Getting out of hot water: Facework in social predicaments.

Participants wrote accounts to victims of social predicaments. Results showed that autonomous perpetrators offered more mitigation, used more complexity in accounts, and used fewer lies, especially to acquaintances. High blame was associated with less mitigating and complex accounts and greater deception; this occurred despite perpetrators' understanding of probable relationship harm. Women were more concerned with repairing others' face damage, at least in part to preserve relationships; their self-esteem also was more harmed by lack of forgiveness, especially from friends. Perpetrators gave longer, more mitigating and complex accounts to friends and more mitigating accounts to high-status victims. Participants who used aggravating elements expected more positive relationships. Results are discussed in terms of competing demands for facework. Human social interaction has been characterized as an elaborate ritual governed by a shared system of politeness that implicitly recognizes the social identities or of participants (Brown Goffman, 1955, 1959; Scott Schonbach, 1990). For equilibrium to be restored, face damage must be repaired through corrective facework (see Cupach hence, accounts simultaneously must address damage to one's own and the victim's faces. Of course, needs for own and other facework often compete; if equilibrium is to be restored, accounts must achieve a delicate balance that satisfies both face needs.