The Revision Bias

Ximena  Garcia-Rada; Leslie  John; Ed  O’Brien; Michael I. Norton

Working Paper | HBS Working Paper Series | 2019

The Revision Bias

by Ximena Garcia-Rada, Leslie John, Ed O’Brien and Michael I. Norton

Abstract

Things change. Things also get changed—often. Why? The obvious reason is that revising things makes them better. In the current research, we document a less obvious reason: Revising things makes people think they are better, absent objective improvement. We refer to this phenomenon as the revision bias. Nine studies document this effect and provide insight into its psychological underpinnings. In Study 1, MBA students perceived their revised resumes to be of higher quality the more they differed from their original versions, but this perception was not justified: observers judged originals (inaccurately) labeled as revisions to be superior to revisions (inaccurately) labeled as originals. Study 2 pinpoints the direction of the effect: Revisions are appealing, as opposed to originals being unappealing. Moreover, the revision bias holds in a variety of settings in which the revision is devoid of objective improvement—when revisions are trivial (Study 3A), incidental (Study 3B), non-existent (Study 3C), and even objectively worse than the original (Study 3D). Study 4 directly tests the self-fulfilling nature of the revision bias, testing whether mere revision framing leads people to become less critical of the experience—in this study, less sensitive to possible bugs while playing an otherwise identical “revised” video game—and whether this mediates the effect of revision framing on positive evaluations. Studies 5A and 5B offer further support by testing whether the revision bias is accentuated when people engage in a holistic processing style, whether measured as an individual difference (Study 5A) or experimentally induced (Study 5B).

Keywords: Change; heuristics and biases; framing; sequences; judgment; Change; Perception;

Language: English

Format: Print

44 pages

SSRN Read Now

Citation:

Garcia-Rada, Ximena, Leslie John, Ed O’Brien, and Michael I. Norton. "The Revision Bias." Harvard Business School Working Paper, No. 19-087, February 2019.

Four studies reveal the benefits of relationship rituals: couples with relationship rituals report more positive emotions and greater relationship satisfaction and commitment than those without them. We show that rituals are crucial for understanding consumption practices in romantic relationships. Using a sample of romantic dyads, we identify a novel moderating role of mutual agreement, such that both members of a couple must agree that they have a ritual: different couples can see the same consumption behavior (e.g., paying for a weekly date night) as either a ritual or a routine, and the benefits accrue only to those couples who jointly view it as a symbolically meaningful ritual. We contribute to the literature on rituals by empirically documenting the relationships between rituals, specific emotions, and relationship satisfaction, and by demonstrating that the same sequence of actions can have different psychological effects due to the role of mutual agreement. Finally, we contribute to research on consumers’ shared experiences by suggesting a novel mechanism for committing to such experiences: relationship rituals.

Article | Journal of Experimental Psychology: General | April 2019

Shooting the Messenger

Leslie John, Hayley Blunden and Heidi Liu

Eleven experiments provide evidence that people have a tendency to “shoot the messenger,” deeming innocent bearers of bad news unlikeable. In a preregistered lab experiment, participants rated messengers who delivered bad news from a random drawing as relatively unlikeable (Study 1). A second set of studies points to the specificity of the effect: Study 2A shows that it is unique to the (innocent) messenger and not mere bystanders. Study 2B shows that it is distinct from merely receiving information that one disagrees with. We suggest that people’s tendency to deem bearers of bad news as unlikeable stems in part from their desire to make sense of chance processes. Consistent with this account, receiving bad news activates the desire to sense-make (Study 3A), and in turn, activating this desire enhances the tendency to dislike bearers of bad news (Study 3B). Next, stemming from the idea that unexpected outcomes heighten the desire to sense-make, Study 4 shows that when bad news is unexpected, messenger dislike is pronounced. Finally, consistent with the notion that people fulfill the desire to sense-make by attributing agency to entities adjacent to chance events, messenger dislike is correlated with the belief that the messenger had malevolent motives (Studies 5A, 5B, & 5C). Studies 6A & 6B go further, manipulating messenger motives independently from news valence to suggest its causal role in our process account: the tendency to dislike bearers of bad news is mitigated when recipients are made aware of the benevolence of the messenger’s motives.

Keywords: judgment; communication; sense-making; attribution; disclosure; Interpersonal Communication; Perception; Judgments; Motivation and Incentives;

Citation:

John, Leslie, Hayley Blunden, and Heidi Liu. "Shooting the Messenger." Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 148, no. 4 (April 2019): 644–666. View Details

Cite View Details Find at Harvard Read Now

Faculty & Research

The Revision Bias

Abstract

Citation:

About the Authors

More from these Authors