it can still be toxic to one’s emotional well-being and to the social fabric of communities. When someone consistently harbors contempt, they risk creating polarized relationships and environments. The inclination to devalue or dehumanize those who are its targets can inhibit meaningful dialogue and perpetuate cycles of resentment. From a more progressive, community-minded perspective, this outcome runs counter to the goal of cooperative engagement and equitable solutions, especially in contexts where solidarity and respectful discourse are required for social progress.

Contempt often has physiological and behavioral signs that include sneering facial expressions, eye rolling, sarcastic remarks, and body language demonstrating dismissal or mockery. Paul Ekman, a noted psychologist in the field of emotion research, identified contempt as one of the emotional expressions recognizable across cultures. This suggests that contempt holds a certain universality, though cultures may influence how individuals learn to display or suppress it. A person showing contempt may speak in a condescending manner or openly ridicule others, sometimes as a defense mechanism to preserve a sense of personal righteousness or power.

To cope with or manage contempt, some therapeutic approaches encourage individuals to explore underlying emotions, such as fear, shame, or unresolved anger, which may fuel this seemingly more “controlled” expression of scorn. By developing self-awareness and empathy, a person experiencing contempt can learn to express dissatisfaction or moral disagreement in more constructive ways. Therapy can aid in enhancing communication skills, clarifying moral boundaries, and fostering understanding of different perspectives. This does not mean that one has to accept or excuse behavior they perceive as harmful; rather, it indicates that transforming contempt into clear and assertive communication can improve the likelihood of respectful conflict resolution, better emotional health, and stronger interpersonal or community connections.

An Argument for Basic Emotions

In his 1992 article, “An Argument for Basic Emotions,” published in Cognition & Emotion, Paul Ekman presents a comprehensive case for the universality of certain core emotional states, which he terms “basic emotions.” Drawing from his extensive cross-cultural research, Ekman maintains that emotions such as anger, fear, disgust, sadness, happiness, and surprise share distinctive facial expressions observable across diverse societies. He points out that even individuals who are blind from birth display comparable facial reactions, illustrating that these expressions are not solely products of social learning. Instead, they appear to be rooted in evolved biological mechanisms that prepare an individual to handle fundamental survival demands.

Ekman argues that each basic emotion triggers characteristic physiological and behavioral patterns, including shifts in heart rate or muscle tension and unique facial muscle configurations that signal the emotional state to others. These patterns help organize response tendencies in scenarios such as threat (fear), violation of boundaries (anger), or spoiled food (disgust). He also suggests that each of these emotions can be elicited automatically and relatively quickly, due to specialized neural circuitry responsive to cues in the environment. This automaticity, combined with the cross-cultural consistency in facial expressions, forms a key component of his claim that basic emotions reflect an underlying biological core.

Additionally, Ekman examines competing theories in the field of emotion research—such as constructionist perspectives that see emotions as heavily shaped by language and culture. Although he acknowledges that cultural and social contexts do influence how emotions are labeled, understood, and displayed, he contends that universal emotional prototypes exist at the biological level. These prototypes then take on different nuances depending on specific cultural norms and individual learning histories. Ultimately, Ekman posits that recognizing universal emotional expressions can serve as a foundation for improving cross-cultural communication and deepening the scientific understanding of human affect.

The Roles of Conflict Engagement…

John Gottman’s 1993 study, “The Roles of Conflict Engagement, Escalation, and Avoidance in Marital Interaction: A Longitudinal View of Five Types of Couples,” published in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, examines how different patterns of conflict behavior in married couples can shape the future of their relationships. Gottman is well-known for pioneering research on marital stability, notably through detailed observations of couples’ interactions in both laboratory and real-life settings. He uses physiological measurements (like heart rate), behavioral coding of interactions, and self-report data to analyze how partners engage in conflict.

In this particular study, Gottman identifies and tracks five different “types” or patterns of couples over time:

1. Validating Couples.
2. Volatile Couples.
3. Conflict-Avoidant Couples.
4. Hostile Couples.
5. Hostile-Detached Couples.

Though each type exhibits certain characteristic ways of expressing and managing disagreement, the study pays special attention to how conflict engagement (i.e., willingness to address issues directly), escalation (i.e., intensifying negativity such as defensiveness or contempt), and avoidance (i.e., withdrawing or sidestepping conflict) can predict whether a couple’s relationship will remain stable or deteriorate.

One of Gottman’s central findings is that it is not the mere presence of conflict that undermines marital stability, but rather the manner in which conflict is handled. Couples who engage respectfully, maintain some level of positivity, and regulate the intensity of negative emotions tend to fare better over time. Alternatively, couples who allow conflicts to escalate unchecked or who chronically avoid addressing problems often experience a decline in marital satisfaction and risk eventual separation or divorce. Specifically, Gottman highlights that expressions of contempt—often signified by mocking, sneering, or persistent belittling—are among the most corrosive behaviors. This destructive pattern is linked with heightened physiological arousal, a breakdown in communication, and the erosion of mutual respect.

By conducting a longitudinal study, Gottman adds weight to the notion that how couples handle conflict early in the marriage sets a foundation for long-term patterns. Over years of observation, he finds that patterns of conflict management (and mismanagement) tend to become more entrenched unless addressed. Thus, in therapeutic or counseling contexts, Gottman’s work underscores the importance of teaching couples to recognize negative feedback loops, reduce contempt and defensiveness, and replace them with skills like active listening, self-soothing, and empathy. These strategies can help couples interrupt destructive cycles and reframe disagreements as opportunities for collaborative problem-solving, rather than events that threaten the integrity of the relationship.

