This paper examines how what people disclose about their successes or failures depends on what others have disclosed. We propose that these decisions are guided less by self-focused motives and more by a concern for how one’s words will affect the other person’s emotions. Across nine studies (N = 8,229, including preregistered experiments, 2,216 self-written responses, and 473 real conversation dyads), we find that responders are consistently more likely to disclose matching outcomes (e.g., failures in response to failures) than non-matching ones (e.g., failures in response to successes), but with two asymmetries not predicted by prior theories. First, responders are more likely to disclose matching failures (failures in response to failures) than matching successes (successes in response to successes). Second, when experiencing non-matching outcomes, responders are more likely to disclose failures in response to successes than they are to disclose successes in response to failures. These patterns reflect other-focused attempts to comfort those who have failed and avoid exacerbating their distress. Beyond whether they disclosed, responders also adjusted how they disclosed, for instance, softening success disclosures in response to failures with consolation or apologies. These effects generalized across domains (e.g., health, career, financial), across relationships varying in closeness and status, and emerged in choices between pre-written responses, self-generated responses, and live conversations involving actual interpersonal disclosures. Disclosure decisions were moderated by factors such as liking and domain relevance. By demonstrating that responders’ outcome disclosures are systematically shaped by concern for the well-being of others, this work reframes disclosure as an intended conversational tool for protecting others’ emotions rather than managing self-presentation.

Compliments can benefit recipients, givers, and their relationships, but responding to them can be surprisingly complex. Across four preregistered studies (N = 2,056 adults online and in the lab), deflecting (vs. accepting) compliments reliably produced negative consequences for how recipients were perceived. Though deflecting had mixed effects on perceived humility relative to accepting—at times, decreasing, increasing, or having no effect on humility—recipients who deflected (vs. accepted) compliments were consistently seen as less warm, less competent, and less likable both across recalled real interactions (Study 1) and controlled scenarios (Studies 2-3). These effects were mediated by lower perceived relational receptivity: Compliment givers saw recipients as less aligned with their positive view, which in turn led to these negative social evaluations (Study 3). Subsequently, these negative social perceptions resulted in behavioral consequences: Recipients who deflected were less likely to be chosen as future work partners relative to those who accepted (Study 4). Together, these findings reveal the negative social consequences of deflecting praise and identify relational receptivity as a key mechanism through which everyday conversational responses shape social evaluation.

Seven preregistered studies (N = 2,890, adult participants) conducted in the field, in the lab, and online documented opportunity neglect: a tendency to reject opportunities with low probability of success even when they come with little or no objective cost (e.g., time, money, reputation). Participants rejected a low-probability opportunity in an everyday context (Study 1). Participants also rejected incentive-compatible gambles with positive expected value-for both goods (Study 2) and money (Studies 3-7)-even with no possibility of monetary loss and nontrivial rewards (e.g., a 1% chance at $99). Participants rejected low-probability opportunities more frequently than high-probability opportunities with equal expected value (Study 3). Although taking some real-life opportunities comes with costs, we show that people are even willing to incur costs to opt out of low-probability opportunities (Study 4). Opportunity neglect can be mitigated by highlighting that rejecting an opportunity is equivalent to choosing a zero probability of success (Studies 6-7).

How do people respond to others’ disclosures of successes and failures? In six preregistered experiments, we show that responders prefer to match initiators’ outcome disclosures: they are more likely to disclose their failures when initiators have disclosed failures than successes (“failure matching”), and more likely to disclose their successes when initiators have disclosed successes than failures (“success matching”). The observed pattern, however, is asymmetric: failure matching is stronger than success matching, and responders prefer to disclose worse outcomes (i.e., a failure when initiators have shared a success) than better outcomes (i.e., a success when initiators have shared a failure). We propose that these response patterns are driven by two processes: (1) expectations of appropriateness and responsiveness, and (2) other-protective motives (i.e., a concern for initiators’ feelings). Study 1 demonstrates the asymmetric matching pattern. Study 2 replicates this pattern with real interactions and outcomes. Study 3 compares the observed effects to a control condition in which the initiator did not disclose an outcome. Study 4 provides process evidence by measuring responders’ protective motives. Study 5 manipulates the relationship quality and shows that the asymmetric matching pattern is attenuated for bad relationships. Study 6 manipulates the source of disclosure and shows that, when a third party rather than the initiator discloses, the pattern is again attenuated.

