Want people to trust you? Try apologising for the rain(bps-research-digest.blogspot.com)
bps-research-digest.blogspot.com
Want people to trust you? Try apologising for the rain
http://bps-research-digest.blogspot.com/2013/10/want-people-to-trust-you-try.html
43 comments
Or, along those lines but less world-dominating, "Sorry for [choosing a time and location for our meeting that resulted in exposing you to] the rain."
Same point, though. The superfluous apology lends an implied sense of influence and responsibility.
Same point, though. The superfluous apology lends an implied sense of influence and responsibility.
Or even an implicit acknowledgment that I do indeed have the power to call you out into the rain.
I'm sorry for this thread. Can I borrow your phone?
For me that's the most irritating feature of hpmor's protagonist. I understand that's probably intentional - so it's working. I wouldn't really trust more a person that claims exclusive agency - I'd probably trust him much less as if he doesn't respect me enough to assign me agency - how can I be sure he respects me enough to not violate my trust? You don't feel to bad if you make a promise to an NPC character in a video-game and break it, right?
I think it's not so much that HPMoR!Harry claims exclusive agency, as that the plot has railroaded him away from any of the setting's other agent-y characters (or, at least, agent-y characters with compatible-enough-to-engage-in-trade utility functions; HPMoR!Quirrelmort is more of an agent-y Other-Optimizer.)
HPMoR!Lucius Malfoy is pretty agent-y, for example, but Harry doesn't get to talk to him much. When he did in the last chapter, the results were exactly what you'd expect from rationalists collaborating -- a sudden acceleration in both parties' world-taking-over plans.
(Though, obviously, "taking the world on your shoulders because you think you can't rely on your friends" is also a standard bildungsroman protagonist trope.)
HPMoR!Lucius Malfoy is pretty agent-y, for example, but Harry doesn't get to talk to him much. When he did in the last chapter, the results were exactly what you'd expect from rationalists collaborating -- a sudden acceleration in both parties' world-taking-over plans.
(Though, obviously, "taking the world on your shoulders because you think you can't rely on your friends" is also a standard bildungsroman protagonist trope.)
Are those UUCP paths in your comment?
That kind of notation is often used while discussing various fan fictions to avoid confusion when people are talking about 'canon' version of character and 'modified'. So it's common to just always prepend which version you're talking about, so HPMOR!Harry/canon!Harry/other-fan-fic!Voldemort etc. etc.
It's not at all an issue of agency. It's an issue of responsibility: just because there's someone else with the agency to solve the problem, and even someone whose job it is to solve the problem, doesn't mean you're absolved of responsibility if you could have solved the problem and failed to do so.
Obviously that can quickly lead to insanity if you're not also willing to prioritize problems: "there was something more important" is a completely valid excuse for not solving a problem, but "that's someone else's job and it's not my fault if they didn't do it" isn't.
Obviously that can quickly lead to insanity if you're not also willing to prioritize problems: "there was something more important" is a completely valid excuse for not solving a problem, but "that's someone else's job and it's not my fault if they didn't do it" isn't.
Or they could be British. We apologise for everything.
I think there's an official list somewhere and we are slowly working through it. Much of it we actually did, but we add in a few apologies for the rain as well to make it seem less damning. ;)
They really do. Last year, I was in England during Hurricane Sandy and the British kept apologizing for the mild drizzly rain going on there.
Sorry but we Canadians are even worse.
I want to bring health and wellness to the world. I'm working my way towards that. It's pretty ambitious. Learning how to not always feel the weight on my shoulders and chest though.
> Learning how to not always feel the weight on my shoulders and chest though.
I want to give you advice on how to do that, but because it's so hard to tell what the recipe for success actually is, I hesitate for fear that the advice would end up being counterproductive. So, for what it's worth, and with a grain of salt:
I've found that the pattern that is functional for me is a cyclical manic-depression. I come up with new ideas, expend energy on them, spinning up projects and pouring out thoughts and insights, and then I collapse into an emotional death spiral and am forced to spend effort on self-improvement of various kinds before going into another burst of creative energy. The length of the cycles vary tremendously.
I want to give you advice on how to do that, but because it's so hard to tell what the recipe for success actually is, I hesitate for fear that the advice would end up being counterproductive. So, for what it's worth, and with a grain of salt:
I've found that the pattern that is functional for me is a cyclical manic-depression. I come up with new ideas, expend energy on them, spinning up projects and pouring out thoughts and insights, and then I collapse into an emotional death spiral and am forced to spend effort on self-improvement of various kinds before going into another burst of creative energy. The length of the cycles vary tremendously.
This sounds about right. Though I've gone through enough self-improvement cycles that my "emotional death spiral" aren't as drastic now - mind you, they still suck and do contrast strongly the feeling and productivity when in the creative energy bursts. The more pieces of life I have figured out the better too. I almost found a permanent counter-balance, a woman, who I thought would end up inspiring me permanently - though that opportunity never ended up not being possible.
