<p>Thank you all for your responses. I found the answer independently - I was looking for the <em>Pratfall Effect</em> described in <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/BF03342263" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Elliot Aronson's 1966 paper "The effect of a pratfall on increasing interpersonal attractiveness" in Psychonomic Science</a>. </p>

<p>The paper's abstract reads:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>An experiment was performed which demonstrated that the attractiveness
  of a superior person is enhanced if he commits a clumsy blunder; the
  same blunder tends to decrease the the attractiveness of a mediocre
  person. We predicted these results by conjecturing that a superior
  person may be viewed as superhuman and, therefore, distant; a blunder
  tends to humanize him and, consequently, increases his attractiveness.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>More information on the Pratfall Effect can be found here: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratfall_effect" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Wikipedia</a>, <a href="http://psychologyarchive.blogspot.com/2015/12/pratfall-effect.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Psychology Archive</a> </p>

<p><sub>
Aronson, E., Willerman, B., &amp; Floyd, J. (1966). <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/BF03342263" rel="nofollow noreferrer">The effect of a pratfall on increasing interpersonal attractiveness.</a> Psychonomic Science, 4(6), 227-228.
</sub></p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-01-03T01:35:58.360Z
If GS is even somewhat correct, the 1966 paper only has 221 citations, which is pretty low for something this old and supposedly famous (I do see it mentioned in a few books though). Although GS tends to undeestimate for old papers, a 1959 paper of Aronson "The effect of severity of initiation on liking for a group."  on [effort justification](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effort_justification) is credited with 1300+ citations. Also, a pratfall is not the same thing as disclosing a weakness.
got trolled too much this week
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-01-03T15:14:54.580Z
That's true. Thanks, Fizz.
wtrs
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-01-02T17:02:57.563Z
2018-01-03T08:50:09.543Z
2018-01-03T08:50:09.543Z
wtrs
<p>I'm not convinced the effect is even true in general, and appears to be false in job/task-related contexts particularly when the boss does the disclosure; according to a recent paper:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>It is generally believed that self-disclosure has positive effects, particularly for relationships; however, we predict
  and find negative effects in the context of task-oriented relationships. Across three laboratory experiments, we
  find that both task-relevant (Study 1) and task-irrelevant (Studies 2 and 3) weakness disclosures, made by a
  higher (versus peer) status coworker during an interdependent task, negatively affected the receiver’s perception
  of the discloser’s status and consequently undermined the discloser’s influence, encouraged task conflict, and led
  to lower relationship quality with the discloser. Peer status disclosers did not trigger these negative responses.
  We find support for perceived vulnerability as the proposed psychological process (Study 3). Specifically, higher
  (but not peer) status disclosers experience a status penalty after weakness disclosures because these disclosures
  signal vulnerability, which violates the expectations people have for higher (but not peer) status coworkers.
  These findings provide insight into the effects of self-disclosing weakness at work and the ways in which high
  status employees may inadvertently trigger their own status loss.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>(<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2017.09.001" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Doi link</a>; <a href="http://daneshyari.com/article/preview/5035295.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">free full-text</a> from one of the authrors.)</p>

<p>What this study (alas) didn't address is whether a low-status peer would be seen in a more positive light by a higher-status one after a disclosure, like in your last paragraph. So we don't seem to have experimental evidence on whether "sucking up" by (more or less machiavellian) disclosures or even faking less competence (as to diminish perceived threat) works as intended. I suppose the latter is quite contextual. In a hierarchy where the lower status individual could conceivably take the place of the higher status individual (say in a military junta or an <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=jEyhz3cpH00C&amp;pg=PA207" rel="nofollow noreferrer">apparatchik system</a>) feigning a less threatening attitude (via some but not complete incompetence) perhaps does work. I'm having doubts that feigning partial incompetence does much good to a subordinate in a context where the high-status individual does not see any direct threat to his position (like when hiring a contractor for a non-core task). But this is just me theorizing. More empirical research is needed, as the saying goes. In general, other forms of "sucking up" <a href="https://theconversation.com/heres-what-coworkers-think-when-you-suck-up-to-your-boss-62408" rel="nofollow noreferrer">do seem to work through</a>, with the caveat that while "sucking up" may have a positive effect on the relationship with the boss, it's also likely to have a negative effect on the relationship(s) with same-status peers/colleagures.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-12-23T18:40:45.567Z
The exception to the rule (peer status disclosers) might be related to what the OP was hinting at? Unfortunately no time to read the full paper. :)
Steven Jeuris
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-12-20T14:48:38.970Z
2017-12-23T06:32:08.863Z
2017-12-23T06:32:08.863Z
got trolled too much this week
<p>I heard a podcast about a study (I think it was Radiolab or similar) that found that people are viewed as more likable after they reveal a weakness or a shortcoming, but the effect only occurs if they have established that they are competent. </p>

<p>What is that study? The podcast said it is influential and well known.</p>

<p>In the podcast, a professor told a story about how when he was a graduate student made a fool of himself in front of his PhD advisor and he joked that he did it on purpose to improve his likebility and she retorted that he hadn't yet established himself as competent. I remember hearing it in late 2014. Any help enormously appreciated!</p>

<cognitive-psychology><social-psychology><emotion><reference-request><personality>
Study on likability, weakness, and competence?
wtrs
# Study on likability, weakness, and competence?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2017-12-20)

I heard a podcast about a study (I think it was Radiolab or similar) that found that people are viewed as more likable after they reveal a weakness or a shortcoming, but the effect only occurs if they have established that they are competent.

