Psychology

Ever Wonder Why People Resist Gifts? // Reactance Theory

April 12, 2021 By Nagesh Belludi Leave a Comment

People are more likely to resist or reject well-intentioned proposals, advice, or gifts when it feels like their freedom is being threatened in some way.

For instance, I hate receiving clothes for gifts—clothing is mostly a matter of personal taste. I’ll grin and bear it. I may even wear said clothes once or twice just to please the giver.

Turns out that my indifference isn’t atypical. Psychological studies of the gift-giving process indicate that giving clothing gifts involves greater risk than with other kinds of gift objects. The chosen gift may not match the recipient’s self-image, identity, or dress style.

The so-called Reactance Theory explains why giving gifts and offering uncalled-for advice could rankle so much. According to the American Psychological Association,

Reactance theory is a model stating that in response to a perceived threat to—or loss of—a behavioral freedom, a person will experience psychological reactance (or, more simply, reactance,) a motivational state characterized by distress, anxiety, resistance, and the desire to restore that freedom. According to this model, when people feel coerced into a certain behavior, they will react against the coercion, often by demonstrating an increased preference for the behavior that is restrained, and may perform the behavior opposite to that desired.

Reactance can come into play when you’re persuading someone to buy a specific product at the grocery store, forbidding a child from using a mobile phone at school, or insisting that an employee perform some detestable task for the boss.

Idea for Impact: Think twice before you do anything that, though meant well, may threaten another person’s sense of behavioral freedom. People who are threatened thus usually feel uncomfortable and angry—even hostile.

In gift-giving, offering advice, or any other attempt at social influence, know your limits. Beware that it’s not always easy to recognize the limits until you overshoot them.

Why Your Judgment Sucks

April 5, 2021 By Nagesh Belludi Leave a Comment

Israeli-American psychologist Daniel Kahneman’s bestselling Thinking, Fast and Slow (2011) describes the finer points of decision-making. It’s an engaging showcase of the innate biases of the mind and unthinking approaches to decision-making.

Human Beings are Intuitive Thinkers

Kahneman is a behavioral economics pioneer and the winner of the 2002 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences. His lifelong collaboration with Amos Tversky (1937—96) has molded humans’ thinking about human error, risk, judgment, decision-making, happiness, and more. Tversky died in 1996, so he did not share in the Nobel.

Thinking, Fast and Slow explores what Kahneman calls the “mind’s machinery” as two coexisting modes of thought (“fast and slow,” as the title says.) Kahneman splits the brain into two radically divergent ways, employing a two-tier model of cognition.

System One makes judgments instantly, intuitively, and automatically, as when a cricket batsman decides whether to cut or pull. A significant part of System One is “evolved heuristics” that lets us read a person’s expression in a microsecond from a block away, for example. And it can’t be switched off. System One’s thinking is fast and effortless. It often jumps to the wrong conclusions, relies on hunches and biases, and perhaps overconfident.
System Two is slower, conscious, calculated, and deliberate, like long division. Its operations require attention. System Two is what we think of as “thinking”—slow, tiring, and essential. It’s what makes us human. Even if System Two believes it is on top of things, System One makes many of our decisions.

System One Isn’t All Flawed

In a world that often necessitates swift judgment and rapid decision-making (e.g., fight or flight,) a person who solely relies on deliberative thinking (System Two) wouldn’t last long. Doctors and firefighters, for example, through training and repetition, develop what’s called “expert intuition” that helps them identify patterns and impulsively devise the right response to a complex emergency.

We as humans are not simple rational agents. Consequently, our thinking boils down to two “Systems” of thinking/processing. As we strive to make better decisions in our work and personal lives, it benefits us to slow down and use a more deliberate System 2 way of thinking. Learn to doubt your fast/quick way of thinking!

Human Intuition is Imperfect

Thinking, Fast and Slow is an eye-opener in various ways. It can be a frightening catalog of the biases, shortcuts, and cognitive illusions that come to err our judgment—the endowment effect, priming, halo effect, anchoring effect, conjugation fallacy, the narrative fallacy, and the rest. Such mental processes are not intrinsically flawed; they are heuristics—rules of thumb, stereotypes, shortcuts. They are strategies the mind embraces to find a path in a tsunami of data.

Kahneman teaches how to recognize situations that require slower, deliberative thinking. Kahneman asserts that the value of the book is to give people the vocabulary to spot biases and to criticize the decisions of others: “Ultimately, a richer language is essential to the skill of constructive criticism.”

Recommendation: Read Daniel Kahneman’s Thinking, Fast and Slow (2011.) As one of the most popular non-fiction books in the last decade, it’ll open your eyes to the quirky and error-prone ways in which you can be influenced in ways you don’t suspect.