> I almost found a permanent counter-balance, a woman, who I thought would end up inspiring me permanently - though that opportunity never ended up not being possible.
I've been in this trap before; it's a bad idea. A support network is critically important, but don't put a lover on a pedestal to act as your muse. It's murder for a healthy relationship.
I've been in this trap before; it's a bad idea. A support network is critically important, but don't put a lover on a pedestal to act as your muse. It's murder for a healthy relationship.
Nope, I realize that. It wasn't meant for that - it would have just been inspiring enough or rather elevating to have found someone I could start to build deep trust with, but I don't absolutely need that. For now I'm just focusing on building better friendships and relationships in general. Just the thought of having someone I can fully confide into - business wise or otherwise - is appealing.
YMMV but realising that you can't possibly do it alone is one good step. Then getting a good team around you to work on it together. Finally, don't look at the top of the mountain all the time, look behind you and see all the good things you have achieved. Check where the top of the mountain is occasionally to make sure you don't stray from the chosen path. But if you keep staring at it you'll never get there.
Good advice, and hard to remember when so focused at times. Looking behind me at the good things achieved usually happens when I am in a down cycle of being slightly burned out or demotivated. Something I should work on doing more regularly.
I find it weird when they use percentages for groups that are smaller than 100. 9% of a group of 32 people makes it feel like 2 people and a torso handed over their phone without the rain apology. (I'm aware this is my poor math skill, and it's something I'm working on.)
I don't know if the sub has been edited, but it mentions lack of controls:
> How trustworthy are these results? The accumulated findings from several experiments help build a convincing case, but unfortunately the field study - which had the potential to provide the most persuasive evidence - is seriously flawed. The actor apologised for the rain then asked to borrow a phone, or in the comparison condition he just asked to borrow the phone. There was no proper control condition. This means we don't know if the impact of the apology was specific to making an apology or merely an effect of uttering any kind of ice-breaker.
It doesn't seem to mention randomization either.
EDIT:
> This is significant because past research shows how mindlessly we often act in social situations. For example, back in the late 70s, Ellen Langer and her colleagues found that people were just as likely to give way at a photo-copier if a queue-jumper uttered the nonsensical excuse "because I need to make copies" as when he uttered "because I'm in a rush."
Compare this to situations in the UK where if a shopkeeper returns nearly all your change, but keeps a penny, the customer will often wail until they get it, and make a fuss about it.
I don't know if the sub has been edited, but it mentions lack of controls:
> How trustworthy are these results? The accumulated findings from several experiments help build a convincing case, but unfortunately the field study - which had the potential to provide the most persuasive evidence - is seriously flawed. The actor apologised for the rain then asked to borrow a phone, or in the comparison condition he just asked to borrow the phone. There was no proper control condition. This means we don't know if the impact of the apology was specific to making an apology or merely an effect of uttering any kind of ice-breaker.
It doesn't seem to mention randomization either.
EDIT:
> This is significant because past research shows how mindlessly we often act in social situations. For example, back in the late 70s, Ellen Langer and her colleagues found that people were just as likely to give way at a photo-copier if a queue-jumper uttered the nonsensical excuse "because I need to make copies" as when he uttered "because I'm in a rush."
Compare this to situations in the UK where if a shopkeeper returns nearly all your change, but keeps a penny, the customer will often wail until they get it, and make a fuss about it.
>I find it weird when they use percentages for groups that are smaller than 100. 9% of a group of 32 people makes it feel like 2 people and a torso handed over their phone without the rain apology.
I suppose it's slightly odd, but the point is to make it so you can compare results across similar studies and also understand how it would generalize to the general population.
>It doesn't seem to mention randomization either.
The study does (see the citation at the end). The blinding and randomization were done in the field study by not telling the person asking the questions what the hypothesis was, and by instructing him to alternate which script he followed.
I suppose it's slightly odd, but the point is to make it so you can compare results across similar studies and also understand how it would generalize to the general population.
>It doesn't seem to mention randomization either.
The study does (see the citation at the end). The blinding and randomization were done in the field study by not telling the person asking the questions what the hypothesis was, and by instructing him to alternate which script he followed.
[deleted]
You know, I've never been able to convince myself that the quantization error is correctly taken into account by standard statistical error bars / power of study.
This makes a lot of sense to me - it's not even because the apology is logical, but because it's a gesture that shows the speaker is thinking of the other's welfare.
There's a rule I have followed for many years when doing customer service - if the person is upset, apologize. It doesn't matter if you can't give them what they're asking for, or if they made a silly mistake. Just - make them feel better, then do what you sensibly can. It really works well... I don't get many angry complaints anyway, but this tends to defuse them immediately.
