Thanks for Nothing: Expressing Gratitude Invites Exploitation by Competitors

Jeremy  Yip; Kelly  Kiyeon Lee; Cindy  Chan; Alison Wood  Brooks

Working Paper | HBS Working Paper Series | 2018

Thanks for Nothing: Expressing Gratitude Invites Exploitation by Competitors

by Jeremy Yip, Kelly Kiyeon Lee, Cindy Chan and Alison Wood Brooks

Abstract

Previous research has revealed that expressing gratitude motivates prosocial behavior in cooperative relationships. However, expressing gratitude in competitive interactions may operate differently. Across five studies, we demonstrate that individuals interacting with grateful counterparts become more likely to engage in selfish behavior during competitive interactions. In Studies 1a and 1b, participants who interacted with counterparts expressing gratitude were more likely to make aggressive offers in distributive negotiations than those who interacted with counterparts expressing neutral emotion. In Study 2, we find that inferences of the tendency to forgive mediates the relationship between gratitude expression and selfish behavior. In Study 3, we contrast expressions of gratitude with another positive-valence emotion: excitement. We show that expressing gratitude promotes self-interested behavior compared to expressing excitement or neutral emotion. In Study 4, we find that gratitude expression triggers self-serving deception. Taken together, our findings suggest that expressing gratitude can be costly in competitive interactions: people infer that grateful counterparts are forgiving and, therefore, they are more likely to exploit their counterparts for selfish gain.

Keywords: Gratitude; forgiveness; negotiations; ethics; Emotion; Emotions; Behavior; Negotiation; Ethics;

Language: English

Format: Print

44 pages

Read Now

Citation:

Yip, Jeremy, Kelly Kiyeon Lee, Cindy Chan, and Alison Wood Brooks. "Thanks for Nothing: Expressing Gratitude Invites Exploitation by Competitors." Harvard Business School Working Paper, No. 18-081, February 2018.

Prior advice research has focused on why people rely on (or ignore) advice and its impact on judgment accuracy. We expand the consideration of advice-seeking outcomes by investigating the interpersonal consequences of advice seekers’ decisions. Across nine studies, we show that advisors interpersonally penalize seekers who disregard their advice, and that these reactions are especially strong among expert advisors. This penalty also drives advisor reactions to a widely-recommended advice-seeking strategy: soliciting multiple advisors to leverage the wisdom of crowds. Advisors denigrate and distance themselves from seekers who they learn consulted others, an effect mediated by perceptions that their own advice will be disregarded. Underlying these effects is an asymmetry between advisors’ and seekers’ beliefs about the purpose of the advice exchange: whereas advisors believe giving advice is more about narrowing the option set by providing direction, seekers believe soliciting advice is more about widening the option set by gathering information.

In 2018, Mellody Hobson, President of Ariel Investments, the largest minority-owned investment firm in the U.S., was considering how best to divide her time and use her position and personal characteristics to push for positive change at her firm and in society at large.

Working Paper | 2018

Status Inconsistency: Variance in One's Status Across Groups Harms Well-being but Improves Perspective-taking

Catarina Fernandes and Alison Wood Brooks

Most people belong to many different groups. While some people experience consistently high or low status across all of their groups, others experience wildly different levels of status in each group. In this research, we examine how status inconsistency – the degree to which one’s status varies across groups – impacts well-being and perspective-taking. Across five studies, we find robust evidence that status inconsistency (controlling for average status) has negative intrapersonal, but positive interpersonal, consequences. Study 1A shows that higher status inconsistency across many groups is related to lower levels of life satisfaction, self-esteem, and subjective social status. Study 1B tests the causal relationship between status inconsistency and well-being, demonstrating that even thinking about one’s status inconsistency can lead to lower feelings of happiness. Study 2 focuses on attitudes towards the most status-inconsistent groups and shows that individuals are most likely to leave the groups in which their status is furthest away from their mean personal status across groups, irrespective of whether the deviance is positive (much higher status than average) or negative (much lower status than average). Studies 3A and 3B shift to investigate the interpersonal effects of status inconsistency on perspective-taking. Study 3A shows that status inconsistency is related to higher levels of trait perspective-taking and empathetic concern, and Study 3A that thinking about one’s status inconsistency increases perspective-taking on a task. Taken together, the results indicate that those whose status is inconsistent across groups experience lower levels of well-being, but are better at understanding others’ points of view.

Keywords: Status; Social hierarchies; well-being; Perspective Taking; Status and Position; Groups and Teams; Satisfaction; Perspective;

Citation:

Fernandes, Catarina, and Alison Wood Brooks. "Status Inconsistency: Variance in One's Status Across Groups Harms Well-being but Improves Perspective-taking." Working Paper, 2018. (Revise & resubmit, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.) View Details

Cite View Details

Faculty & Research

Thanks for Nothing: Expressing Gratitude Invites Exploitation by Competitors

Abstract

Citation:

About the Author

More from the Author