The conceptions behind behavioral economics make Thinking, Fast and Slow a laborious read. Many chapters are bogged down by hair-splitting details of his rigorous scientific work and academic gobbledygook. It’s a commanding survey of this field, but it’s superbly written and intelligible to non-experts.

Complement with Rolf Dobelli’s accessible The Art of Thinking Clearly (2013.)

The Unthinking Habits of Your Mind // Book Summary of David McRaney’s ‘You Are Not So Smart’

April 1, 2021 By Nagesh Belludi Leave a Comment

Psychologists have argued that many cognitive biases are rooted in mental shortcuts. They are heuristics—rules of thumb, stereotypes, instincts—that help you make sense of the world. They aren’t intrinsically flawed, but, they’re often quirky and error-prone. Your mental models can affect you in ways that you don’t suspect.

David McRaney’s You Are Not So Smart (2011) suggests a brief—if hurried—tour of 48 cognitive biases that can deceive you. Based on the author’s popular blog, the book is a satisfying assessment of understanding people’s—and your own—behavior a little bit better.

There is a growing body of work coming out of psychology and cognitive science that says you have no clue why you act the way you do, choose the things you choose, or think the thoughts you think. … From the greatest scientist to the most humble artisan, every brain within every body is infested with preconceived notions and patterns of thought that lead it astray without the brain knowing it. So you are in good company.

Each chapter starts with a brief statement of a misconception followed by the fact. Then a synopsis of a related behavioral study shows how our brains produce the counterpart deception and the truth. Some of the less-known preconceptions discussed are,

Confabulation. You tend to create unreliable narratives to explain away your choices post hoc. These reassuring perceptions can make you think you’re more rational than you actually are.
Groupthink. People tend to fall in with the rest of the group to minimize conflict and foster group cohesiveness and social acceptance. No one wants to be the one person with a dissenting opinion.
Social Loafing. That others in a team will pick up your slack may induce you to put in less effort if you think you’ll get away with it. This can curb your own performance, even if you’re a conscientious, hardworking type. If you don’t feel your participation will be noticed, why bother putting in the effort?
Availability Heuristic. You’re likely to estimate the likelihood of an event based on your ability to recall immediate and easily accessed examples.
Fundamental Attribution Error. You tend to assign external reasons for your own behavior but internal motives to other people. For instance, if you’re late for a meeting, you’ll blame it on public transport. If someone else is running late for a meeting with you, you’ll blame it on her poor time-keeping.

Recommendation: Read David McRaney’s You Are Not So Smart. It’s an engaging, easy-to-read primer to how the mind works. Read it as a lead up to Daniel Kahneman’s bestselling dissertation Thinking, Fast and Slow (2011; summary forthcoming.)

Idea for Impact: Once you learn to spot the cognitive biases we all grapple with, they’re easier to overcome.

A Real Lesson from the Downfall of Theranos: Silo Mentality

February 4, 2021 By Nagesh Belludi Leave a Comment

The extraordinary rise and fall of Theranos, Silicon Valley’s biggest fraud, makes an excellent case study on what happens when teams don’t loop each other in.

Theranos’ blood-testing device never worked as glorified by its founder and CEO, Elizabeth Holmes. She created an illusion that became one of the greatest start-up stories. She kept her contraption’s malfunctions and her company’s problems shockingly well hidden—even from her distinguished board of directors.

At the core of Holmes’s sham was how she controlled the company’s flow of information

Holmes and her associate (and then-lover) Sunny Balwani operated a culture of fear and intimidation at Theranos. They went to such lengths as hiring superstar lawyers to intimidate and silence employees and anyone else who dared to challenge their methods or expose their devices’ deficiencies.

Holmes had the charade going for so long by keeping a tight rein on who talked to whom. She controlled the flow of information within the company. Not only that, she swiftly fired people who dared to question her approach. She also forcefully imposed non-disclosure agreements even for those exiting the company.

In other words, Holmes went to incredible lengths to create and maintain a silo mentality in her startup. Her intention was to wield much power, prevent employees from talking to each other, and perpetuate her deceit.

A recipe for disaster at Theranos: Silo mentality and intimidation approach

Wall Street Journal investigative reporter John Carreyrou’s book Bad Blood: Secrets and Lies in a Silicon Valley Startup (2018; my summary) is full of stories of how Holmes went out of her way to restrain employees from conferring about what they were working on. Even if they worked on the same project, Holmes made siloed functional teams report to her directly. She would edit progress reports before redirecting problems to other team heads.

