The oversight effect (also the “landing in a puddle” effect ) is a phenomenon in social psychology in which the attractiveness of the person who made the oversight increases or decreases depending on his competence and behavior. So, a competent person who made a mistake seems more attractive than a person with average knowledge and skills, who also made a mistake.
The effect was first described by the American social psychologist Elliot Aronson in 1966. Since then, a lot of research has been done to rule out the effect of gender, self-esteem, and the severity of the mistake on attractiveness. The oversight effect has become established in popular culture. In the USA, his manifestation, in particular, is considered to be the preservation of the popularity of President John F. Kennedy after the operation in the Gulf of Pigs , as well as errors in the cartographic service Apple Maps , which slightly affected the sales of the corporation's products.
Research
In 1966, Elliot Aronson, in collaboration with Ben Wheelerman and Joanna Floyd, carried out the following experiment. Students at the University of Minnesota were invited to listen to a recording of an interview with a candidate for participation in the popular college quiz show. The subjects were offered one of four interview options:
- with a person "close to perfection";
- with a person "close to perfection", but committed a gross mistake;
- with a mediocre person;
- with a mediocre person who made a gross mistake.
The candidate’s “landing in a puddle” was organized as follows: noise was heard on the film, the sounds of a chair being pulled back, and finally the young man's voice came: “Oh God, I spilled coffee on a new suit!”
As a result, the most attractive person was named with excellent abilities, but made a mistake; the least attractive was called a "mediocre" person who made the same mistake. “Unmistakable perfection” and “unmistakable mediocrity” took second and third places respectively [1] .
Gender
Kay Deaux's experiments showed that sympathy for a blundered person is more pronounced in men, and women more often prefer “faultless perfection”. At the same time, neither men nor women feel sympathy for the mediocre person who made a mistake [1] .
Error severity
A study by D. Mitti and P. Wikins (DRMettee & PCWikins) proved that the severity of the error plays a large role in the emergence of sympathy. They considered three conditions:
- control group: no errors;
- a minor mistake: on the record you hear the sound of a breaking cup and the voice of an actor who regrets what happened;
- serious mistake: the cup breaks, and the interviewer turns with hostility to the actor who never ceases to apologize.
Sympathy and respect for a competent person who made a frivolous mistake is slightly reduced, while a competent person who has made a serious oversight significantly increases his attractiveness and slightly reduces the level of respect. The attractiveness of an incompetent person falls regardless of the severity of the error. As for respect, an incompetent person loses it only after a frivolous mistake [2] .
Self Assessment Level
It was found that men with an average level of self-esteem are more likely to prefer a highly competent person who has committed a gross mistake, while men with low self-esteem, who have obviously weak competitive feelings for such a figure, will prefer a highly competent non-mistaken person [1] .
Application
In politics
In his book “Public Animal. Introduction to Social Psychology ”Elliot Aronson gives two examples of the manifestation of the oversight effect [1] . When John F. Kennedy was president, his personal popularity really increased in 1961 - immediately after his unsuccessful attempt to invade Cuba in the Bay of Pigs. This action was a phenomenally gross mistake and immediately got the name “fiasco in the Gulf of Pigs” still remaining to it. At the same time, this operation showed that the president, a successful young politician and an ideal family man, having made a mistake, became more humane, and therefore more attractive.
The second example of the manifestation of the oversight effect is associated with the name of another American president, Richard Nixon . As it became clear from Aronson’s research, it’s unusual for people to sympathize with the “middle peasants”. Unaware of this, in the late 70s, President Nixon, at the peak of his popularity, tried, albeit unsuccessfully, to bring to the Supreme Court two new, extremely mediocre judges. Defending their candidacy, Senator Roman Khruska argued that these two people belonged to the “middle peasants,” but the “middle peasants” also wanted someone to represent them in the Supreme Court.
In Marketing
In the course of research in the field of product marketing , it turned out that you can sell the product even when the seller warned the buyer about the defect. It should be borne in mind that the concentration of the buyer should be low, because otherwise the desirability of the product and the number of purchases decreases. This behavior is explained by the effect of the anchor : the buyer perceives the positive information that was provided to him first, and the negative serves only as an addition.
This behavior was demonstrated during the experiment. Two groups of students were offered a broken bar of chocolate. The first group was soon to pass the exam, so that the students' attention was scattered. Both groups were informed of the excellent taste of chocolate and the discount provided. The chocolate was wrapped in transparent packaging so that all students saw a defect. However, students who were thinking about the upcoming exam bought twice as many bars of chocolate as their counterparts in the control group [3] .
Notes
- ↑ 1 2 3 4 Aronson E. Public animal. Introduction to social psychology. / ed. 7 .; trans. from English M .: Aspect Press, 1998.
- ↑ Mettee, DR, & Wilkins, PC (1972). When similarity "hurts": Effects of perceived ability and a humorous blunder on interpersonal attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 22 (2), 246.
- ↑ Ein-Gar, D., Shiv, B., & Tormala, ZL (2012). When blemishing leads to blossoming: The positive effect of negative information. Journal of Consumer Research, 38 (5), 846-859.