Coping with Embarrassing Predicaments: Remedial Strategies and Their Perceived Utility

Abstract

Two studies into the use and perceived utility of remedial strategies for coping with embarrassing predicaments are reported. In both studies, subjects were presented with two scenarios depicting embarrassing situations: one representing a loss of poise, and the other representing an inappropriate indentity display. In the first study, subjects rated four researcher-supplied strategies in terms of appropriateness, effectiveness, and satisfaction to others. In study two, subjects generated their own strategies for remediating embarrassment and rated them on the same criteria. Excuse and justification were not common or preferred strategies while apology and remediation were highly preferred. Females regarded more deferential strategies (e.g. excuse, apology) as more appropriate than did males. Males and females did not differ, however, in their reported use of strategies. In addition, the perceived appropriateness and effectiveness of strategies was found to vary as a function of the type of embarrassment.

Toward a Theoretical Framework of Intercultural Account‐giving and Account Evaluation

“…Due to gender-related power differences in soci ety, women are more likely than men to express concern for others' face (Brown & Levinson, 1987), to value interpersonal abilities (Bern, 1974;Forsyth, Schlenker, Leary, & McCown, 1985), and to be sensitive to the needs of others (DuBrin, 1991;Gilligan, 1977). Gender differences in concern for others' face needs result in women preferring mitigating accounts and men using aggravating accounts, a relationship that has been supported in the empirical research (Bobocel & Farrell, 1996;Cupach, Metts, & Hazelton, 1986;Gonzales et al, 1990;Tata, 1998).…”

Do Unto Others?: Conversational Moves and Perceptions of Attentiveness Toward Other Face in Accounting Sequences Between Friends

“…Finally, we coded for a general empathic/sympathetic response that showed attentiveness toward other but did not state agreement with the offering explicitly (e.g., "That must have felt terrible!") and follows Cupach, Metts, and Hazelton's (1986) work on observers' responses to embarrassment.…”

The effects of type of predicament and embarrassability on remedial responses to embarrassing situations

“…However, when actors are faced with an embarrassing situation, they are likely to enact remedial strategies in an effort to save face, mitigate embarrassment, assuage offended observers, and restore order to interaction (Brown, 1970;Cupach, Metts, & Hazleton, 1986;Modigliani, 1971;Petronio, 1984;Sharkey & Stafford, 1990). Based upon a series of studies soliciting open-ended descriptions, Metts and Cupach (1989) identified eight types of remedial responses employed by actors caught in an embarrassing predicament: apology, excuse, justification, humor, remediation, avoidance, escape, and aggression.…”

“…Avoidance refers to a variety of tactics which enable an offending actor to elude explanations for untoward behavior (Cupach et al, 1986). These include mystification (Scott & Lyman, 1968;Tedeschi & Riess, 1981), refusal to provide an account or denial that an untoward event has occurred (Schonbach, 1980), avoiding or changing embarrassing conversational topics (Goffman, 1967), and silence (McLaughlin, Cody, & O'Hair, 1983).…”