What is that study? The podcast said it is influential and well known.

In the podcast, a professor told a story about how when he was a graduate student made a fool of himself in front of his PhD advisor and he joked that he did it on purpose to improve his likebility and she retorted that he hadn't yet established himself as competent. I remember hearing it in late 2014. Any help enormously appreciated!

**Tags:** cognitive-psychology, social-psychology, emotion, reference-request, personality


---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_0 on 2018-01-02. Score: 3 | Accepted answer

Thank you all for your responses. I found the answer independently - I was looking for the *Pratfall Effect* described in [Elliot Aronson's 1966 paper "The effect of a pratfall on increasing interpersonal attractiveness" in Psychonomic Science](https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/BF03342263).

The paper's abstract reads:

> An experiment was performed which demonstrated that the attractiveness
> of a superior person is enhanced if he commits a clumsy blunder; the
> same blunder tends to decrease the the attractiveness of a mediocre
> person. We predicted these results by conjecturing that a superior
> person may be viewed as superhuman and, therefore, distant; a blunder
> tends to humanize him and, consequently, increases his attractiveness.

More information on the Pratfall Effect can be found here: [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratfall_effect), [Psychology Archive](http://psychologyarchive.blogspot.com/2015/12/pratfall-effect.html)

Aronson, E., Willerman, B., & Floyd, J. (1966). [The effect of a pratfall on increasing interpersonal attractiveness.](https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/BF03342263) Psychonomic Science, 4(6), 227-228.

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: If GS is even somewhat correct, the 1966 paper only has 221 citations, which is pretty low for something this old and supposedly famous (I do see it mentioned in a few books though). Although GS tends to undeestimate for old papers, a 1959 paper of Aronson "The effect of severity of initiation on liking for a group."  on [effort justification](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effort_justification) is credited with 1300+ citations. Also, a pratfall is not the same thing as disclosing a weakness.  
> **username_0**: That's true. Thanks, Fizz.  

---

### Answer by username_1 on 2017-12-20. Score: 2

I'm not convinced the effect is even true in general, and appears to be false in job/task-related contexts particularly when the boss does the disclosure; according to a recent paper:

> It is generally believed that self-disclosure has positive effects, particularly for relationships; however, we predict
> and find negative effects in the context of task-oriented relationships. Across three laboratory experiments, we
> find that both task-relevant (Study 1) and task-irrelevant (Studies 2 and 3) weakness disclosures, made by a
> higher (versus peer) status coworker during an interdependent task, negatively affected the receiver’s perception
> of the discloser’s status and consequently undermined the discloser’s influence, encouraged task conflict, and led
> to lower relationship quality with the discloser. Peer status disclosers did not trigger these negative responses.
> We find support for perceived vulnerability as the proposed psychological process (Study 3). Specifically, higher
> (but not peer) status disclosers experience a status penalty after weakness disclosures because these disclosures
> signal vulnerability, which violates the expectations people have for higher (but not peer) status coworkers.
> These findings provide insight into the effects of self-disclosing weakness at work and the ways in which high
> status employees may inadvertently trigger their own status loss.

([Doi link](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2017.09.001); [free full-text](http://daneshyari.com/article/preview/5035295.pdf) from one of the authrors.)

What this study (alas) didn't address is whether a low-status peer would be seen in a more positive light by a higher-status one after a disclosure, like in your last paragraph. So we don't seem to have experimental evidence on whether "sucking up" by (more or less machiavellian) disclosures or even faking less competence (as to diminish perceived threat) works as intended. I suppose the latter is quite contextual. In a hierarchy where the lower status individual could conceivably take the place of the higher status individual (say in a military junta or an [apparatchik system](https://books.google.com/books?id=jEyhz3cpH00C&pg=PA207)) feigning a less threatening attitude (via some but not complete incompetence) perhaps does work. I'm having doubts that feigning partial incompetence does much good to a subordinate in a context where the high-status individual does not see any direct threat to his position (like when hiring a contractor for a non-core task). But this is just me theorizing. More empirical research is needed, as the saying goes. In general, other forms of "sucking up" [do seem to work through](https://theconversation.com/heres-what-coworkers-think-when-you-suck-up-to-your-boss-62408), with the caveat that while "sucking up" may have a positive effect on the relationship with the boss, it's also likely to have a negative effect on the relationship(s) with same-status peers/colleagures.

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: The exception to the rule (peer status disclosers) might be related to what the OP was hinting at? Unfortunately no time to read the full paper. :)  

---

