ArticlePDF Available

(Mis)Understanding Our Influence Over Others: A Review of the Underestimation-of-Compliance Effect

Authors:
Vanessa Bohns at Cornell University
Vanessa Bohns
Download full-text PDF
Read full-text
Download citation

Abstract and Figures

I review a burgeoning program of research examining people’s perceptions of their influence over others. This research demonstrates that people are overly pessimistic about their ability to get others to comply with their requests. Participants in our studies have asked more than 14,000 strangers a variety of requests. We find that participants underestimate the likelihood that the people they approach will comply with their requests. This error is robust (it persists across various samples and requests) and substantial (on average, requesters underestimate compliance by 48%). We find that this error results from requesters’ failure to appreciate the awkwardness of saying “no” to a request. In addition to reviewing evidence for the underestimation-of-compliance effect and its underlying mechanism, I discuss some factors that have been found to strengthen, attenuate, and reverse the effect. This research offers a starting point for examining a neglected perspective in influence research: the psychological perspective of the influence source.
Figures - uploaded by Vanessa Bohns
Author content
All figure content in this area was uploaded by Vanessa Bohns
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Vanessa Bohns
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Vanessa Bohns on Jan 04, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Running Head: UNDERESTIMATING COMPLIANCE
(Mis)Understanding Our Influence over Others:
A Review of the Underestimation-of-Compliance Effect
Vanessa K. Bohns
Cornell University
Forthcoming in Current Directions in Psychological Science
Underestimating Compliance 2
ABSTRACT
I review a burgeoning program of research examining people’s perceptions of their influence
over others. This research demonstrates that people are overly pessimistic about their ability to
get others to comply with their requests. Participants in our studies have asked more than 14,000
strangers a variety of requests. We find that participants underestimate the likelihood that the
people they approach will comply with their requests. This error is robust (it persists across
various samples and requests) and substantial (on average, requesters underestimate compliance
by 48%). We find that this error results from requesters’ failure to appreciate the awkwardness of
saying “no” to a request. In addition to reviewing evidence for the underestimation-of-
compliance effect and its underlying mechanism, I discuss some factors that have been found to
strengthen, attenuate, and reverse the effect. This research offers a starting point for examining a
neglected perspective in influence research: the psychological perspective of the influence
source.
Underestimating Compliance 3
We are constantly influenced by others—other people regularly goad us into doing,
saying, believing, and buying things. Thanks to an extensive and enduring literature on
conformity, compliance, and persuasion, social psychologists have a fairly good understanding of
what makes us susceptible to others’ influence (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004; Petty & Cacioppo,
1986). But, just as significantly, we are constantly influencing other people—getting them to do,
say, believe, and buy things. Yet relatively little research has focused on the psychological
perspective of the person doing the influencing.
In this article, I review a small, but growing, area of research examining people’s
perceptions of their influence over others. Over the past decade, my colleagues and I have asked
participants in our studies to make a variety of requests of more than 14,000 strangers: Can I
borrow your phone? Would you sponsor me for a race? Will you lie for me? In each case, before
they made these requests, we asked participants their expectations of compliance. We then
compared participants’ predictions of compliance to actual compliance. Our findings reveal that
people are overly pessimistic about their ability to get others to comply with their requests. By
examining people’s intuitions about the effectiveness of their own influence attempts, this
research offers a starting point for exploring the important and largely neglected question of how
people view the influence process from their role as wielders of social influence over others.
THE UNDERESTIMATION-OF-COMPLIANCE EFFECT
One of the most basic influence tactics is a direct request. To procure a higher salary, we
can ask our boss for a raise. To garner support for our cause, we can ask people to sign a petition.
Yet the simplicity of this tactic belies the dread many people feel at the prospect of asking.
Potential requesters stress about imposing on others, feel self-conscious about revealing their
Underestimating Compliance 4
shortcomings, and fear the worst—rejection (DePaulo & Fisher, 1980; Milgram, 1977).
However, research by my colleagues and me suggests this latter concern is often unfounded.
Imagine the following situation: You need to make a phone call, but your cellphone is
dead. Your only option is to approach random strangers one by one in order to borrow a phone.
How many people will you need to approach before someone agrees to loan you his phone? In
one study, we asked participants to get three random strangers to agree to this very request. But
first, we asked them to predict the number of people they would need to approach to get three
people to agree. Participants predicted they would need to ask an average of 10.1 people. In
actuality, they had to ask an average of 6.2 people. In other words, approximately one out of
every two people they approached agreed to loan our participants their phones; participants had
overestimated the number of people they would need to ask by more than 60% (Flynn & Lake,
2008).
We have found the same pattern of results—and similarly large effects—when we have
instructed participants to persuade strangers to fill out a questionnaire (Bohns et al., 2011),
provide intricate directions to a specified location (Flynn & Lake, 2008), or commit a small act
of vandalism (Bohns, Roghanizad & Xu, 2014). In one study, 91 participants in a charity run
predicted they would need to ask an average of 210.3 people to reach their fundraising goals
(ranging from $2,100 to $5,000). In fact, they only had to ask an average of 122.2 people—88
fewer than they expected (Flynn & Lake, 2008). Table 1 summarizes 12 studies from five recent
articles documenting this phenomenon across a diverse range of requests. The upshot is that the
underestimation-of-compliance effect is both large and robust.