There's a rule I have followed for many years when doing customer service - if the person is upset, apologize. It doesn't matter if you can't give them what they're asking for, or if they made a silly mistake. Just - make them feel better, then do what you sensibly can. It really works well... I don't get many angry complaints anyway, but this tends to defuse them immediately.
I agree with you completely regarding computer support and customer service - put your hands up and apologise to the customer/client for whatever the hold-up/mistake/bug is, then to get on with the matter in hand and fix things.
However, management types can discourage you from doing this as it is an acceptance that there is some liability for whatever it is that has gone wrong. There is a fear of unintended consequences from the instinctive apology.
The same applies with a road traffic accident - to apologise to the other party might be what you want to do (even if you were not entirely at fault) however the insurance company will not be best pleased.
As a consequence we are conditioned to only apologise under duress or for things that are inconsequential. Maybe it is this that affects how we react when someone randomly apologises - it is quite an unusual gift worthy of reciprocation.
However, management types can discourage you from doing this as it is an acceptance that there is some liability for whatever it is that has gone wrong. There is a fear of unintended consequences from the instinctive apology.
The same applies with a road traffic accident - to apologise to the other party might be what you want to do (even if you were not entirely at fault) however the insurance company will not be best pleased.
As a consequence we are conditioned to only apologise under duress or for things that are inconsequential. Maybe it is this that affects how we react when someone randomly apologises - it is quite an unusual gift worthy of reciprocation.
There are words that show empathy for the other person, but without putting yourself at risk of accepting liability. They can sound a bit mechanical sometimes, and reading from a script isn't much good.
Just letting someone know that you understand that they're stressed and annoyed or frustrated, and that you'll try to help them makes a big difference. At least, it does when people do it with me.
Just letting someone know that you understand that they're stressed and annoyed or frustrated, and that you'll try to help them makes a big difference. At least, it does when people do it with me.
To me, there are few things more infuriating than a Comcast representative saying something like, "Oh, I'm very sorry to hear that. I would also be frustrated if my cable modem were not acquiring a signal." This type of "empathy" has disillusioned me from most empathy used in customer support.
Yes, this is what I mean. Exercise empathy first - even just "I'm sorry, this is obviously frustrating" is a much better start than an angry defense of why you obviously can't include X and Y in the free version.
I thought I read a month or two ago about a ruling that basically said that saying sorry is not admission of guilt. I can't seem to find the article in relation to it, I'm just saying that it might not hurt as much as you'd think
> because it's a gesture that shows the speaker is thinking of the other's welfare.
To many, apologizing has become a automatic reaction and they now apologize for everything. They don't say the person is thinking of others, nonsensical apologies mean that the speaker isn't thinking anything about you and just wants to get on with their day.
You did it in the next paragraph. You're not sorry, you probably don't give a damn about them, you just need to move on to the next person.
To many, apologizing has become a automatic reaction and they now apologize for everything. They don't say the person is thinking of others, nonsensical apologies mean that the speaker isn't thinking anything about you and just wants to get on with their day.
You did it in the next paragraph. You're not sorry, you probably don't give a damn about them, you just need to move on to the next person.
This makes a lot of sense to me - it's not even because the apology is logical, but because it's a gesture that shows the speaker is thinking of the other's welfare.
I recommend the book "Everything Is Obvious(^1): How Common Sense Fails Us"
^1 Once you know the answer.
It talks about the human tendency of arranging observations and beliefs to fit what we're told, solidifying our belief that this is just common sense. I had just read it so apologies if I shoehorn off of your post to reference it.
It also paints a very negative brush about most sociology/behavior type experiments, making me immediately skeptical of this one. I wonder if it's reproducible, and what specific regional cultural issues play into it.
As a personal note, I get very wary of anyone who apologies for things outside of their control.
I recommend the book "Everything Is Obvious(^1): How Common Sense Fails Us"
^1 Once you know the answer.
It talks about the human tendency of arranging observations and beliefs to fit what we're told, solidifying our belief that this is just common sense. I had just read it so apologies if I shoehorn off of your post to reference it.
It also paints a very negative brush about most sociology/behavior type experiments, making me immediately skeptical of this one. I wonder if it's reproducible, and what specific regional cultural issues play into it.
As a personal note, I get very wary of anyone who apologies for things outside of their control.
> making me immediately skeptical of this one
From a fellow reader of Everything is Obvious, same here. It seems obvious (heh) to me that it's not the _apology_ that caused an increase in trust, but the addition of neutral or better contact.
In all of the experiments, the control group did one action (e.g. asked for a cell phone or played their move) and the test group did something over and above that action which was a neutral or better action (a superfluous apology).
I see no reason to think that the same results could not be reproduced if the control said "you have nice shoes" or "that was a nice move". That is, the conclusion should instead be that an additional amount of neutral or better contact with a person causes them to trust you more than they would without the statement--the contact does not have to necessarily be an apology.