Consider designer Ed Ku’s mechatronics team responsible for designing all the intricate mechanisms that control the measured flow of biochemical fluids. Some of his team’s widgets were overheating, impinging on one another and cross-contaminating the clinical fluids. Holmes wouldn’t allow Ku and his team to talk to the teams that improved the biochemical processes.

Silo mentality can become very problematic when communication channels become too constricted and organizational processes too bureaucratic. Creativity gets stifled, collaboration limited, mistakes—misdeeds in the case of Theranos—suppressed, and collective objectives misaligned.

Idea for Impact: Functional silos make organizations slow, bureaucratic, and complicated

Innovation hinges increasingly on interdisciplinary cooperation. Examine if your leadership attitude or culture is unintentionally contributing to insufficient accountability, inadequate information-sharing, and limited collaboration between departments—especially on enterprise-wide initiatives.

Lessons from Drucker: Manage People, Not Things

August 13, 2020 By Nagesh Belludi Leave a Comment

One of Peter Drucker’s big ideas was the notion of management as a “liberal art.” In The New Realities (1950,) Drucker argued that effective managers need a wide-ranging knowledge on subjects as varied as psychology, science—even religion.

Management is a liberal art—“liberal” because it deals with the fundamentals of knowledge, self-knowledge, wisdom, and leadership; “art” because it deals with practice and application.

Management deals with people, their values, their growth and development—and this makes it a humanity. So does its concern with, and impact on, social structure and the community. Indeed… management is deeply involved in spiritual concerns—the nature of man, good and evil.

Managers draw on all the knowledge and insights of the humanities and the social sciences—on psychology and philosophy, on economics and on history, on the physical sciences and on ethics.

Idea for Impact: Management has become more about numbers and processes than about people

Manage people, not things.

A wise manager is a well-rounded one—somebody who understands and can leverage, in Drucker’s words, “the nature of man.”

Understand your employees. Understand how they think and act. Know what makes them tick—what drives them, what motivates them, what their aspirations are. Acquaint yourself to different approaches to management based on different sets of values. Individualize your management approach.

Use this understanding to create a productive work environment—that’s your foremost responsibility as a manager.

Power Inspires Hypocrisy

July 27, 2020 By Nagesh Belludi Leave a Comment

Mark Hurd, whom I featured in Friday’s article, was one of the most respected and eminent leaders in Silicon Valley until his mighty fall following his dalliance with a contractor during his time as CEO of Hewlett Packard (HP.)

Hurd had hired this contractor, a glamour model, as a “hostess” for “executive summit events,” even at out-of-town places where there is no HP event, but Hurd happened to be.

Hurd was ultimately exonerated of violating HP’s sexual-harassment policy (nothing was consummated with the contractor, and Hurd settled with the accuser for undisclosed terms) but he was officially charged with drumming up expense reports.

Hurd walked away from HP with a $34 million severance package. Almost immediately, he became co-president of Oracle, earning $11 million a year and options.

Much has been speculated about the real reasons HP’s board gave Hurd the boot, especially considering that he probably falsified his just an expense report just the once. Even then, said expenses were petty compared to the massive turnaround he had engineered at HP after walking into a very troubling situation. Hurd was famed for his no-nonsense management style and for finagling a culture of operational excellence at HP.

When the Hurd controversy broke out, Wall Street Journal’s Jonah Lehrer argued that when nice people rise to positions of power, “authority atrophies the very talents that got them there.”

The very traits that helped leaders accumulate control in the first place all but disappear once they rise to power. Instead of being polite, honest and outgoing, they become impulsive, reckless and rude.

Contrary to the notion that nice guys finish last, research shows that the surest way to accumulate power is to do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

But once nice guys reach the top, the headiness of wielding power causes them to morph into a very different kind of beast. They lose their ability to empathize with others, especially lesser mortals, and ignore information that doesn’t confirm what they already believe. Most tellingly, perhaps, they learn to excuse faults in themselves that they are quick to condemn in others. That’s not to say that every CEO is a secret villain. But even the most virtuous people can be undone by the corner office.

Idea for Impact: Power can become an enabler of corruption, deceit, and hypocrisy. People in positions of power have incentives to hold others to strict account for their behaviors even as they themselves act up, especially when the odds of being caught and punished are slim.

The Costs of Perfectionism: A Case Study of A Two Michelin-Starred French Chef

March 30, 2020 By Nagesh Belludi Leave a Comment

Marc Veyrat, a top-rated French chef, sued the Michelin Guide in 2019 for downgrading his world-renowned restaurant in the French Alps from three to two stars. Just the previous year, Michelin had awarded Veyrat the highest ranking. That achievement had marked his comeback after he had given up cooking for several years following a skiing accident and a 2015 fire at his restaurant.

