Social transgressions, social perspectives, and social emotionality

This paper reports two studies on the interrelations involving social transgressions, the perspectives from which the actor who commits such a transgression is evaluated, and the extent and quality of the emotionality experienced by the actor. The first experiment examined subjects' perceptions of vignettes depicting transgressions that were either low or relatively high in apparent intent. The phrasing of the situation descriptions and ensuing questions led subjects to rate the actor in each vignette from one of four social perspectives, corresponding to self-image, public image, subjective public image, and inferred subjective public image. As predicted, dispositional ratings made from the two latter perspectives were more evaluatively negative than were ratings made from the two former perspectives, and ratings were more negative where the transgressions were relatively high in apparent intent. In the second experiment, the quality of the actor's posttransgression subjective public image was varied (positive, neutral, or negative), and subjects were asked to rate how the actor felt. As predicted, ratings of negative emotionality were higher and ratings of positive emotionality were lower when subjective public image was negative. The results of the two studies are interpreted as supporting an impression management theory of social emotionality.

[1]  R. Nisbett,et al.  Verbal reports about causal influences on social judgments: Private access versus public theories. , 1977 .

[2]  D. T. Regan,et al.  Voluntary expiation of guilt: a field experiment. , 1972, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[3]  E. Sadalla,et al.  Behavioral consequences of transgression: I. The effects of social recognition. , 1966 .

[4]  Timothy D. Wilson,et al.  Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. , 1977 .

[5]  R. Katzev,et al.  The Effect of Reprimanding Transgressions on Subsequent Helping Behavior: Two Field Experiments , 1978 .

[6]  Peter A. White,et al.  Limitations on verbal reports of internal events: A refutation of Nisbett and Wilson and of Bem. , 1980 .

[7]  Eliot R. Smith,et al.  Limits on perception of cognitive processes: A reply to Nisbett and Wilson. , 1978 .

[8]  E. E. Jones,et al.  From Acts To Dispositions The Attribution Process In Person Perception1 , 1965 .

[9]  R. Edelmann,et al.  The Recognition of Embarrassment , 1981 .

[10]  D T Regan,et al.  Empathy and attribution: turning observers into actors. , 1975, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[11]  J. Freedman,et al.  Compliance without pressure: The effect of guilt. , 1967 .

[12]  K. A. Ericsson,et al.  Verbal reports as data. , 1980 .

[13]  A. Manstead,et al.  The beholder beheld: A study of social emotionality , 1981 .

[14]  R. Edelmann,et al.  Changes in non‐verbal behaviour during embarrassment , 1979 .

[15]  Robert B. Cialdini,et al.  Transgression and Altruism: A Case for Hedonism. , 1973 .

[16]  A. Buss.  Self-consciousness and social anxiety , 1980 .

[17]  A. Modigliani,et al.  Embarrassment and embarrassability. , 1968, Sociometry.

[18]  Gün R. Semin,et al.  The social implications of embarrassment displays and restitution behavior , 1982 .

[19]  A. Modigliani,et al.  Embarrassment, facework, and eye contact: testing a theory of embarrassment. , 1971, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[20]  J. W. Regan,et al.  Guilt, perceived injustice, and altruistic behavior. , 1971, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[21]  H. Sigall,et al.  The effects of empathy and outcome on attribution: An examination of the divergent-perspectives hypothesis , 1977 .

[22]  Marvina C. Rich.  Verbal Reports on Mental Processes: Issues of Accuracy and Awareness , 1979 .

[23]  E. E. Jones,et al.  The actor and the observer: Divergent perceptions of the causes of behavior. , 1972 .

[24]  Erving Goffman,et al.  Embarrassment and Social Organization , 1956, American Journal of Sociology.