In fact, the article admits as much in second to last paragraph:
>How trustworthy are these results? The accumulated findings from several experiments help build a convincing case, but unfortunately the field study - which had the potential to provide the most persuasive evidence - is seriously flawed. The actor apologised (sic) for the rain then asked to borrow a phone, or in the comparison condition he just asked to borrow the phone. There was no proper control condition. This means we don't know if the impact of the apology was specific to making an apology or merely an effect of uttering any kind of ice-breaker.
From a fellow reader of Everything is Obvious, same here. It seems obvious (heh) to me that it's not the _apology_ that caused an increase in trust, but the addition of neutral or better contact.
In all of the experiments, the control group did one action (e.g. asked for a cell phone or played their move) and the test group did something over and above that action which was a neutral or better action (a superfluous apology).
I see no reason to think that the same results could not be reproduced if the control said "you have nice shoes" or "that was a nice move". That is, the conclusion should instead be that an additional amount of neutral or better contact with a person causes them to trust you more than they would without the statement--the contact does not have to necessarily be an apology.
In fact, the article admits as much in second to last paragraph:
>How trustworthy are these results? The accumulated findings from several experiments help build a convincing case, but unfortunately the field study - which had the potential to provide the most persuasive evidence - is seriously flawed. The actor apologised (sic) for the rain then asked to borrow a phone, or in the comparison condition he just asked to borrow the phone. There was no proper control condition. This means we don't know if the impact of the apology was specific to making an apology or merely an effect of uttering any kind of ice-breaker.
I think it's going to far to call the study seriously flawed: The core claim presented "we find that superfluous apologies increase trust in the apologizer" is being properly controlled (superfluous apology, acknowledgment, or neutral greeting followed by a trust test).
Suggesting that the mechanism for that result is caused by ice-breaking effects, or by delaying the time between the introduction and the request, or by conforming to some unknown social norm are follow up experiments you'd want to perform... but there's always a follow up question, it doesn't make the initial discovery flawed.
Suggesting that the mechanism for that result is caused by ice-breaking effects, or by delaying the time between the introduction and the request, or by conforming to some unknown social norm are follow up experiments you'd want to perform... but there's always a follow up question, it doesn't make the initial discovery flawed.
The last paragraph states:
"How trustworthy are these results? The accumulated findings from several experiments help build a convincing case, but unfortunately the field study - which had the potential to provide the most persuasive evidence - is seriously flawed. The actor apologised for the rain then asked to borrow a phone, or in the comparison condition he just asked to borrow the phone. There was no proper control condition. This means we don't know if the impact of the apology was specific to making an apology or merely an effect of uttering any kind of ice-breaker."
"How trustworthy are these results? The accumulated findings from several experiments help build a convincing case, but unfortunately the field study - which had the potential to provide the most persuasive evidence - is seriously flawed. The actor apologised for the rain then asked to borrow a phone, or in the comparison condition he just asked to borrow the phone. There was no proper control condition. This means we don't know if the impact of the apology was specific to making an apology or merely an effect of uttering any kind of ice-breaker."
That's just not sufficient. I didn't even make it to the last paragraph and many readers won't make it past the headline. Up until that paragraph, the author seems to be building us up towards accepting the results.
Why bother writing an article on such a flawed study?
Why bother writing an article on such a flawed study?
For the sake of linkbait, surely.
Blog author even calls this study "the most compelling evidence", only to correctly recognize that it's total shit in the final paragraph.
I'm all for writing an article on a bad study (sort of like a bad album review), but the opinion of the author should be clear from the outset.
Blog author even calls this study "the most compelling evidence", only to correctly recognize that it's total shit in the final paragraph.
I'm all for writing an article on a bad study (sort of like a bad album review), but the opinion of the author should be clear from the outset.
Which is pretty much the same thing as writing "By the way this study is junk. Why did we write this entire bullshit article anyway? Because link bait. And we could care less about actually informing our readers"
Right, but "any kind of icebreaker" is a superset of "superfluous apology". It's a hypothetical extension of the result, not a flaw in the study.
Saying there was no proper control condition is flat wrong. There is a control in the study that would falsify the hypothesis that they were testing.
Saying there was no proper control condition is flat wrong. There is a control in the study that would falsify the hypothesis that they were testing.
No, there isn't. The hypothesis they were testing was whether a superfluous apology would increase the likelihood of strangers behaving in the desired manner. All they proved is that making a lead-in comment had this effect. We have no way of knowing whether it was because the lead-in comment was an apology, or if a broader range of comments would have had the same effect.
[deleted]
This completely ignores the fact that the word "Sorry" is not always an apology.
"Sorry your dog died." is an expression of _sympathy_ for your dog's death, not an admission of guilt.
In fact, the first definition on Google for "define sorry" is "feeling sad or distressed through sympathy with someone else's misfortune"
And yes, I'd be more likely to lend my phone to someone who had shown signs of sympathy to me first.