Disclosing personal successes and failures provides others with information not only about one’s outcomes, but also about one’s social preferences. We propose that this information, and the emotional reactions it conveys, influence a recipient’s decision to respond to the disclosure of successes or failures by a sender with disclosures of their own. Drawing on research on social utility and social preferences, we hypothesize that inequality aversion and a preference for reciprocity induce recipients to respond to a sender’s disclosure by revealing outcomes that are equal rather than unequal, regardless of whether the inequality is advantageous or disadvantageous to themselves. In a set of preregistered experiments using both scenarios and real conversations, we show that recipients are more likely to disclose a failure when a sender disclosed a failure than a success, and to disclose a success when a sender disclosed a success than a failure. We observe this equal outcome disclosure pattern in response to a sender’s disclosure. Yet, the pattern is attenuated when the same information is conveyed through a third party or as the quality of the relationship between the parties gets worse. We also observe a general aversion to brag by sharing a success, particularly pronounced in response to the disclosure of failures. These studies provide a new perspective on information disclosure in interactive response settings, show that insights from research on social utility and social preferences can be applied to self-disclosure, and challenge past research that depicts people as inept self-presenters and reluctant to share failures.

Policy makers have increasingly advocated for healthcare price transparency, whereby prices are made salient before services are rendered. While such policies may empower consumers, they also bring price to the forefront of healthcare choices as never before, with yet underexplored consequences on consumers' decisions. This article explores one: using price as a signal of quality. Five experiments demonstrate how healthcare consumers may come to form price-based inferences of quality and explore how these inferences may vary as a function of individuals' health insurance coverage. Specifically, relative to high-coverage consumers (for whom insurance covers a relatively greater portion of healthcare expenses), low-coverage consumers (for whom insurance covers relatively less) tend to both choose lower-priced providers and perceive a weaker price-quality relationship, suggestive of motivated reasoning. Our work exposes one way in which price transparency policies may have divergent effects on low- versus high-coverage consumers, with direct implications for policy.

Impression management is the process by which individuals attempt to influence the perceptions others have of them. These tactics are common in everyday social interactions, but can be particularly useful in professional spheres to influence others’ perceptions of employees’ competence and likeability, and therefore their chances of being hired, favorably evaluated, or earning higher salaries. Despite the usefulness of such tactics in gaining opportunity in organizations, strategic self-presentation techniques to manage the impressions others have of oneself can often have negative consequences. The current symposium seeks to advance the study of impression management in the organization by examining in a more nuanced fashion the perceptual consequences of impression management strategies. The proposed symposium consists of four empirical papers addressing when impression management goes awry. These papers examine questions related to the tactics individuals use to gain status in groups (presentation 1), the disclosure of failures as a strategic self-presentation technique (presentation 2), the use of detailed professional introductions to create opportunities for social connection (presentation 3), and the misperceptions between majority and minority groups about each other’s emotional reactions to equity-based issues (presentation 4). Together, via experimental studies using diverse samples, these papers address questions pertaining to when common impression management strategies are advantageous, and when they can be detrimental to individuals. The Mistaken Preference for Overclaiming Contributions in Groups Presenter: Daniel Stein; U. of California, Berkeley Presenter: Derek Schatz; U. of California, Berkeley Presenter: Juliana Schroeder; U. of California, Berkeley Disclosures of Successes and Failures as Social Utility Presenter: Emily Prinsloo; Harvard Business School Presenter: Irene Scopelliti; Cass Business School, City U. London Presenter: Joachim Vosgerau; Bocconi U. Presenter: George Loewenstein; Carnegie Mellon U. - Dietrich College of Humanities and Social Sciences It’s the Journey, Not the Destination: Process Introductions Increase Warmth and Preserve Competence Presenter: Kelly Nault; INSEAD Presenter: Ovul Sezer; Kenan-Flagler Business School, U. of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Presenter: Nadav Klein; INSEAD Outgroup Members Exaggerate Other’s Negative Affective Reactions Toward Majority-Group Privilege Presenter: Aastha Mittal; Haas School of Business, UC Berkeley Presenter: Peter Belmi; U. of Virginia

We propose that disclosing one’s positive and negative experiences carries social utility for both senders and recipients. We show that consumers consider this utility when deciding whether to disclose their experiences with others. In three preregistered studies, consumers respond in kind to the disclosures of positive and negative experiences by others.

Seven studies (N = 2352) examine backhanded compliments—seeming praise that draws a comparison with a negative standard—a distinct self-presentation strategy with two simultaneous goals: eliciting liking (“Your speech was good…”) and conveying status (“…for a woman”). Backhanded compliments are common, from delivering feedback in work settings to communicating in casual conversation, and take several distinct forms (Studies 1a-b). Backhanded compliments have mixed effectiveness, as people who deliver backhanded compliments erroneously believe that they will both convey high status and elicit liking (Studies 2a-2b) but recipients and third-party evaluators grant them neither (Study 3a-3b); however, backhanded compliments are successful in reducing recipients’ motivation (Study 3c). We identify two constructs useful in determining the general effectiveness of ingratiation: excessive concern with image drives negative perceptions of backhanded compliment givers, while perceptions of low relative rank in a distribution drives the reduced motivation of backhanded compliment recipients.