Don't Stop Believing: Rituals Improve Performance by Decreasing Anxiety

Alison Wood  Brooks; Julianna  Schroeder; Jane  Risen; Francesca  Gino; Adam D. Galinsky; Michael I. Norton; Maurice  Schweitzer

Article | Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

Don't Stop Believing: Rituals Improve Performance by Decreasing Anxiety

by Alison Wood Brooks, Julianna Schroeder, Jane Risen, Francesca Gino, Adam D. Galinsky, Michael I. Norton and Maurice Schweitzer

Abstract

From public speaking to first dates, people frequently experience performance anxiety. And when experienced immediately before or during performance, anxiety harms performance. Across a series of experiments, we explore the efficacy of a common strategy that people employ to cope with performance-induced anxiety: rituals. We define a ritual as a predefined sequence of symbolic actions often characterized by formality and repetition that lack direct instrumental purpose. Using different instantiations of rituals and measures of anxiety (both physiological and self-report), we find that enacting rituals improves performance in public and private performance domains by decreasing anxiety. Belief that a specific series of behaviors constitute a ritual is a critical ingredient to reduce anxiety and improve performance: engaging in behaviors described as a “ritual” improved performance more than engaging in the same behaviors described as “random behaviors.”

Keywords: Behavior; Performance; Emotions;

Format: Print

Find at Harvard Read Now

Citation:

Brooks, Alison Wood, Julianna Schroeder, Jane Risen, Francesca Gino, Adam D. Galinsky, Michael I. Norton, and Maurice Schweitzer. "Don't Stop Believing: Rituals Improve Performance by Decreasing Anxiety." Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 137 (November 2016): 71–85.

Article | Journal of Personality and Social Psychology | December 2019

It Helps to Ask: The Cumulative Benefits of Asking Follow-up Questions

Michael Yeomans, Alison Wood Brooks, Karen Huang, Julia A. Minson, Francesca Gino, Michael Yeomans, Alison Wood Brooks, Karen Huang, Julia A. Minson and Francesca Gino

In a recent article published in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (JPSP; Huang, Yeomans, Brooks, Minson, & Gino, 2017), we reported the results of 2 experiments involving “getting acquainted” conversations among strangers and an observational field study of heterosexual speed daters. In all 3 studies, we found that asking more questions in conversation, especially follow-up questions (that indicate responsiveness to a partner), increases interpersonal liking of the question asker. Kluger and Malloy (2019) offer a critique of the analyses in Study 3 of our article. Though their response is a positive signal of engaged interest in our research, they made 3 core mistakes in their analyses that render their critique invalid. First, they tested the wrong variables, leading to conclusions that were erroneous. Second, even if they had analyzed the correct variables, some of their analytical choices were not valid for our speed-dating dataset, casting doubt on their conclusions. Third, they misrepresented our original findings, ignoring results in all 3 of our studies that disprove some of their central criticisms. In summary, the conclusions that Kluger and Malloy (2019) drew about Huang et al. (2017)’s findings are incorrect. The original results are reliable and robust: Asking more questions, especially follow-up questions, increases interpersonal liking. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved)

Keywords: question-asking; Conversation; Communication; Relationships; Interpersonal Communication;

Citation:

Yeomans, Michael, Alison Wood Brooks, Karen Huang, Julia A. Minson, and Francesca Gino. "It Helps to Ask: The Cumulative Benefits of Asking Follow-up Questions." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 117, no. 6 (December 2019): 1139–1144. View Details

Cite View Details Find at Harvard Find at Harvard

When entering into a negotiation, individuals have the choice to enact a variety of communication styles. We test the differential impact of being “warm and friendly” versus “tough and firm” in a distributive negotiation, when first offers are held constant and concession patterns are tracked. We train a natural language processing algorithm to precisely quantify the difference between how people enact warm versus tough communication styles. We find that the two styles differ primarily in length and their expressions of politeness (Study 1). Negotiators with a tough communication style achieved better economic outcomes than negotiators with a warm communication style, both in a field experiment (Study 2) and in a laboratory experiment (Study 3). This was driven by the fact that offers delivered in tough language elicited more favorable counteroffers. We further find that the counterparts of warm versus tough negotiators did not report different levels of satisfaction or enjoyment of their interactions (Study 3). Finally, in Study 4 we document that individuals’ lay beliefs are in direct opposition to our findings: participants believe that authors of warmly worded negotiation offers will be better liked and will achieve better economic outcomes.

Faculty & Research

Don't Stop Believing: Rituals Improve Performance by Decreasing Anxiety

Abstract

Citation:

About the Authors

More from these Authors