"Sorry your dog died." is an expression of _sympathy_ for your dog's death, not an admission of guilt.
In fact, the first definition on Google for "define sorry" is "feeling sad or distressed through sympathy with someone else's misfortune"
And yes, I'd be more likely to lend my phone to someone who had shown signs of sympathy to me first.
I wouldn't even classify "sorry for the rain" as an apology. I'd understand it as "I understand you have just suffered an inconvenience, and I express my sad feeling about that fact, thus showing that your feelings have an importance for me and you possess a status of an important person in my eyes". That is not the same as taking responsibility for the fact that it rains, which apology presumes. English is not my native language, but as far as I understand from many years using it as a communication medium, "I am sorry" is used in the former sense (expressing sympathy) at least as frequent, if not more frequent, than in the latter (apology: a written or spoken expression of one's regret, remorse, or sorrow for having insulted, failed, injured, or wronged another).
Of course, if you express the sympathy and show that the other person is important to you, people tend to reciprocate. I would be surprised if it didn't happen. However, if somebody really meant it in the sense that he feels genuine remorse or regret for the rain, I'd not trust such person - obviously I'm dealing with a dangerously delusional person that thinks he's either controlling the weather or should be. I'd suggest him to find a good mental health provider.
Of course, if you express the sympathy and show that the other person is important to you, people tend to reciprocate. I would be surprised if it didn't happen. However, if somebody really meant it in the sense that he feels genuine remorse or regret for the rain, I'd not trust such person - obviously I'm dealing with a dangerously delusional person that thinks he's either controlling the weather or should be. I'd suggest him to find a good mental health provider.
It's a non-apology - -
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-apology_apology
OkTrends (the awesome blog from OkCupid) showed data that suggests that using the word "sorry" in your initial message dramatically increases your odds of getting a response.
http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/online-dating-advice-exact...
http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/online-dating-advice-exact...
Shouldn't the control group have had a non-apology comment about the weather or something? Instead of comparing, "Sorry for the weather. May I use your phone?" to "May I use your phone?", it would seem much preferable to compare it to "Lousy weather we've been having. May I use your phone?"
From the paper:
"""
When they meet the seller, the seller greets them in one of the following three ways: ‘‘Hi there. Oh, I’m so sorry it’s raining.’’ (superfluous apology), ‘‘Hi there. Oh, it’s raining.’’ (acknowledgment), or ‘‘Hi there.’’ (neutral)
"""
"""
When they meet the seller, the seller greets them in one of the following three ways: ‘‘Hi there. Oh, I’m so sorry it’s raining.’’ (superfluous apology), ‘‘Hi there. Oh, it’s raining.’’ (acknowledgment), or ‘‘Hi there.’’ (neutral)
"""
They should have tried "I apologize for the rain" and counted how many times the answer would be "Oh, so you are God Almighty? Nice to finally meet you in person".
Also, in the UK, the term "Sorry" is a rather common replacement for "Excuse me", in fact, some might consider it more polite.
Aside from the non-apology weather control group, they could have introduced another control that used different construction on the apology: "Apologize for the dreadful weather", etc.
Aside from the non-apology weather control group, they could have introduced another control that used different construction on the apology: "Apologize for the dreadful weather", etc.
That's exactly what I thought when I read the article. I'm not quite sure how that was missed during the design of the experiment.
Unfortunately in many disciplines, bold conclusions are favored over careful interpretation.
Bold conclusions are more interesting, hence they hit hacker news more often.
I don't want to jump to conclusions as that is a glaringly obvious control and I find it hard to believe a researcher worth their salt would leave out such a control group.
Does anyone have a link to the full paper?
edit: grammar
Does anyone have a link to the full paper?
edit: grammar
Thanks. To add to your quote above, from the paper:
> In Study 2, we extend our investigation by considering alternative explanations. In Study 1, it is possible that our con- trol condition decreased benevolence-based trust. In the control condition in Study 1, the confederate sent no message. This might have seemed impolite. To investigate this alternative explanation, we include two different comparison conditions in Study 2. We include a traditional apology (‘‘I’m sorry to interrupt.’’) and neutral greeting (‘‘How are you?’’).
> In addition, we extend our investigation by exploring superfluous apologies in a new domain. In Study 1, both the unfortunate circumstance (the random action of the computer) and the outcome (behavioral measure of trust) were related to the trust game. In Study 2, the apology (for a flight delay) is unrelated to our measure of trust (lending a cell phone). We expect that an apology for a flight delay will increase trust even when the subsequent interaction is unrelated to the flight.
> In Study 2, we extend our investigation by considering alternative explanations. In Study 1, it is possible that our con- trol condition decreased benevolence-based trust. In the control condition in Study 1, the confederate sent no message. This might have seemed impolite. To investigate this alternative explanation, we include two different comparison conditions in Study 2. We include a traditional apology (‘‘I’m sorry to interrupt.’’) and neutral greeting (‘‘How are you?’’).