Self Conscious Emotions

In their 1995 edited volume, Self-Conscious Emotions: The Psychology of Shame, Guilt, Embarrassment, and Pride, June Price Tangney and Kurt W. Fischer bring together a range of theoretical and empirical perspectives on the nature and functions of these uniquely human emotions. Although each self-conscious emotion—shame, guilt, embarrassment, and pride—shares certain qualities (such as their reliance on self-reflection, perceived social standards, and concern for one’s own image), the authors carefully distinguish the particular triggers, subjective experiences, and behavioral outcomes associated with each. For instance, they note that shame often involves a more global negative evaluation of the self, while guilt is more focused on specific behaviors. Pride, conversely, can serve as both a motivating force for personal achievement and a social marker for group recognition, albeit with the risk of tipping into arrogance.

Across multiple chapters, contributors draw from developmental, social, and cross-cultural research to illustrate how socialization processes and cultural norms influence the ways in which people experience and display self-conscious emotions. Readers learn, for example, that while universal elements of shame and guilt can be found in many cultures, the expressions and moral interpretations of these feelings can vary widely based on societal values. By highlighting the significance of self-conscious emotions in moral reasoning, identity formation, and social bonding, Tangney and Fischer underscore their importance in shaping not only individual well-being, but also broader interpersonal and cultural dynamics.

What is the difference between contempt and resentment?

Contempt and resentment are both negative emotions that can strain relationships and personal well-being, but they arise from different psychological processes and manifest in distinct ways. While contempt often involves a sense of moral or intellectual superiority—seeing another person or group as beneath one’s standards—resentment centers on perceived personal injury, unfairness, or injustice. Understanding these differences can clarify how each emotion influences behavior and interpersonal dynamics.

Contempt is commonly linked with scorn, disdain, and a feeling that the other person is fundamentally flawed or inferior. It generally emerges when someone repeatedly judges another’s character or actions as morally reprehensible or worthless. This attitude tends to erode empathy and respect. Researchers such as John Gottman (1993) identify contempt as one of the most corrosive emotions in intimate relationships, with contemptuous behaviors (such as eye-rolling, sneering, or ridiculing) acting as strong predictors of relational dissatisfaction and potential breakdown. Moreover, contempt can create a psychological distance that is hard to bridge, as it positions the individual holding contempt in a place of perceived superiority and the target as undeserving of equal regard or serious engagement.

Resentment, on the other hand, arises from a more specific sense of being wronged or treated unfairly. It often involves sustained bitterness about an incident (or pattern of incidents) that a person interprets as unjust or injurious. Rather than focusing on the “inferiority” of another, resentment reflects a feeling of personal hurt or anger at having been violated, overlooked, or mistreated. Philosophers and psychologists have long noted that resentment can be fueled by a belief that one deserves better treatment than one has received. In some contexts, resentment can lead to a demand for recognition or compensation, as it stems from the sense that the other party owes something—whether an apology, changed behavior, or restitution.

While contempt can be “cold” and dismissive, resentment is often “hot” and ruminative: the resentful individual may replay injustices in their mind, generating continued anger or frustration. This cycle can produce a persistent emotional burden that impedes reconciliation or closure. Contempt, in contrast, may develop when repeated or prolonged feelings of disappointment, disdain, or moral outrage crystallize into disdain for the person as a whole rather than mere anger about a specific behavior.

One way to distinguish these emotions is by examining their usual objects and outcomes:

1. Object of Emotion: Contempt targets the perceived character or fundamental worth of another; resentment centers on a specific wrongdoing or pattern of unfair treatment.
2. Power Dynamic: Contempt often emerges from a place of perceived moral high ground, while resentment can be felt from a position of perceived powerlessness or victimization.
3. Emotional Experience: Contempt may feel dismissive and morally judgmental; resentment is more personal, centered on a feeling of having been wronged, and can be accompanied by anger and frustration.
4. Behavioral Expressions: Contempt commonly shows up in facial expressions (sneering, curling of the lip), sarcastic remarks, and body language that signals inferiority of the target. Resentment might lead to passive-aggressive actions, withdrawal, or a simmering hostility that emerges in arguments.

From a clinical or therapeutic perspective, both contempt and resentment can erode trust and communication. A counselor working with clients exhibiting contempt may help them recognize their derogatory attitudes and explore the underlying emotions—such as hurt, fear, or shame—that might be fueling that sense of superiority. Alternatively, a person burdened by resentment can benefit from identifying the beliefs that sustain their bitterness and learning assertive communication skills to address conflicts directly or seek restitution in a way that fosters resolution rather than persistent anger. Drawing from approaches grounded in compassion and empathy—common themes in interpersonal therapy and many progressive or humanistic theories—can help individuals reframe these negative emotions, find healthier ways to express disagreements, and move toward repair or boundary-setting.

Recognizing whether one feels contempt or resentment is an important step in addressing conflict within personal relationships, workplaces, and communities. When allowed to linger, contempt can dehumanize the target, shutting down meaningful dialogue. Resentment, if unaddressed, can similarly poison interactions by leading to grudge-holding and ongoing anger. From a more community-minded, progressive standpoint, working through such emotions is essential for building collaborative solutions and ensuring that everyone’s voice is both heard and respected.

References

Ekman, P. (1992). An argument for basic emotions. Cognition & Emotion, 6(3/4), 169–200.
Gottman, J. M. (1993). The roles of conflict engagement, escalation, and avoidance in marital interaction: A longitudinal view of five types of couples. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61(1), 6–15.
Tangney, J. P., & Fischer, K. W. (1995). Self-conscious emotions: The psychology of shame, guilt, embarrassment, and pride. Guilford Press.