Underestimating Compliance 5
WHY DO PEOPLE UNDERESTIMATE COMPLIANCE?
Why do people err so considerably when predicting the likelihood that others will comply
with their requests? We have found that this phenomenon is the result of requesters’ failure to
appreciate how uncomfortable it would be for targets to say “no” to a request. A target’s refusal
would constitute a “face-threatening act,” potentially calling into question the requester’s
trustworthiness or the appropriateness of the request: refusing to turn over one’s cellphone could
imply one does not trust the requester to give it back; refusing to engage in an act that seems
ethically questionable could be seen as an attack on the requester’s morality (Brown & Levinson,
1978; Goffman, 1971). In essence, by refusing a request one risks offending one’s interaction
partner—a violation of intrinsic social norms that would ultimately embarrass both parties
(Sabini, Siepmann & Stein, 2001). As a result, many people agree to things—even things they
would prefer not to do—simply to avoid the considerable discomfort of saying “no.”
Yet people tend to underestimate the extent to which others’ behavior is affected by such
concerns. Although the motivation to avoid embarrassment drives much of social behavior,
outside observers consider this motivation to be trivial and discount its impact on others’
behavior and decisions (Bohns & Flynn, 2010; Sabini et al. 2001; Van Boven, Loewenstein &
Dunning, 2005). Accordingly, when requesters estimate the likelihood that others will comply
with their requests, they tend to focus on more tangible information, such as the instrumental
costs (e.g., time, money) a target would incur by agreeing to a request, and largely ignore a
target’s concerns with embarrassment. The erroneous belief that a target can easily say “no” to a
request if she is so inclined leads requesters to exaggerate the likelihood of rejection. Indeed, in
our studies we have found that the underestimation-of-compliance effect is reliably explained by
Underestimating Compliance 6
requesters’ paltry estimates of how awkward targets would feel saying “no” (Bohns et al., 2011;
Flynn & Lake, 2008; Newark, Flynn & Bohns, 2014).
FACTORS THAT DO AND DO NOT IMPACT THE UNDERESTIMATION-
OF-COMPLIANCE EFFECT
The psychological mechanism described above has informed our search for factors that
might attenuate or reverse this robust effect. It also explains why the effect persists across so
many variations of the original paradigm: It is awkward to say “no” to a request regardless of
what or how big it is (within reason). However, requesters, oblivious to how uncomfortable it is
for targets to say “no” to any request, think changing various features of the request will have a
greater effect on compliance than is actually the case. Below I describe some of the experimental
variations we have conducted and the factors that have been found to impact—and not to impact
—the underestimation-of-compliance effect.
Request Size & Type
We have found that the underestimation-of-compliance effect persists for requests of
different sizes, as well as for requests people find particularly discomfiting, such as ethically
dubious requests. In one study, half of our participants asked strangers to complete a brief one-
page questionnaire, while the other half asked them to complete an extensive ten-page
questionnaire—a tenfold increase in the time commitment for those who complied. Requesters
who were randomly assigned to make the larger request predicted lower levels of compliance
than those assigned to make the smaller request. However, actual compliance was unaffected by
request size; targets found it equally difficult to say “no” to both requests (Flynn & Lake, 2008).
Underestimating Compliance 7
In another study, participants asked strangers to vandalize a purported library book by
writing the word “pickle” in pen on one of the pages. A number of individuals approached by our
participants voiced their discomfort, expressing concern with getting into trouble, referring to the
request as vandalism, and conveying a general reluctance to participate. Nevertheless, more than
64% agreed to vandalize the book—a far cry from requesters’ prediction of 28% (Bohns et al.,
2014).
Repeated Requests
Classic research has explored the effect of repeated requests on actual compliance,
finding that an initial refusal can, under certain circumstances, pave the way for future
compliance (Cialdini et al., 1975). In contrast, we have explored requesters’ intuitions about the
effect of repeated requests on compliance. We have found that requesters mistakenly assume
someone who says “no” to an initial request is inevitably more likely to say “no” to a subsequent
request.
In one study, participants approached strangers and asked them to fill out a questionnaire.
Regardless of whether their targets said “yes” or “no” to this initial request, participants asked
them to complete another request—to mail a letter. Although participants thought the compliance
rate for targets who refused the initial request would go down 16%, compliance rates actually
went up 10% following a refusal (Newark et al., 2014). In contrast to requesters’ expectations,
targets found it just as uncomfortable—seemingly more so—to refuse someone a second time.
