Social Functions of Embarrassment

Question 1

Difference from guilt.

Answer 1

Does not involve the agnosing sense of remorese accompanying guilt.

Question 2

Distinction from shame (core vs. presented self, physiology, situational factors; public; Edelmann, 1981)

Answer 2

Does not involve the agonising sense of remorse that accompanies guilt, distinction from shame however less intuitive. Maybe part of shame or a less intense form of shame. Argument for embarrassment as a distinct emotion:

• Characterised by sense of foolishness/fluster than being small/worthless. Involves self-focus and slight mortification. The self is negatively evaluated but not the core self, only the presented self.
• Physiologically distinct: blushing exclusive to embarrassment (not shame). Type of blush distinct from the blush result for exercise/sexual arousal/intoxication.
• Distinct situational factors: Embarrassment = elicited by much more trivial transgressions & failures. Also, entirely public emotion, while shame can occur in private (Edelmann, 1981).

Question 3

Threat to desired project self. Repudiation of negative identity. Nonverbal apology. Semin & Manstead (1982): 2*2 factorial, sale display: concern & embarrassment. mature & likeability.

Answer 3

Apology/appeasement function, maybe to avoid negative perceptions? Individual regards their behaviour as threatening desired social identity. Embarrassment repudiates the negative identity implications. Visible expression and behaviour (acting “flustered”) may serve as “nonverbal apology”. Semin & Manstead (1982): 2x2 factor design: video of person knocking over sales display who looked either unconcerned or embarrassed and either rebuilt the display or did nothing. Evaluated on several dimensions. Embarrassed = evaluated as more likable regardless of if he made amends. Made amends and was unconcerned judged to be more mature.