Backhanded Compliments: How Negative Comparisons Undermine Flattery

Ovul  Sezer; Alison Wood  Brooks; Michael I. Norton

Working Paper | HBS Working Paper Series | 2018

Backhanded Compliments: How Negative Comparisons Undermine Flattery

by Ovul Sezer, Alison Wood Brooks and Michael I. Norton

Abstract

Seven studies (N = 2352) examine backhanded compliments—seeming praise that draws a comparison with a negative standard—a distinct self-presentation strategy with two simultaneous goals: eliciting liking (“Your speech was good…”) and conveying status (“…for a woman”). Backhanded compliments are common, from delivering feedback in work settings to communicating in casual conversation and take several distinct forms (Studies 1a-b). Backhanded compliments have mixed effectiveness, as people who deliver backhanded compliments erroneously believe that they will both convey high status and elicit liking (Studies 2a-2b), but recipients and third-party evaluators grant them neither (Studies 3a-3b); however, backhanded compliments are successful in reducing recipients’ motivation (Study 3c). We identify two constructs useful in determining the general effectiveness of ingratiation: excessive concern with image drives negative perceptions of backhanded compliment givers, while perceptions of low relative rank in a distribution drives the reduced motivation of backhanded compliment recipients.

Keywords: backhanded compliments; Self-presentation; impression management; interpersonal perception; liking; Status; image concern; Interpersonal Communication; Status and Position; Perception; Motivation and Incentives;

Language: English

Format: Print

65 pages

Read Now

Citation:

Sezer, Ovul, Alison Wood Brooks, and Michael I. Norton. "Backhanded Compliments: How Negative Comparisons Undermine Flattery." Harvard Business School Working Paper, No. 18-082, February 2018.

The 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act intensified debates over the role of government in the distribution of healthcare. A nationally-representative sample of Americans reported their estimated and ideal distributions of healthcare (unmet need for prescription medications) and death (gains in life expectancy). Respondents across the demographic and political spectrum wanted mortality and healthcare to be distributed more evenly among the rich and poor than they estimated them to be. For example, respondents estimated that Americans in the poorest quintile lived 1.5 months longer over the previous 20 years while those in the richest quintile lived 4.7 months longer, but reported ideal figures of 2.5 and 3.6 months – both were far more equal than the actual figures: -1.8 and 7.2 months. Despite heated debates about healthcare, Americans share a consensus belief that current disparities in death and healthcare are far from their ideals.

How do the very wealthy spend their time, and how does time use relate to well-being? In two studies in the Netherlands, the affluent (N=863, N=690) and the general population (N=1232, N=306) spent time in surprisingly similar ways, such as by spending the same amount of time working. Yet, the nature of their time-use differed in critical ways that are related to life satisfaction. In Study 1, millionaires spent more time engaged in active leisure (e.g., exercising and volunteering) rather than passive leisure (e.g., watching television and relaxing). In Study 2, millionaires spent more time engaged in tasks at work over which they had more control. The affluent sample belongs to the top of the income and wealth distribution, representing a significantly wealthier sample than in previous studies. These results further our understanding of when and how wealth may translate into greater well-being.

Faculty & Research

Backhanded Compliments: How Negative Comparisons Undermine Flattery

Abstract

Citation:

About the Authors

More from these Authors