Incentives for Compliance
People often offer incentives when making requests. For example, someone might offer
gas money in exchange for a ride. We have found that offering money in exchange for
Underestimating Compliance 8
compliance mitigates the underestimation-of-compliance effect. In one study, participants who
offered strangers dollars to vandalize a library book were less likely to underestimate compliance
than those who offered no incentives or non-monetary (candy) incentives (Bohns, Newark, &
Xu, 2015).
Additional data revealed that monetary incentives affected requesters’ reactions to the
task more so than targets’. Despite the fact that requesters felt more comfortable and confident
when offering money in exchange for compliance, the people they approached were just as
willing to comply for free.
Culture
We have found that the underestimation-of-compliance effect is more pronounced in
individualistic cultures, such as the United States, than collectivistic cultures, such as China.
When participants in China and the United States asked strangers to complete a questionnaire,
Chinese participants were less likely than American participants to underestimate compliance
(Bohns et al. 2011).
These cross-cultural differences were explained by the greater consideration paid by
Chinese participants to the awkwardness targets would experience saying “no” to their requests.
This finding is consistent with the presumed tendency of Americans to emphasize the role of
individual choice over social pressure and embarrassment when explaining others’ behavior
(Sabini et al., 2001).
Request Directness & Medium
It is much more awkward—and therefore less likely—for someone to say “no” to a
request asked directly and face-to-face than one asked indirectly or over email. However, we
Underestimating Compliance 9
have found that requesters are largely oblivious to this fact. When we have varied request
directness by manipulating how a request is posed—either indirectly by dropping hints (“I could
really use a phone right now…”), or via a direct request (“Will you lend me your phone?”)—we
have found that targets say they would be more likely to comply with a direct request. However,
requesters expect indirect requests to be more effective (Flynn & Lake, 2008).
We have found similar effects for the medium through which a request is made. In one
study, participants asked strangers to fill out a questionnaire in person, or handed out flyers
printed with the same request (“Will you fill out a questionnaire?”). Participants who asked
targets to complete a questionnaire face-to-face underestimated compliance, but participants who
made the same request using flyers overestimated compliance (Flynn & Lake, 2008). In another
study, participants similarly overestimated compliance when asking strangers to fill out a
questionnaire over email (Roghanizad & Bohns, 2015). Altogether, the manner by which a
request is made seems to impact the underestimation-of-compliance effect in important ways.
Other Factors
There are numerous other potential moderators of the underestimation-of-compliance
effect. One factor of interest is gender (Eagly, 1983); however, we have found no reliable gender
effects in our studies. Another potential moderator is requesters’ relationship to their targets,
including attributes such as power and closeness. Despite the large sample of people our
participants have approached, most of their targets have been strangers.
This latter factor may help to explain a remaining puzzle: Given that most people have
ample experience asking for things, why are they so bad at predicting compliance? One
possibility is that in daily life, we typically make requests of people whom we expect will say,
Underestimating Compliance 10
“yes,” such as close friends. Consequently, we are rarely surprised when others comply with our
requests, and thus have no cause to update our preconceptions about the likelihood of
compliance in general.
CONCLUSION: THE INFLUENCER’S PERSPECTIVE
How well do we understand the influence we have over others? Can we tell when another
person feels uncomfortable with our request, but feels she can’t say “no”? Do we know how
much more effective our persuasive appeal is likely to be face-to-face rather than over email? Do
we realize when our playful suggestion emboldened someone to engage in a behavior we didn’t
mean to condone?
Research on social influence has been largely silent on such questions, focusing on
understanding the psychology of influencees, the targets or objects of various forms of influence,
while mostly neglecting the perspective of influencers. When perspectives beyond the
influencee are considered, they are typically those of neutral observers asked to predict what the
“average” person is likely to do or explain why some mysterious individual did what they did, a
task that is different both cognitively and motivationally from predicting one’s own influence
over another person [Dunning & Helzer, 2014; see Gilbert & Jones (1986) for a noteworthy
exception]. Similarly, when people are asked to forecast their own performance on a task, such
tasks typically do not rely on the kinds of perspective-taking skills necessary to predict one’s
capacity for influence (Zell & Krizan, 2014).
The research reviewed here offers a rare glimpse into the influencer’s view of the
influence process. My colleagues and I hope researchers will continue to explore this meaningful
perspective and identify not only the factors that make us more or less influential, but also the
factors that make us more or less aware of our influence over others.
Underestimating Compliance 11
REFERENCES
Bohns, V. K., & Flynn, F. J. (2010). “Why didn’t you just ask?” Underestimating the
discomfort of help-seeking. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(2), 402-409.
Bohns, V. K., Handgraaf, M. J. J., Sun, J. M., Aaldering, H., Mao, C., & Logg, J. (2011). Are social
prediction errors universal? Predicting compliance with a direct request across cultures. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 676-680.
Bohns, V. K., Newark, D. A., Xu, A. (2015). For a dollar, would you… How (we think)
money influences compliance with our requests. Revising for Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes.
Bohns, V. K., Roghanizad, M. M., & Xu, A. Z. (2014). Underestimating our influence over
others’ unethical behavior and decisions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
40(3), 348-362.