> In addition, we extend our investigation by exploring superfluous apologies in a new domain. In Study 1, both the unfortunate circumstance (the random action of the computer) and the outcome (behavioral measure of trust) were related to the trust game. In Study 2, the apology (for a flight delay) is unrelated to our measure of trust (lending a cell phone). We expect that an apology for a flight delay will increase trust even when the subsequent interaction is unrelated to the flight.
So in Study 2, they do seem to include a non-superfluous apology.
Study 4 (the one about the rain, and the topic of the blog post) doesn't have the same controls. Why? I find this pretty odd.
Study 4 (the one about the rain, and the topic of the blog post) doesn't have the same controls. Why? I find this pretty odd.
Coupled with the many recent articles highlighting the unreliability of studies like this, I'd say this research is worth exactly squat. Example questions for practicing skeptics: The actor either (a) asked for a phone or (b) apologized for the rain, then asked for a phone. Could it be that the study simply demonstrates that saying some other pleasant thing before asking for something makes the request more effective? Must it be an apology? Must it be about something the person has no control over?
Thats what I thought when I read the article too. I feel the same percentage of people would give their phone up if you said "So how about those [local sports team]".
> How trustworthy are these results? The accumulated findings from several experiments help build a convincing case, but unfortunately the field study - which had the potential to provide the most persuasive evidence - is seriously flawed. The actor apologised (sic) for the rain then asked to borrow a phone, or in the comparison condition he just asked to borrow the phone. There was no proper control condition. This means we don't know if the impact of the apology was specific to making an apology or merely an effect of uttering any kind of ice-breaker.
This is a devastating objection to the findings of the study.
Here's a link to the study: http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/Brooks%20Dai%...
This is a devastating objection to the findings of the study.
Here's a link to the study: http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/Brooks%20Dai%...
The addition of "(sic)" is non-useful, as that is an accepted spelling in British English, which is where this post comes from. Try searching, I don't know, anywhere else on that page. It was not a mistake.
It's not uncommon to use "sic" to denote a british spelling of a word, though the usage in that instance is debated.
Direct link to the original paper on the author's webpage (8pg, PDF): http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/Brooks%20Dai%...
I apologize for things out of my control fairly frequently as a way of displaying (genuine) empathy for people in bad situations. Not so much for superficial things like everyday rain but say if someone is looking forward to an interview and doesn't get the job, I'll say something like "Sorry you didn't get the job".
I don't do this to build trust, but I guess it makes some sort of sense that if someone displays a consistent level of empathy towards the problems of others it would make them more trustworthy in general compared to someone who doesn't.
I don't do this to build trust, but I guess it makes some sort of sense that if someone displays a consistent level of empathy towards the problems of others it would make them more trustworthy in general compared to someone who doesn't.
"Forty-seven per cent of strangers offered their phone when the actor apologised for the rain first, compared with just nine per cent when there was no apology."
UK: I have never seen anyone ask to borrow someone else's mobile phone over here. Is that a common behaviour in the US?
I have to say that if someone asked to borrow mine, I'd refuse, especially if they said something inane first. That could just be my crabbed and ungenerous nature but I think not somehow...
UK: I have never seen anyone ask to borrow someone else's mobile phone over here. Is that a common behaviour in the US?
I have to say that if someone asked to borrow mine, I'd refuse, especially if they said something inane first. That could just be my crabbed and ungenerous nature but I think not somehow...
What instead of apologising for the rain, the apologized for the annoyance, "I'm sorry for bothering you, Can I please borrow your phone?" They should have tried that instead. If a stranger comes up to me and just says, "Can I borrow your phone?" without a preceding Excuse Me or Please, they will not get it, except if they are completely in distress.
> In the first, 178 students thought they were playing a financial game with a partner located in another room.
Really? I took part in studies like this when I was a student, and I knew full well I was playing a computer, despite being told otherwise. You don't need to be a psychology geek to have heard of their standard operating procedures.
Really? I took part in studies like this when I was a student, and I knew full well I was playing a computer, despite being told otherwise. You don't need to be a psychology geek to have heard of their standard operating procedures.
I had heard people say this about Reagan. He took accountability for things that were arguably out of his control, and people later didn't blame him for things that were.
To me the lesson is accepting blame for a problem doesn't just take "Whose fault is this?" off of the table, but it increases the trust in finding a solution.
To me the lesson is accepting blame for a problem doesn't just take "Whose fault is this?" off of the table, but it increases the trust in finding a solution.
Yes, the act of making an apology will be perceived as implying that the speaker is more than willing to help improve the situation, regardless of how we got there, thus what you said.
By "taking accountability" you mean he said he was taking accountability without actually suffering any consequences. That's not taking accountability, that's lying about it. Same with Harry Truman "the buck stops here" -- OK, which of the many terrible things that have happened under your watch are you going to quit over?
