Let it go: How exaggerating the reputational costs of revealing negative information encourages secrecy in relationships.

Keeping negative interpersonal secrets can diminish well-being, yet people nevertheless keep negative information secret from friends, family, and loved ones to protect their own reputations. Twelve experiments suggest these reputational concerns are systematically miscalibrated, creating a misplaced barrier to honesty in relationships. In hypothetical scenarios (Experiments 1, S1, and S2), laboratory experiments (Experiments 2 and 6), and field settings (Experiments 3 and 4), those who imagined revealing, or who actually revealed, negative information they were keeping secret expected to be judged significantly more harshly than recipients expected to judge, or actually judged, them. We theorized that revealers' pessimistic expectations stem not only from the cognitive accessibility of negative information (Experiment S3) but also from a perspective gap such that the negative outcomes of disclosing this information, compared to positive outcomes, are more accessible for prospective revealers than for recipients. Consistent with this mechanism, revealers' expectations were better calibrated when directed to focus on positive thoughts or when they considered revealing positive information (Experiments 5, 6, and S4). Revealers' miscalibrated expectations matter because they can guide decisions about whether to reveal information or conceal it as a secret (Experiment S5). As predicted, calibrating revealers' expectations increased their willingness to reveal negative information to others (Experiment 7), suggesting that miscalibrated fears of others' judgment create a misplaced barrier to honesty in relationships. Overestimating the reputational costs of disclosing negative information might leave people carrying a heavier burden of secrecy than would be optimal for their own well-being. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

How to give away your cake and eat it too: Relinquishing control prompts reciprocal generosity.

Many resource allocations confer two rewards, but these rewards typically work in opposition to one another: Reputational rewards come to those who give and material rewards to those who receive. Eight studies reveal that abdicating a resource allocation decision-that is, giving away one's right to choose to someone else-may allow these two rewards to work in tandem. We found that people frequently abdicated to others, and abdication often prompted others to reciprocate by giving away the better of two items. This occurred in part because people perceived abdication to be generous; in fact, individuals who abdicated seemed nearly as generous as individuals who gave away the better item to begin with. Paradoxically, abdicating confers both the reputational benefits of giving and (often) the material benefits of getting. This finding has implications for everyday resource sharing behavior and as well as for theories of fairness and reciprocity. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).