Brown, P. & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and
conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591-621.
Cialdini, R. B., Vincent, J. E., Lewis, S. K., Catalan, J., Wheeler, D., & Darby, B. L. (1975).
Reciprocal concessions procedure for inducing compliance: The door-in-the-face
technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31(2), 206.
DePaulo, B. M. & Fisher, J. D. (1980). The costs of asking for help. Basic and Applied
Social Psychology, 1, 23-35.
Dunning, D., & Helzer, E. G. (2014). Beyond the Correlation Coefficient in Studies of Self-
Underestimating Compliance 12
Assessment Accuracy Commentary on Zell & Krizan (2014). Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 9(2), 126-130.
Eagly, A. H. (1983). Gender and social influence: A social psychological analysis. American
Psychologist, 38(9), 971.
Flynn, F. J., & Lake (Bohns), V. K. B. (2008). If you need help, just ask: underestimating
compliance with direct requests for help. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
95(1), 128.
Gilbert, D. T., & Jones, E. E. (1986). Perceiver-induced constraint: Interpretations of self-
generated reality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 269–280Goffman, E.
(1971). Relations in public. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Milgram, S. (1977). The individual in a social world: Essays and experiments. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Newark, D. A., Flynn, F. J., & Bohns, V. K. (2014). Once Bitten, Twice Shy The Effect of a
Past Refusal on Expectations of Future Compliance. Social Psychological and
Personality Science, 5, 218-225.
Petty, R. E. & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion.
Springer: NY.
Roghanizad, M. M. & Bohns, V. K. (2015). Overestimating persuasiveness through
computer-mediated communication: An application of egocentrism. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation.
Sabini, J., Siepmann, M., & Stein, J. (2001). The really fundamental attribution error in
social psychological research. Psychological Inquiry, 12, 1-15.
Van Boven, L., Loewenstein, G., & Dunning, D. (2005). The illusion of courage in social
Underestimating Compliance 13
predictions: Underestimating the impact of fear of embarrassment on other people.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 96(2), 130-141.
Zell, E., & Krizan, Z. (2014). Do people have insight into their abilities? A metasynthesis.
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(2), 111-125.
Underestimating Compliance 14
RECOMMENDED READINGS
Bohns, V. K., Roghanizad, M. M., & Xu, A. Z. (2014). (See references). Empirical
evidence for the underestimation-of-compliance effect in the domain of unethical behavior.
Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). (See references). A review of the motivations
that drive people to comply and conform.
Flynn, F. J., & Lake (Bohns), V. K. B. (2008). (See references). The first empirical
demonstration of the underestimation-of-compliance effect.
Sabini, J., Siepmann, M., & Stein, J. (2001). (See references). A fascinating
reinterpretation of a number of classic social influence findings as evidence for our tendency to
underestimate others’ embarrassment.
Van Boven, L., Loewenstein, G., Dunning, D., & Nordgren, L. F. (2013). Changing
places: A dual judgment model of empathy gaps in emotional perspective taking. Advances in
experimental social psychology, 47, 117-171. A comprehensive theory and review of emotional
perspective-taking, which includes a cogent explanation of why it is so difficult to recognize
others’ concerns with embarrassment.
... People rely on others for assistance in everyday social support, with the knowledge that family and friends will be responsive to one's needs vital to an individual's well-being. However, research reveals that individuals tend to underestimate the likelihood that they will receive help that they request from others (for a review, see Bohns, 2016). This attributional bias is important to understand as it represents an obstacle to everyday social support in leading people to be reluctant to ask for help. ...
... strangers they would need to approach before a specific number of people will agree to help them in such ways as answering a questionnaire, escorting them to a nearby campus gym, donating to a charity, or sharing a cell phone for an emergency call (Bohns et al., 2011a(Bohns et al., , 2011bFlynn & Lake, 2008). Whereas most research in this tradition has involved interactions between strangers (Bohns, 2016), underestimating the likelihood of receiving help has also been shown to occur among friends, such as in vignette-based studies that portray help between roommates (e.g., Flynn & Lake, 2008) and in field experiments involving asking a friend vs. a stranger to take one's photo (Zhao & Epley, 2022). Underestimation of helping has also been observed in the context of unethical behavior, with participants underestimating how many strangers they would need to approach before getting someone to agree to commit a white lie or vandalize a library book to help them out (Bohns et al., 2014a, b). ...
... In explaining why people underestimate the likelihood of receiving help, the dominant interpretation has been that help-seekers fail to account for social expectations to help (e.g. Bohns, 2016). Congruent with this claim, Flynn and Lake (2008) demonstrated that help-seekers, as compared with helpers, are less prone to consider how difficult, awkward, and embarrassing it is to decline a request for help, as well as overestimate the cost of the help they are requesting relative to helpers. ...
