Psychology of embarrassment: why do we get embarrassed?
24/10/24, 10:08
Characteristics, triggers and theoretical models of embarrassment
The six basic emotions proposed by Ekman and recognised worldwide are sadness, happiness, fear, anger, surprise and disgust- Ekman (1999). Recently, the list of basic emotions has expanded to include self-conscious emotions, such as embarrassment, pride and shame, as all of those emotions show evidence for cross-cultural and cross-species production and perception. According to Miller (1995), embarrassment is the self-conscious feeling individuals get after realising they have done something stupid, silly or dishonourable. Embarrassment is a social emotion that emerges at around 18 months of age and the development of which is related to self-recognition. Characteristics of embarrassment in humans are gaze aversion, downward head movements, controlled smile and face touching.
Embarrassment has been linked to the two main personality dimensions proposed by Eysenck (1983): extraversion/introversion and neuroticism/emotional stability. Kelly & Jones (1997) found that neuroticism is positively associated with embarrassment, suggesting that the individuals who score highly in neuroticism are more prone to experiencing embarrassment. The same researchers also concluded that embarrassment is negatively related to extraversion, implying that introverted individuals are more likely to feel embarrassed than extroverted individuals.
The three triggers of embarrassment, according to Sabini, Siepmann & Meyerowitz (2000), are faux pas, sticky situations and centre of attention. Faux pas causes embarrassment when an individual creates a social mistake that forces them to think of others’ evaluation, like misspelling a word in a presentation and only realising when presenting it to a supervisor. Sticky situations lead to embarrassment when they threaten an individual's role, not their self-esteem, such as a leader being challenged publicly by their second in command. Centre of attention describes an anomaly when embarrassment is not a result of failure but of increased attention, for example being at your own birthday party. The faux pas trigger aligns with the social evaluation model of embarrassment, whilst sticky situations are in line with the dramaturgic model of embarrassment.
There are four prominent theories of embarrassment: the dramaturgic model, the social evaluation model, the situational self-esteem model and the personal standards model. The dramaturgic model proposed by Silver, Sabini and Parrott (1987) says that embarrassment is the flustered uncertainty that follows a poor public performance and leaves the individual at a loss of what to do. This model suggests that anxiety and aversive arousal trigger embarrassment after realising a performance has gone wrong (see Figure 4). In this model, concern about what others think accompanies embarrassment but does not cause it. Miller (1996) suggests that whilst the dramaturgic model has substantial support, it is difficult for a dramaturgic dilemma to cause embarrassment without simultaneously creating unwanted social evaluations, highlighting a limitation of this model.
The social evaluation model of embarrassment put forward by Edelmann (1987) suggests that embarrassed individuals fear failure to impress others and feeling at a loss of what to do is a result of embarrassment, not the cause (see Figure 5). This model assumes that individuals are concerned about others’ opinions. Miller (1996) supports this theory, saying that negative evaluation from others is crucial to embarrassment.
The situational self-esteem model by Modigliani (1971) proposes that the root cause of embarrassment is the temporary loss of self-esteem that results from public failures based on one’s own opinions of self and performance in faulty situations (see Figure 6). Miller (1995) does not support this theory, arguing that self-esteem plays a secondary role in embarrassment and states that susceptibility to embarrassment depends more on the persistent concern about others’ evaluations of us.
The personal standards model of embarrassment introduced by Babcock (1988) presents the view that embarrassment is caused by the individual realising they have failed the standards of behaviour that they have set for themselves, implying that the situation does not matter and that individuals can feel embarrassment when they are alone (see Figure 7). Miller (1992) disagrees with this theory, saying that guidelines for self are linked to impressions made on other people and that embarrassment can happen due to poor audience reaction, not letting yourself down.
Therefore, there are many plausible theories behind embarrassment that have been linked to various causes like dispositional, situational and personality factors. Whilst it is unlikely that one theory can perfectly explain such a complex social emotion like embarrassment, the consensus among psychologists in the recent years has created the most support for a combination of the dramaturgic and the social evaluation models. I agree with the consensus and think that the different theories behind embarrassment may all apply to a given situation. For instance, forgetting someone’s name may lead to embarrassment due to being at a loss of what to say (the dramaturgic model), unwanted social judgements (the social evaluation model), the negative effects of this situation on the self-esteem (the situational self-esteem model) and the painful realisation of letting yourself down (the personal standards model). Thus, like many subjects in psychology, embarrassment is a multidimensional concept that can be looked at from many different angles.
Written by Aleksandra Lib
Related article: Chemistry of emotions
REFERENCES
Babcock, M. K. (1988). Embarrassment: A window on the self. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour.
Edelmann, R. J. (1987). The psychology of embarrassment. John Wiley & Sons.
Ekman, P. (1999). Basic emotions. Handbook of cognition and emotion, 98(45-60), 16.
Eysenck, H. J. (1983). Psychophysiology and personality: Extraversion, neuroticism and psychoticism. In Individual differences and psychopathology (pp. 13-30). Academic Press.
Kelly, K. M., & Jones, W. H. (1997). Assessment of dispositional embarrassability. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 10(4), 307-333.
Lewis, M., Sullivan, M. W., Stanger, C., & Weiss, M. (1989). Self development and self-conscious emotions. Child development, 146-156.
Miller, R. S. (1992). The nature and severity of self-reported embarrassing circumstances. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(2), 190-198.
Miller, R. S. (1995). On the nature of embarrassabllity: Shyness, social evaluation, and social skill. Journal of personality, 63(2), 315-339.
Miller, R. S. (1996). Embarrassment: Poise and peril in everyday life. Guilford Press.
Modigliani, A. (1971). Embarrassment, facework, and eye contact: Testing a theory of embarrassment. Journal of Personality and social Psychology, 17(1), 15.
Sabini, J., Siepmann, M., Stein, J., & Meyerowitz, M. (2000). Who is embarrassed by what?. Cognition & Emotion, 14(2), 213-240.
Silver, M., Sabini, J., Parrott, W. G., & Silver, M. (1987). Embarrassment: A dramaturgic account. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 17(1), 47-61.
Tracy, J. L., Robins, R. W., & Tangney, J. P. (2007). The self-conscious emotions. New York: Guilford.