Introversion, neuroticism, empathy and embarrassibility

Edelmann, Robert J.; McCusker, Geraldine

doi:10.1016/0191-8869(86)90047-4

Cited by 36 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Because embarrassment may be conflated with neuroticism (Edelmann & McCusker, 1986) and neuroticism predicts health behaviour (ten Have, Oldehinkel, Vollebergh, & Ormel, 2005), we assessed neuroticism with the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire Revised – Short Form (EPQ‐R‐SF; Eysenck, Eysenck, & Barrett, 1985). The EPQ‐R contains 48 items answered on ‘yes’ or ‘no’ basis assessing neuroticism, extraversion, psychoticism, and a lie‐scale (Eysenck et al , 1985).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The many faeces of colorectal cancer screening embarrassment: Preliminary psychometric development and links to screening outcome

Consedine

Ladwig

Reddig

et al. 2011

British Journal of Health Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The many faeces of colorectal cancer screening embarrassment: Preliminary psychometric development and links to screening outcome

Consedine

Ladwig

Reddig

et al. 2011

British Journal of Health Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Edelmann (1985) found that embarrassability was related to public, but not to private, self-consciousness; people who were typically conscious of others' reactions to them suffered stronger embarrassments, a finding consistent with the social-evaluation model. However, Edelmann and McCusker (1986) later found that embarrass-ability was moderately negatively related to both extraversion and empathy; because gregarious sociability and empathic sensitivity are both related to social skill, these patterns seem consistent with a dramaturgic approach. More recently, Leary and Meadows (1991) showed that both embarrassability and a propensity for blushing are closely related to chronic fear of negative social evaluation.…”

Section: Competing Theoriesmentioning

confidence: 95%

On the Nature of Embarrassabllity: Shyness, Social Evaluation, and Social Skill

Miller

1995

Journal of Personality

158

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study, the correlates of embarrassability, or chronic susceptibility to embarrassment, were examined. Competing theoretical models suggest either that embarrassable people should be especially concerned about others' evaluations of them or that they should lack social skills. Further, shyness and embarrassment are typically considered to be closely related states. To test these propositions, 310 participants provided extensive self-reports of social skill, fear of negative evaluation, self-esteem, self-consciousness, and negative affectivity. Regression and factor analyses indicated that, compared to those of low embarrassability, highly embarrassable people are particularly concerned with the normative appropriateness of behavior and are more motivated to avoid rejection from others. In contrast, shyness was best predicted by low social self-confidence and low social skill. The data best support a social-evaluation model of embarrassment and argue that embarrassability is linked to the appropriateness of social behavior, and shyness to its effectiveness.

show abstract

“…Human embarrassment likewise incorporates submissive and affiliative responses. Submissiveness defines the experience of embarrassment, which involves the sense of being small and inferior (Tangney et al, 1996), a reduced self-esteem (Halberstadt & Green, 1993), negative self statements and depressed estimates of social abilities and self-confidence (Edelmann & McCusker, 1986;Schlenker & Leary, 1982), self-abasement (Halberstadt & Green, 1993), and feelings of inadequacy (Modigliani, 1968) as well as the gaze and head movements down, face covering, and postural shrinkage of the nonverbal display of embarrassment (Keltner, 1995). Affiliation also characterizes certain responses of embarrassment.…”

Section: Parallels Between Nonhuman Appeasement and Human Embarrassmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Embarrassment: Its distinct form and appeasement functions.

Keltner

Buswell²

1997

Psychological Bulletin

559

455

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The authors address 2 questions about embarrassment. First, Is embarrassment a distinct emotion? The evidence indicates that the antecedents, experience, and display of embarrassment, and to a limited extent its autonomic physiology, are distinct from shame, guilt, and amusement and share the dynamic, temporal characteristics of emotion. Second, What are the theoretical accounts of embarrassment? Three accounts focus on the causes of embarrassment, positioning that it follows the loss of self-esteem, concern for others' evaluations, or absence of scripts to guide interactions. A fourth account focuses on the effects of the remedial actions of embarrassment, which correct preceding transgressions. A fifth account focuses on the functional parallels between embarrassment and nonhuman appeasement. The discussion focuses on unanswered questions about embarrassment.

show abstract

Introversion, neuroticism, empathy and embarrassibility

Cited by 36 publications

References 18 publications

The many faeces of colorectal cancer screening embarrassment: Preliminary psychometric development and links to screening outcome

The many faeces of colorectal cancer screening embarrassment: Preliminary psychometric development and links to screening outcome

On the Nature of Embarrassabllity: Shyness, Social Evaluation, and Social Skill

Embarrassment: Its distinct form and appeasement functions.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About