The role of reciprocity in underestimation of helping
Article
Full-text available
  • Mar 2025
  • MOTIV EMOTION
Evidence indicates that help-seekers underestimate the likelihood that they will receive help that they request from others. The present three-study investigation identifies a new explanation for this underestimation of helping effect in uncovering its link to reciprocity. Study 1a (N = 197) showed that underestimation of helping depends on reciprocity expectations and no longer occurs once expectations for reciprocity have been satisfied. Study 1b (N = 154) established that reciprocity concerns predict underestimation of helping more strongly than does the previously proposed mechanism of a failure in perspective taking, i.e., it demonstrates that reciprocity, and not either discomfort or gratitude, predict underestimation of helping. It also showed that help-seekers and helpers share an understanding of the normative expectations associated with each other’s roles as givers and reciprocators of help and their implications for discourse. Study 2 (N = 111) replicated underestimation of helping in real-life social support interactions as well as demonstrated that help-seekers differ in their outlooks from helpers on features of reciprocity in which their roles differ. Finally, Study 3 (N = 98) demonstrated that giving and reciprocating help influence cognition on an implicit level by shaping memory for helping events. The investigation contributes to a theoretical understanding of the previously unrecognized role of reciprocity in underestimation of helping, and highlights the importance in future research of giving greater attention to the subtle normative pressures linked to reciprocity that are experienced not only by help-seekers but also by helpers.
View
... Although self-invitations have received attention from non-academic communities (Foster, 2023;MacLeod, n.d.;Smothers, 2021), and standard invitations have garnered interest from academics (Donnelly et al., 2021;Givi & Kirk, 2023;Lu et al., 2022), self-invitations have garnered minimal attention from the scientific community. Second, in studying how individuals think and behave in the self-invitation context, we add to and connect with multiple literatures, including those on invitation psychology (Givi & Kirk, 2023), self-other decision making (Polman & Wu, 2020), emotions (Lerner et al., 2015), and request compliance (Bohns, 2016). Of note, our work is the first to indicate that potential self-inviters (a) fail to engage in self-inviting as often as plan-holders would prefer, (b) overestimate how irritated plan-holders are by self-invitations, and (c) are misguided in their predictions regarding plan-holders' mindsets when they created the plans, erring on the side of believing that plan-holders had considered inviting them but decided against it (vs. ...
... Indeed, message board posts on the topic of self-invitations reflect the concern that a self-invitation may irritate those holding the plans (void_ Raptor, 2023). Relatedly, individuals are reluctant to engage in behaviors that might be construed as intruding on others (Bohns, 2016) in large part because they mispredict how others would feel if they did. For example, individuals hesitate to ask others for help, because they think that providing help will be seen as more of an inconvenience to others than is the case (Zhao & Epley, 2022). ...
... Second, whereas plan-holders oftentimes make plans without considering inviting others, potential self-inviters exaggerate the relative likelihood that planholders had instead already considered inviting them but refrained from doing so. Thus, our work adds to the literature at the intersection of invitations and emotions (Givi & Kirk, 2023;Lu et al., 2022) as well as the literature documenting people's aversion to engaging in behaviors that might seem intrusive (Bohns, 2016;Epley & Schroeder, 2014;Zhao & Epley, 2022). Moreover, recall that we drew on two bodies of literature in developing our rationale for why potential selfinviters are sensitive to the possibility that plan-holders thought about inviting them but decided against it. ...
Self-Invitation Hesitation: How and Why People Fail to Ask to Join the Plans of Others
Article
Full-text available
  • Mar 2025
  • Pers Soc Psychol Bull
Spending time with others affords numerous benefits. One way a person can spend time with others is through a self-invitation—asking to join the plans of others. We address the psychological processes involved with self-invitations to everyday social activities from both the self-inviter’s perspective and the perspective of those with the plans (“plan-holders”). Across eight studies (seven preregistered), we demonstrate that potential self-inviters fail to ask to join the plans of others as often as plan-holders would prefer, because potential self-inviters overestimate how irritated plan-holders would be by such self-invitations. Further, we show that these asymmetries are rooted in differing viewpoints about the mindsets of plan-holders when they originally made the plans. Namely, potential self-inviters exaggerate the likelihood that plan-holders had already considered inviting them but decided against it (vs. made plans without considering inviting them). We conclude by discussing the various implications of our findings.
View
... However, it should be noted that when participants were asked if they were willing to help the Arab student in the absence of a direct request for help, they seemed to indicate that they would be unwilling to comply even where help is required (Bohns, 2016). It seems that low ascribed and low achieved status individuals were perceived as being less deserving of help. ...
... Indeed, studies have shown that even when observers were not directly asked for help, they were less willing to offer assistance to individuals who were characterized as being of poor SES and low achievers (Bohns, 2016). Ascribed status also tends to be more salient in societies which emphasize tradition and hierarchy; in such cases, racial or gendered identities can have a significant impact on the perceived potential of individuals and willingness to help them. ...
