Hiding success.

Roberts, Annabelle; Levine, Emma; Sezer, Ovul

doi:10.1037/pspi0000322

Cited by 24 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 97 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Sharing positive compared to negative information can furthermore increase closeness between sharer and receiver—at least from the receiver’s (Study 1) or from the observer’s (Study 2) point of view. This is in line with current research showing that sharing (and not hiding) successes increases closeness [ 63 ]. Studies 1 and 2 also indicate that, in some cases, sharing negative information might increase closeness, too.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Secretive and close? How sharing secrets may impact perceptions of distance

Jaffé

Douneva²,

Albath

2023

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Having secrets is incredibly common. However, secrecy has only recently started to receive more attention in research. What has largely been neglected are the consequences of secret-sharing for the relationship between sharer and receiver; a gap we aim to fill in this project. Previous research has shown that closeness can make secret-sharing more likely. Building on research from the self-disclosure and relationship literature, we experimentally investigate in three studies (N = 705) whether confiding a secret to somebody might in turn increase perceptions of closeness. In addition, we test whether the valence of the secrets moderates the hypothesized effect. While confiding negative secrets might signal a high level of trust and lead to a similar closeness as confiding positive secrets, they might also present a burden to the receiver and lead to a different pattern of closeness. To provide a holistic picture, we build on a variety of methods and investigate three perspectives: Study 1 focused on the receiver and showed that another person sharing secrets (vs. nonconfidential information) decreased the distance in the eyes of the receiver. Study 2 tested how an observer perceives the relationship between two people. Distance was judged to decrease when secrets (vs. nonconfidential information) were shared, however, this difference was not significant. Study 3 tested whether lay theories about sharing secrets predict behavior, and how sharing information may be used to change perceived distance on the receiver’s side. Participants preferred to share neutral compared to secret information and positive compared to negative secrets irrespective of the distance condition. Our results contribute to the understanding of how sharing secrets affects the way individuals think about each other, how close they feel to each other, and how they interact with each other.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Secretive and close? How sharing secrets may impact perceptions of distance

Jaffé

Douneva²,

Albath

2023

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, the unnecessary harm framework identifies the dimensions of harm that communicators, targets, and observers care about when judging deception. Existing research on deception has focused almost entirely on the “immediate harm” dimension, for example, by demonstrating that people frequently lie to be polite (Brown & Levinson, 1987), to protect others’ feelings (DePaulo & Bell, 1996), to boost others’ egos (Roberts et al, 2020), and to prevent conflicts (DePaulo et al, 1996). However, as the present work demonstrates, most people do not believe that protecting a person from immediate harm is a sufficient justification for lying.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Community standards of deception: Deception is perceived to be ethical when it prevents unnecessary harm.

Levine¹

2022

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We frequently claim that lying is wrong, despite modeling that it is often right. The present research sheds light on this tension by unearthing systematic cases in which people believe lying is ethical in everyday communication and by proposing and testing a theory to explain these cases. Using both inductive and experimental approaches, the present research finds that deception is perceived to be ethical and individuals want to be deceived when deception is perceived to prevent unnecessary harm. This research identifies eight community standards of deception: rules of deception that most people abide by and recognize once articulated, but have never previously been codified. These standards clarify systematic circumstances in which deception is perceived to prevent unnecessary harm, and therefore, circumstances in which deception is perceived to be ethical. This work also documents how perceptions of unnecessary harm influence the use and judgment of deception in everyday life, above and beyond other moral concerns. These findings provide insight into when and why people value honesty and paves the way for future research on when and why people embrace deception.

show abstract

“…However, insofar as modesty manifests as hiding information about particular achievements, there may at times be disadvantages. Roberts et al (2021) find that sharing success can benefit relationship closeness and that hiding such success can be viewed as insulting. To be sure, future research would benefit from a broader conceptualization of the nuances of modesty and self-promotion for social inference, behaviors, and relationships.…”

Section: Limitations and Future Directionsmentioning

confidence: 95%

On the value of modesty: How signals of status undermine cooperation.

Srna¹,

Barasch²,

Small³

2022

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The widespread demand for luxury is best understood by the social advantages of signaling status (i.e., conspicuous consumption; Veblen, 1899). In the present research, we examine the limits of this perspective by studying the implications of status signaling for cooperation. Cooperation is principally about caring for others, which is fundamentally at odds with the self-promotional nature of signaling status. Across behaviorally consequential Prisoner’s Dilemma (PD) games and naturalistic scenario studies, we investigate both sides of the relationship between signaling and cooperation: (a) how people respond to others who signal status, as well as (b) the strategic choices people make about whether to signal status. In each case, we find that people recognize the relative advantage of modesty (i.e., the inverse of signaling status) and behave strategically to enable cooperation. That is, people are less likely to cooperate with partners who signal status compared to those who are modest (Studies 1 and 2), and more likely to select a modest person when cooperation is desirable (Study 3). These behaviors are consistent with inferences that status signalers are less prosocial and less prone to cooperate. Importantly, people also refrain from signaling status themselves when it is strategically beneficial to appear cooperative (Studies 4–6). Together, our findings contribute to a better understanding of the conditions under which the reputational costs of conspicuous consumption outweigh its benefits, helping integrate theoretical perspectives on strategic interpersonal dynamics, cooperation, and status signaling.

show abstract

Hiding success.

Cited by 24 publications

References 97 publications

Secretive and close? How sharing secrets may impact perceptions of distance

Secretive and close? How sharing secrets may impact perceptions of distance

Community standards of deception: Deception is perceived to be ethical when it prevents unnecessary harm.

On the value of modesty: How signals of status undermine cooperation.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About