Just Excellent …

In an infamous court case, now known as ‘Cheddargate,’ Veyrat speculated he was downgraded after an “incompetent” Michelin inspector with an unrefined palate mistook the ingredients.

Veyrat claimed the anonymous inspector thought Veyrat had used English Cheddar in place of French Reblochon, Beaufort, and Tomme cheese in one of his signature soufflé dishes. “I put saffron in it, and the gentleman who came thought it was cheddar because it was yellow,” Veyrat contended.

“It’s worse than a wound. It’s profoundly offensive. It’s worse than the loss of my parents, worse than anything. It gave me a depression.”

Michelin’s review had commended Veyrat for being “true to his reputation” and described his cuisine as a “pastoral symphony” that blends “woodland fragrances and Alpine herbs.” But Veyrat would have nothing less than three stars.

… Not Exceptional

At the court hearing, Veyrat demanded a symbolic €1 in damages. He asked for proof that the Michelin inspectors had even dined at his restaurant. He demanded to see their judging notes and clarify how they had come to their decisions. (The Michelin Guide’s evaluation criteria are perhaps the biggest trade secrets in the restaurant business.)

In reply, Michelin denied the Cheddar-related allegations and accused Veyrat of acting like a “narcissistic diva” suffering from “pathological egotism.”

Veyrat lost the court case.

Nobody Likes Rejection, Certainly Not a Perfectionist

Veyrat’s wounded pride is understandable. The Michelin Guide is arguably the world’s foremost arbiter of haute cuisine. Many chefs base their entire identity on getting three Michelin stars, the ultimate culinary accolade, and, in so doing, self-inflict extreme pressure to be labeled “exceptional.”

The Michelin Guide is not without controversies. Michelin stars can bring significant prestige, but also intense pressure on chefs. The unrelenting psychological stress and the financial demands of producing ever more creative dishes have even led a few chefs to suicide. Over the last decade, several renowned chefs have also requested Michelin to revoke their stars and opted out of the system in a quest for better work-life balance.

In 2019, South Korean chef Eo Yun-gwon sued Michelin for including his restaurant in the Michelin Guide after he’d told them not to. He declared, “The Michelin Guide is a cruel system. It’s the cruelest test in the world. It forces the chefs to work around a year waiting for a test [and] they don’t know when it’s coming.” Some chefs closed their restaurants and launched lower-key eateries that still cater to discerning epicures.

Idea for Impact: Challenge the Perfectionist, “All-or-Nothing” Thinking

This Marc Veyrat-Michelin Guide episode is yet another reminder that being a perfectionist—and insisting on excellence at all costs—has a dark side. Perfectionism can cause adverse outcomes such as excessive procrastination, low self-esteem, depression, and anxiety.

Perfectionists tend to engage in “all-or-nothing thinking”—that they are either perfect or worthless. In reality, most of us operate on the continuum between these two extremes. We’re neither perfect nor worthless, just “good enough.”

If you’re struggling with perfectionism, it’s crucial to take in the concept of being and doing “good enough.”

The Poolguard Effect: A Little Power, A Big Ego!

February 24, 2020 By Nagesh Belludi Leave a Comment

Even Petty Power Corrupts: Authority Can Warp Behavior

The Poolguard Effect: A Little Power, A Big Ego! Ever wonder why some folks with a little authority, but not much real status, tend to throw their weight around? They often become overconfident, controlling, and bossy. This phenomenon, known as “hubris syndrome,” can lead to micromanaging, unnecessary rules, and a real disconnect from the people around them.

Even in lower-level jobs, you can see these power trips in action. For instance, rub a TSA agent the wrong way, and you might get flagged for extra screening. Summer pool guards can be overly strict with kids and parents who don’t show them the proper respect. In bureaucratic offices, clerks and supervisors frequently impose petty rules just to flex their authority.

These power trippers rely on control to boost their fragile egos. Power tends to amplify self-importance, making people more likely to act in a domineering way—something we often sum up with, “power corrupts” or the “authority bias.

Power Increases People’s Sense of Entitlement

This anecdotal observation is backed by a study titled “The Destructive Nature of Power Without Status.” The researchers argue that neither power nor low status alone leads people to mistreat others; it’s the combination of the two that increases the likelihood of abuse.

We predicted that when people have a role that gives them power but lacks status—and the respect that comes with that status—then it can lead to demeaning behaviors. Put simply, it feels bad to be in a low-status position and the power that goes with that role gives them a way to take action on those negative feelings.