The meaning of seeking help: The effects of ascribed and achieved status of the help‐seeker on observer attributions, expectations, and willingness to offer help
Article
Full-text available
Research indicates that sometimes people rely on limited sources of information when judging a person or group. Unable to see the “whole picture,” they, usually unconsciously, often fill in missing pieces of information themselves. Ascribed and achieved status dimensions assist in the process of social perception. Drawing on recent research on intergroup helping and focusing on evaluations of potential helpers, this research investigates inferences and attributions made by observers and their willingness to offer help while considering the effects of ascribed and achieved status dimensions of the help‐seeker. We conducted a pilot study and two additional studies exploring the implications of this link in real‐life settings. Our findings indicate that seeking help may be viewed as a sign of insufficient effort, particularly for individuals characterized by low ascribed and achieved status dimensions, and, thus, as stigma‐consistent behavior. Theoretical and applied implications are discussed.
View
... Zhao & Epley, 2022). Emerging research suggests that individuals tend to systematically underestimate how positively others will respond to requests for help (e.g., Bohns, 2016;X. Zhao & Epley, 2022), which may be a misplaced barrier to support-seeking. ...
Empathic Concern Promotes Social Support-Seeking: A Cross-Cultural Study
Article
Full-text available
  • Oct 2024
Previous research has suggested that empathic concern may affect cultural differences in social support-seeking. However, neither the mechanisms through which empathic concern promotes support-seeking nor the explanations for cultural differences in empathic concern are clear. This study attempted to address these questions by conducting three studies in Japan and the United States. The results showed that Japanese participants reported having lower trait-empathic concern and seeking less social support in dealing with stress than European Americans. Study 1 found that trait-empathic concern mediated the cultural differences in support-seeking by increasing beliefs about others’ prosocial willingness. Using a controlled set of stressful scenarios, Study 2 replicated the results of Study 1. Additionally, Study 2 showed that Japanese participants reported greater endorsement of the causal repressive suffering construal than European Americans, partly accounting for cultural differences in trait-empathic concern. Using an experimental design, Study 3 showed that primed empathic concern increased support-seeking in coping with follow-up stress across cultures. These findings contribute to our understanding of the role of empathic concern in support-seeking and cultural differences in empathic concern.
View
... Because people tend to reciprocate others' actions, approaching a conversation about an issue constructively out of concern for a relationship's well-being may create a mutually reinforcing cycle of increasing responsiveness to each other's needs (Clark & Mills, 2001;Reis et al., 2011). However, these relationship-maintenance mechanisms (Finkel et al., 2017)-such as reciprocity, compliance, accommodation, and rationalization-are dynamic social forces that tend to be systematically underestimated in people's expectations (Bohns, 2016;Gilbert et al., 2004;Joel et al., 2014;Mallett et al., 2008). In cases of constructive confrontation, the negative content of the conflict or issue being discussed is likely to be highly accessible in people's attention (Rozin & Royzman, 2001), whereas the DUNGAN AND EPLEY 2 relationship-maintenance processes triggered by a constructive confrontation are more distal and uncertain, and hence less likely to be guiding people's expectations . ...
Surprisingly Good Talk: Misunderstanding Others Creates a Barrier to Constructive Confrontation
Article
Full-text available
  • Jan 2024
Open communication is important for maintaining relationships when conflicts inevitably arise. Nevertheless, people may avoid constructive confrontation to the extent that they expect others to respond negatively. In experiments involving recalled (Experiment 1), imagined (Experiment 2), simulated (Experiment 3), and actual confrontations (Experiments 4a and 4b), we find that people’s expectations are systematically miscalibrated such that they overestimate how negatively others respond to confrontation. These overly negative expectations stem, at least in part, from biased attention to potentially negative outcomes of a constructive confrontation (Experiment 5), and from failing to recognize the power of relationship-maintenance processes that are activated in direct conversations (Experiment 6). Underestimating how positively relationship partners will respond to an open, direct, and honest conversation about relationship concerns may create a misplaced barrier to confronting issues when they arise in relationships, thereby keeping people from confronting issues that would strengthen their relationships.
View
View
View
Ghosting: Social Rejection Without Explanation, but Not Without Care
Article
Full-text available
  • May 2024
Many social ties end when one side rejects the other, but rejection does not need to happen directly. Ghosting—the act of ending a relationship by ignoring another person’s attempts to connect—is a common way of ending social ties. The present experiments first establish the key characteristics of ghosting and distinguish it from other rejection behaviors (Pilot Studies 1a–1c). The experiments then proceed to explore the relational and motivational implications of this behavior, finding that ghosters (those who ghost) care about the well-being of ghostees (those who are ghosted) more than ghostees realize. This result occurs in recalled instances of ghosting (Experiment 1), when ghosting in real time (Experiment 2), and when refraining from ghosting is monetarily costly (Experiment 3). We find that this occurs partly because ghostees underestimate the other-oriented motives involved in ghosting, misunderstanding that ghosters ghost partly as a way to end a tie while avoiding hurting ghostees’ feelings (Experiments 4–6). Indeed, greater other-oriented motives lead to a higher likelihood of ghosting others (Experiment 7). A final experiment finds relational consequences whereby ghostees miss out on opportunities for future help exchange due to their underestimation of the extent to which ghosters care about them (Experiment 8). Ghosting is social rejection without explanation or feedback, but not without care. This study highlights how prosocial motives can drive rejection behaviors and the role of interpersonal accuracy in mitigating the negative effects of social rejection.