Do people really understand this as an apology? Being sorry has two meanings in english, right? It can also mean that you share someone else's pain.
If someone told me he's sorry about the rain, I would think what he really means is that he's sorry for me having to stand in the rain.
If someone told me he's sorry about the rain, I would think what he really means is that he's sorry for me having to stand in the rain.
Which probably still has a positive, if subconscious, effect on your opinion of him.
That double meaning has been milked to no end by politicians and PR companies. They're parenthetically saying, "I feel sooo bad for you that you are feeling inappropriately wronged by my proper actions."
It's about being polite. Just walking up to someone and blurting out "Can I borrow your cellphone?" is rude. "I'm sorry to bother you, but can I ask you a question?" gives the listener time to adjust and the opportunity to say "no"
The word "sorry" does not always signify an apology. For example, when a person says "Sorry about the rain," they do not usually mean "I am sorry for having caused the rain." Instead, they mean "The rain caused me sorrow." It's of little surprise that recognizing a shared sorrow increases feelings of trust.
A: "Sorry about your leg." B: "It's okay, it's not your fault."
It's sympathy, not an admission of guilt.
A: "Sorry about your leg." B: "It's okay, it's not your fault."
It's sympathy, not an admission of guilt.
>> Crucially, for half of them he preceded his request with the superfluous apology: "I'm sorry about the rain!" The other half of the time he just came straight out with his request: "Can I borrow your cell phone?"
Couldn't it just be the chit-chat? I mean "Hey, how are you? Can I borrow your phone" versus "Can I borrow your phone", would probably give better results too :-/?
Couldn't it just be the chit-chat? I mean "Hey, how are you? Can I borrow your phone" versus "Can I borrow your phone", would probably give better results too :-/?
That's not getting people to trust you. That's being a beta. That's getting people to know they can dominate you.
It seems to me that this study says very little about the effects of superfluous apologies and more about the social etiquette of greeting someone before you ask for a favor.
The study's confederate could have said "Good morning," "Hello there" -- anything other than simply making a request -- and achieved a better response rate.
The study's confederate could have said "Good morning," "Hello there" -- anything other than simply making a request -- and achieved a better response rate.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I have observed this behavior very often in others.
For example, recently I showed up to a yoga class, and there was construction going on the street outside, so that it was mildly inconvenient to get to the parking lot. The yoga instructor apologized profusely for the inconvenience.
I didn't understand why I'd want to be apologized to for this: not only was it outside her control, but the inconvenience was trivial. I felt slightly less at ease after such an apology.
But looking around at others, it was quite obvious that this gesture had had the intended effect. I guess, in this regard, I am the odd one out.
For example, recently I showed up to a yoga class, and there was construction going on the street outside, so that it was mildly inconvenient to get to the parking lot. The yoga instructor apologized profusely for the inconvenience.
I didn't understand why I'd want to be apologized to for this: not only was it outside her control, but the inconvenience was trivial. I felt slightly less at ease after such an apology.
But looking around at others, it was quite obvious that this gesture had had the intended effect. I guess, in this regard, I am the odd one out.
It's just a way of demonstrating that as your host for the event they are concerned about your wellbeing and comfort.
That said I usually respond to such statements with "don't worry it's not your fault". Reflecting that seems a bit strange too.
That said I usually respond to such statements with "don't worry it's not your fault". Reflecting that seems a bit strange too.
The experiment seems a little flawed. At the very least I would have expected a third run with a chitchat sentence first (my working hypothesis would be that chitchat sentence and apology for rain would be equally trustworthy, both more than straight up asking).
There's quite a difference between directly asking to use someone's phone and introducing yourself first.
The copier queue gets mentioned at the end but the article reads more like "apologize for something that you cannot control=trust" while I'd suspect it's really "talk about something else=trust"
There's quite a difference between directly asking to use someone's phone and introducing yourself first.
The copier queue gets mentioned at the end but the article reads more like "apologize for something that you cannot control=trust" while I'd suspect it's really "talk about something else=trust"
One wonders what the self-referential feedback loop will become when the scientific study of practical sociopathy becomes widely understood and adopted.
Although perhaps I'm naive to think it could be widely understood.
Although perhaps I'm naive to think it could be widely understood.
Interesting. This is quite similar to the phenomenon where asking for a favor and giving a pointless reason increases the chance that people will do as you ask.
I can't find the research for this, but from what I remember one experiment involved someone going to the front of the line of people waiting at a copy machine at university, and asking if they could go first. Simply appending 'because I need to copy some things' would increase the chance that people would let you go first, despite the fact that it's a pointless justification.
I can't find the research for this, but from what I remember one experiment involved someone going to the front of the line of people waiting at a copy machine at university, and asking if they could go first. Simply appending 'because I need to copy some things' would increase the chance that people would let you go first, despite the fact that it's a pointless justification.
tl;dr - a flawed study concluded something that may not necessarily be true
what's flawed about the study?
if you read the article all the way through, at the end they mention the study was flawed because of the lack of a control
I said the same thing, but it appears that the article is actually flawed... The paper for the study defines the control groups.
