I wouldn't use the word "shameful" by any means, but... well, ask an honest question, get an honest answer:
I have to admit I do instinctively think less of people who listen to audiobooks rather than reading the thing themselves.
Before I elaborate: people, I know it's unfair and I know there are legit reasons why someone might prefer audiobooks. Please don't get irate and come back at me with logical counterarguments or try to explain to me why I'm wrong, because I'm well aware of the arguments, and this isn't something based in logic, it's a gut reaction. Also yes, I have tried audiobooks myself in the past.
I'm honestly not 100% sure why I feel this way. Partly because of the inevitable distractions if you're "reading" while doing a bunch of other things, particularly important things requiring focus like your job or driving. I do feel that reading is something you should give your undivided attention to, and I certainly can't imagine carrying out other tasks while reading myself - I just get way too absorbed.
Then there's pacing and interpretation: an audiobook doesn't really allow you to go at your own pace, to really mull a paragraph or line of dialogue over before continuing, or to stop and appreciate a really nicely written section. Sometimes I need to re-read something a few times before I fully understand it, particularly with more difficult literature. You're also stuck with someone else's interpretation of where to place emphasis, how to "portray" different characters vocally and other such things. Maybe I'm just a control freak, but this is the sort of stuff that means I just can't get along with audiobooks.
Oh, and the less said about abridged versions the better. If you're claiming to have "read" something off the back of an abridged audiobook (and a surprising number of them are), then I'm afraid yes, I will judge you unapologetically. Just like if you skip chapters or never finish while reading traditionally (when it's not a re-read), it doesn't count.
Lastly I suspect there's a lurking (again, unfair) suspicion that having someone else read a book to you is somehow childish. My dad used to read books to me before I had the necessary skill to tackle them myself, which was great as it meant I was exposed to a lot of adult and classic literature far earlier than most of my peers, but transitioning to reading those books myself was always a kind of rite of passage for me, something I aspired to. It would never have occurred to me to claim I'd read those books until I'd actually done it myself. That mindset is almost certainly clinging on somewhere in my brain making me feel like audiobooks are "beneath me" somehow.
All that said, you may be surprised to learn that I'm a big fan of radio plays. Someone mentioned them earlier, and they're correct - radio plays are fantastic and I am incredibly grateful to the BBC for continuing to produce them. However, I feel that they're fundamentally different from audiobooks, simply because they are specifically designed to be consumed aurally, whereas I don't think most books are. To me, listening to a book is like reading the script for a radio play - you're getting the same basic story, but it's missing a crucial element and... well... just isn't as good.
So overall I'm going to vote "yes" in the poll, but with the understanding that "shameful" is too strong a word.
Hope that makes sense and I haven't offended too many people.
And of course, my opinion does not matter at all. No one's does. If you enjoy audiobooks, carry on. [small]You freak.[/small]