View
A Noisy Theory of Asking for Help That Explains why Many Feel Underwhelmed With the Help They Receive
Article
  • Jan 2023
Employees often feel that the help they receive at work is inadequate. Whereas previous research explains this empirical finding by referencing stereotypes or poor communication, we suggest an alternative that does not rely on biased agents: disappointment with received help may arise due to self-selection and regression to the mean. Before asking for help, employees assess whether their co-workers have the time and ability to respond. Consistent with regression to the mean, extreme beliefs are often followed by less extreme outcomes. However, employees with inflated beliefs are more likely to ask for help than employees with low or modest beliefs. Therefore, the subset of employees who act will have overly optimistic expectations, expectations that are unlikely to be met once co-workers respond. Apart from challenging conventional wisdom, this article also integrates chance and self-selection perspectives into the ongoing dialogue of help-seeking. Implications for future research, theory, and practice are discussed.
View
Giving people the words to say no leads them to feel freer to say yes
Article
Full-text available
  • Jan 2024
We examine how to structure requests to help people feel they can say no (or yes) more voluntarily. Specifically, we examine the effect of having the requester provide the request-target with an explicit phrase they can use to decline requests. Part of the difficulty of saying no is finding the words to do so when put on the spot. Providing individuals with an explicit script they can use to decline a request may help override implicit scripts and norms of politeness that generally dictate compliance. This should make individuals feel more comfortable refusing requests and make agreement feel more voluntary. Hence, we hypothesized that telling people how to say no (by providing them with an explicit script) would make compliance decisions feel more voluntary above and beyond merely telling them they can say no. Across two experimental lab studies (N = 535), we find support for this prediction.
View
For a dollar, would you…? How (we think) money influences compliance with our requests.
Article
Full-text available
  • May 2016
  • ORGAN BEHAV HUM DEC
Research has shown a robust tendency for people to underestimate their ability to get others to comply with their requests. In five studies, we demonstrate that this underestimation-of-compliance effect is reduced when requesters offer money in exchange for compliance. In Studies 1 and 2, participants assigned to no-incentive or monetary-incentive conditions made actual requests of others. In both studies, requesters who offered no incentives underestimated the likelihood that those they approached would grant their requests; however, when requesters offered monetary incentives, this prediction error was mitigated. In Studies 3-5, we present evidence in support of a model to explain the underlying mechanism for this attenuation effect. Studies 3 and 4 demonstrate that offering monetary incentives activates a money-market frame. In Study 5, we find that this activation reduces the discomfort associated with asking, allowing requesters to more accurately assess the size of their request and, consequently, the likelihood of compliance.
View
Empathy Gaps Between Helpers and Help-Seekers: Implications for Cooperation
Chapter
Full-text available
  • May 2015
Help-seekers and potential helpers often experience an “empathy gap” – an inability to understand each other’s unique perspectives. Both parties are concerned about their reputation, self-esteem, and relationships, but these concerns differ in ways that lead to misinterpretation of the other party’s actions, and, in turn, missed opportunities for cooperation. In this article, we review research that describes the role-specific concerns of helpers and help-seekers. We then review studies of emotional perspective-taking, which can help explain why help-seekers and helpers often experience empathy gaps. We go on to discuss recent work that illustrates the consequences of empathy gaps between helpers and help-seekers—social prediction errors that prevent helping and misguided intentions that can lead to unhelpful help. Finally, we discuss some promising directions for future research.
View
The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion
Article
Full-text available
  • Dec 1986
  • ADV EXP SOC PSYCHOL
This chapter outlines the two basic routes to persuasion. One route is based on the thoughtful consideration of arguments central to the issue, whereas the other is based on the affective associations or simple inferences tied to peripheral cues in the persuasion context. This chapter discusses a wide variety of variables that proved instrumental in affecting the elaboration likelihood, and thus the route to persuasion. One of the basic postulates of the Elaboration Likelihood Model—that variables may affect persuasion by increasing or decreasing scrutiny of message arguments—has been highly useful in accounting for the effects of a seemingly diverse list of variables. The reviewers of the attitude change literature have been disappointed with the many conflicting effects observed, even for ostensibly simple variables. The Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) attempts to place these many conflicting results and theories under one conceptual umbrella by specifying the major processes underlying persuasion and indicating the way many of the traditionally studied variables and theories relate to these basic processes. The ELM may prove useful in providing a guiding set of postulates from which to interpret previous work and in suggesting new hypotheses to be explored in future research. Copyright © 1986 Academic Press Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
View
Do People Have Insight Into Their Abilities? A Metasynthesis
Article
Full-text available
  • Mar 2014
Having insight into one's abilities is essential, yet it remains unclear whether people generally perceive their skills accurately or inaccurately. In the present analysis, we examined the overall correspondence between self-evaluations of ability (e.g., academic ability, intelligence, language competence, medical skills, sports ability, and vocational skills) and objective performance measures (e.g., standardized test scores, grades, and supervisor evaluations) across 22 meta-analyses, in addition to considering factors that moderate this relationship. Although individual meta-analytic effects ranged from .09 to .63, the mean correlation between ability self-evaluations and performance outcomes across meta-analyses was moderate (M = .29, SD = .11). Further, the relation was stronger when self-evaluations were specific to a given domain rather than broad and when performance tasks were objective, familiar, or low in complexity. Taken together, these findings indicate that people have only moderate insight into their abilities but also underscore the contextual factors that enable accurate self-perception of ability. © The Author(s) 2014.