Superfluous?
Ok, so the face value of "sorry" implies apology but putting the situation in context it seems less a question of culpability and more of a shared sense of frustration against/for a common goal.
How does it make you feel when you are peeved off at the rain and someone comes up to you to share in the misery?
It's about a shared sense of understanding more than anything else. If some people choose to take advantage of this for ulterior purposes - well, that's the very definition of emotional manipulation.
Ok, so the face value of "sorry" implies apology but putting the situation in context it seems less a question of culpability and more of a shared sense of frustration against/for a common goal.
How does it make you feel when you are peeved off at the rain and someone comes up to you to share in the misery?
It's about a shared sense of understanding more than anything else. If some people choose to take advantage of this for ulterior purposes - well, that's the very definition of emotional manipulation.
[deleted]
Seriously, does that sound like an even vaguely scientific study? How do they know the effect is due to what was said as opposed to _saying anything polite_ first?
When I was studying psychology we often ran into negotiating tactics like this. Another is if you need a small favor, ask for something huge when they turn you down, they will almost always agree to the small favor. For example, after asking your parents for a car for your birthday, they'll be more likely to agree to get you that game for your xbox.
If the person you are apologizing to is an outsider who is visiting your city or a traveler, then by apologizing for the rain, you show sympathy towards the outsider and you look like a caring native, in this scenario it would have good positive impact though the apology might seem random. I wonder how many people in the sample set were outsiders.
Although the study is flawed as pointed out by the author itself, it's good to see such studies and results coming out of a good test base rather than mere spewing of opinions as seen in many articles lately.
Even if there is a minute chance that this study exhibits anything concrete, it can't hurt to apologize to expect a positive outcome.
Even if there is a minute chance that this study exhibits anything concrete, it can't hurt to apologize to expect a positive outcome.
It can hurt to apologize just in case. Maybe not in the case of strangers, but if you do it repeatedly with acquaintances, they could hypothetically start hearing all of your apologies as fake, even the sincere ones.
True, if it's a knee-jerk action.
If you get in the habit of empathizing with the people around you, though, and you do it well, that will continue to be valuable.
If you get in the habit of empathizing with the people around you, though, and you do it well, that will continue to be valuable.
I can't help but wonder about their attire.
consider for a moment your reaction to a person in a suite and tie who asked to borrow your phone. I posit that you would be more likely to agree and hand over your phone if the person is in a suit and tie compared to someone who you thought didn't look as well off.
consider for a moment your reaction to a person in a suite and tie who asked to borrow your phone. I posit that you would be more likely to agree and hand over your phone if the person is in a suit and tie compared to someone who you thought didn't look as well off.
There could be an element of trustworthiness associated with apologizing for anything since you are inherently taking responsibility for something. But also it could have been that leading in with a request (with no foreplay, regardless of the type) may have come across as being brash.
Relating this to Cialdini's Influence, I'd wager this is due to reciprocity. Whether real or not, when you apologize, you're making a concession which triggers the "click, whirr" effect described in the book. Persuasion is a fascinating topic.
If they really wanted to test a superfluous apology, they could have the actor lead with something more like "I'm sorry for your loss."
I suspect very few people would then loan out their phone, unless they were under the impression they were being mugged.
I suspect very few people would then loan out their phone, unless they were under the impression they were being mugged.
[deleted]
Is the "useless" apology doing the job or did it work as an icebreaker ?
I remember old studies which said you have far more chance getting 20 cents asking for the time first.
I remember old studies which said you have far more chance getting 20 cents asking for the time first.
If you ever wondered where the tax payers' money is going, it is going to fund Alison Brooks' "research".
Interesting. I apologise incessantly for everything and everyone, to everyone. I've never put much thought into why I have this behaviour, but it's possible I stumbled on the same phenomenon as these folks purely due to pressure.
Which is to say, if I hear someone apologizing for the weather, one likely presumption would be that they're just assuming fault as a matter of etiquette, or some latent self-hating tendency... but another, more interesting, possibility is that they're apologizing for not having gotten around to the step in their world domination plans where they build a global climate-regulation system yet. Because they would if they could, they will as soon as they can, and it's only their own laziness and ignorance of proper power/wealth/intelligence-bootstrapping methods preventing them from being there already. That, in my opinion, is precisely the type of person you should trust to Get Things Done, even when those things would seem, to most people, to be currently "out of their hands."
In other words, feeling responsibility for everything around you is a necessary prerequisite for agency. You see this a lot in company owners. Why is the founder mopping the floor while everyone else is working? Because nobody else is doing it, it has to get done, and the buck stops with him. He's responsible for everything, even the weather.