One way to prevent these toxic power dynamics is to ensure that everyone feels respected and valued, regardless of their role. According to the study, “respect assuages negative feelings about low-status roles and encourages positive interactions with others.” In other words, courtesy pays off!

Notes

Some people despise anyone they suspect is trying to pull the strings or exert power over them.
Consider the 1971 Stanford Prison Experiment, where a group of students was assigned roles as either prisoners or guards in a simulated prison. Despite knowing they were part of an experiment, the “guards” subjected the “prisoners” to humiliating treatment. According to the researchers, this behavior stemmed from the guards’ desire for respect and admiration, which they felt was lacking in their interactions with others. This controversial experiment was later depicted in a 2015 docudrama.
This concept can be compared to the Napoleon Complex, where shorter men may overcompensate for their height through social aggressiveness, despite the fact that Napoleon himself was not actually short.
Cf. The “Waiter Rule” states that how you treat seemingly insignificant people says a lot about your personality and priorities.

Why People under Pressure Choose Self-Interested Behaviors

January 17, 2020 By Nagesh Belludi

Pressure can put people in a state of threat. As I’ve examined previously here, here, and here, pressure can undermine people’s ability to make sound decisions.

Under pressure, people can abandon their inhibitions, cut corners, and loosen up their moral standards. In other words, they are more likely to engage in self-centered behaviors as opposed to pursuing the common good.

People adopt moral standards that dissuade them from unacceptable behaviors. Under normal circumstances, they think sensibly about the costs and benefits when making decisions. However, under pressure, people can be depleted of the cognitive resources they need to act ethically and resist temptations. See my article on the much-debated “muscle metaphor” of willpower.

When people are in that state of emotional and psychological anxiety, the brain goes into a defensive mode. With that, they are more likely to engage in self-interested behaviors that they would otherwise avoid, especially if the payoff for such behavior is high, and the odds of getting caught and punished are low.

How to Make Others Feel They Owe You One: Reciprocity and Social Influence

September 18, 2018 By Nagesh Belludi Leave a Comment

Reciprocity, as described below, is a manipulative technique. My aim for this article is twofold: firstly, it sensitizes you to one of the many things people can do to get you to do their bidding. Secondly, reciprocity is a handy technique for those circumstances where certain ends can justify certain means.

Reciprocity is treating other people as they treat you, or for the purpose of this article, as you wish to be treated—specifically with the expectation that they will reciprocate your favor in the future.

In other words, reciprocity is a sneaky trick that permits deliberate interpersonal influence. Do something for other people and they will be willing to do something for you, partly because they’ll be uncomfortable feeling indebted to you.

The concept of reciprocity is ingrained in human nature. As part of our upbringing, we are taught to give something back to people who give us something. Reciprocity and cooperation are the underpinnings of a civilized society—they allow us to help people who need it and to hope that they will help us when we need it. Research suggests that the desire to repay goodwill is hard-wired in the human brain.

Jack Schafer’s The Like Switch: An Ex-FBI Agent’s Guide to Influencing, Attracting, and Winning People Over (2015) offers a clever technique to put reciprocity into action:

The next time someone thanks you for something, don’t say, “You’re welcome.” Instead, say, “I know you’d do the same thing for me.” This response invokes reciprocity. The other person is now predisposed to help you when you ask them for a favor.

The effects of goodwill are short-lived. A long-forgotten reputation for helpfulness gets you nothing. You have to renew your reputation by helping others regularly.

To learn more about reciprocity, read social psychologist Robert Cialdini’s Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion (1984.) He identified reciprocity as one of six principles that can help get others’ compliance to your requests.

« Previous Page

Psychology

Wondering what to read next?

Human Beings are Intuitive Thinkers

System One Isn’t All Flawed

Human Intuition is Imperfect

Wondering what to read next?

Wondering what to read next?

At the core of Holmes’s sham was how she controlled the company’s flow of information

A recipe for disaster at Theranos: Silo mentality and intimidation approach

Idea for Impact: Functional silos make organizations slow, bureaucratic, and complicated

Wondering what to read next?

Idea for Impact: Management has become more about numbers and processes than about people

Wondering what to read next?

Wondering what to read next?

Just Excellent …

… Not Exceptional

Nobody Likes Rejection, Certainly Not a Perfectionist

Idea for Impact: Challenge the Perfectionist, “All-or-Nothing” Thinking

Wondering what to read next?

Even Petty Power Corrupts: Authority Can Warp Behavior

Power Increases People’s Sense of Entitlement

Notes

Wondering what to read next?

Wondering what to read next?

Wondering what to read next?