View
Underestimating Our Influence Over Others' Unethical Behavior and Decisions
Article
Full-text available
  • Dec 2013
  • Pers Soc Psychol Bull
We examined the psychology of "instigators," people who surround an unethical act and influence the wrongdoer (the "actor") without directly committing the act themselves. In four studies, we found that instigators of unethical acts underestimated their influence over actors. In Studies 1 and 2, university students enlisted other students to commit a "white lie" (Study 1) or commit a small act of vandalism (Study 2) after making predictions about how easy it would be to get their fellow students to do so. In Studies 3 and 4, online samples of participants responded to hypothetical vignettes, for example, about buying children alcohol and taking office supplies home for personal use. In all four studies, instigators failed to recognize the social pressure they levied on actors through simple unethical suggestions, that is, the discomfort actors would experience by making a decision that was inconsistent with the instigator's suggestion.
View
View
Changing Places: A Dual Judgment Model of Empathy Gaps in Emotional Perspective Taking
Article
  • Jan 2013
  • ADV EXP SOC PSYCHOL
Emotional perspective taking involves people's attempts to estimate the attitudes, preferences, and behaviors of other people who are in different emotional situations. We propose a dual judgment model in which perspective takers first predict what their own reactions would be to different emotional situations, and, second, adjust these self-predictions to accommodate perceived differences between themselves and others. Prior literature has focused on egocentric biases in the second judgment, perceived differences and similarities between the self and others. We propose that significant errors in emotional perspective taking often arise from the first judgment, people's predictions of what their own attitudes, preferences, and behaviors would be in different emotional situations. Specifically, people exhibit " empathy gaps," underestimating how much emotional situations influence their own attitudes, preferences, and behaviors. We review evidence that provides support for (a) the dual judgment model of emotional perspective taking, (b) the occurrence of empathy gaps in self-predictions, and (c) the occurrence of empathy gaps in social predictions that are mediated by empathy gaps in self-judgments. We discuss implications of empathy gaps in emotional perspective taking for social behavior, social judgment, and for other forms of perspective taking and affective forecasting.
View
Beyond the Correlation Coefficient in Studies of Self-Assessment Accuracy Commentary on Zell & Krizan (2014)
Article
  • Mar 2014
Zell and Krizan (2014, this issue) provide a comprehensive yet incomplete portrait of the factors influencing accurate self-assessment. This is no fault of their own. Much work on self-accuracy focuses on the correlation coefficient as the measure of accuracy, but it is not the only way self-accuracy can be measured. As such, its use can provide an incomplete and potentially misleading story. We urge researchers to explore measures of bias as well as correlation, because there are indirect hints that each respond to a different psychological dynamic. We further entreat researchers to develop other creative measures of accuracy and not to forget that self-accuracy may come not only from personal knowledge but also from insight about human nature more generally. © The Author(s) 2014.
View
Underestimating Our Influence Over Others at Work
Article
  • Dec 2013
  • RES ORGAN BEHAV
Employees at all organizational levels have influence over their subordinates, their colleagues, and even their bosses. But are they aware of this influence? We present evidence suggesting that employees are constrained by cognitive biases that lead them to underestimate their influence over others in the workplace. As a result of this underestimation of influence, employees may be reluctant to spearhead organizational change, discount their own role in subordinates’ performance failures, and fail to speak up in the face of wrongdoing. In addition to reviewing evidence for this bias, we propose five moderators that, when present, may reverse or attenuate the underestimation effect (namely, comparative judgments, the objectification or dehumanization of an influence target, the actual degree of influence any one influencer has, the means of influence, and culture). Finally, we offer some practical solutions to help employees more fully recognize their influence over other members of the organization.
View
The Costs of Asking for Help
Article
  • Mar 1980
Psychological costs associated with seeking help were studied. The specific helpseeking costs that were addressed included various costs specific to the recipient (e.g., whether receiving the help leads to less credit for successful outcomes), as well as costs associated with the helper (e.g., inconvenience). The findings suggest that persons deciding whether to seek help take into account not only their own costs and rewards but also the cost-reward contingencies of their helper. It was also predicted and found that subjects for whom the expected tasks were especially involving would seek less help, and that subjects who asked for more help would feel less comfortable about approaching the helper and would believe that the helper would perceive them as less competent.
View