IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jobhdp/v183y2024ics0749597824000438.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The credibility dilemma: When acknowledging a (perceived) lack of credibility can make a boast more believable

Author

Listed:
  • Wald, Kristina A.
  • Chaudhry, Shereen J.
  • Risen, Jane L.

Abstract

People who are judged negatively by others (e.g., as low in competence) often face a dilemma: They may want to self-promote (to improve others’ impressions of them), but worry their claims may not seem believable. We term this type of situation the “credibility dilemma,” and investigate how people can self-promote most effectively in such cases. In particular, we examine the impact of explicitly acknowledging one’s perceived lack of credibility while self-promoting (e.g., “I’m not that smart, but…” or “I know this may seem hard to believe, but…”). Across ten studies, we find that credibility disclaimers improve perceptions of the self-promoter (compared to self-promoting without them) by increasing perceptions of the speaker’s self-awareness and sincerity. In contrast, credibility disclaimers are ineffective (and sometimes backfire) when the speaker is already perceived as credible. Our findings suggest that common advice to avoid drawing attention to one’s flaws may sometimes be unwarranted.

Suggested Citation

  • Wald, Kristina A. & Chaudhry, Shereen J. & Risen, Jane L., 2024. "The credibility dilemma: When acknowledging a (perceived) lack of credibility can make a boast more believable," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:183:y:2024:i:c:s0749597824000438
    DOI: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2024.104351
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597824000438
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.obhdp.2024.104351?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anderson, Cameron & Brion, Sebastien & Moore, Don A. & Kennedy, Jessica A., 2012. "A status-enhancement account of overconfidence," Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, Working Paper Series qt6s5812wf, Institute of Industrial Relations, UC Berkeley.
    2. Uri Gneezy, 2005. "Deception: The Role of Consequences," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(1), pages 384-394, March.
    3. Etgar, Michael & Goodwin, Stephen A, 1982. "One-Sided versus Two-Sided Comparative Message Appeals for New Brand Introductions," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 8(4), pages 460-465, March.
    4. Shapiro, Debra L. & Bies, Robert J., 1994. "Threats, Bluffs, and Disclaimers in Negotiations," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 14-35, October.
    5. Crowley, Ayn E & Hoyer, Wayne D, 1994. "An Integrative Framework for Understanding Two-Sided Persuasion," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 20(4), pages 561-574, March.
    6. Bradley P. Owens & Michael D. Johnson & Terence R. Mitchell, 2013. "Expressed Humility in Organizations: Implications for Performance, Teams, and Leadership," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(5), pages 1517-1538, October.
    7. Bitterly, T. Bradford & Schweitzer, Maurice E., 2019. "The impression management benefits of humorous self-disclosures: How humor influences perceptions of veracity," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 73-89.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Myriam Ertz & Myung-Soo Jo & Fahri Karakas & Emine Sarigöllü, 2021. "Message Sidedness Effects in Advertising: The Role of Yin-Yang Balancing Theory," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-26, June.
    2. Pollack, Jeffrey M. & Bosse, Douglas A., 2014. "When do investors forgive entrepreneurs for lying?," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 741-754.
    3. Peter Schwardmann & Joël van der Weele, 2016. "Deception and Self-Deception," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 16-012/I, Tinbergen Institute.
    4. Dmitry A. Shapiro & Jaesun Lee, 2022. "Revealing Negative Information in Monopoly and Duopoly Settings: Experimental Analysis," Korean Economic Review, Korean Economic Association, vol. 38, pages 167-205.
    5. Besancenot, Damien & Dubart, Delphine & Vranceanu, Radu, 2013. "The value of lies in an ultimatum game with imperfect information," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 239-247.
    6. Monahan, Lisa & Espinosa, Jennifer A. & Langenderfer, Jeff & Ortinau, David J., 2023. "Did you hear our brand is hated? The unexpected upside of hate-acknowledging advertising for polarizing brands," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    7. Rohit Aggarwal & Vishal Midha & Nicholas Sullivan, 2024. "Effect of Online Professional Network Recommendations on the Likelihood of an Interview: A Field Study," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 35(1), pages 104-119, March.
    8. Harrison-Walker, L. Jean & Jiang, Ying, 2023. "Suspicion of online product reviews as fake: Cues and consequences," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    9. Chan, Sow Hup & Ng, Tsz Shing, 2016. "Ethical negotiation values of Chinese negotiators," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 823-830.
    10. Souka, Mohamed & Bilstein, Nicola & Decker, Reinhold, 2024. "Give me your data and I’ll dress you: A two-sided messaging approach to address privacy concerns surrounding in-store technologies," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    11. Nault, Kelly A. & Sezer, Ovul & Klein, Nadav, 2023. "It’s the journey, not just the destination: Conveying interpersonal warmth in written introductions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    12. Johannes Abeler & Armin Falk & Fabian Kosse, 2021. "Malleability of Preferences for Honesty," CESifo Working Paper Series 9033, CESifo.
    13. Thomas de Haan & Theo Offerman & Randolph Sloof, 2015. "Money Talks? An Experimental Investigation Of Cheap Talk And Burned Money," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 56(4), pages 1385-1426, November.
    14. Liang Xiao & Linyong Luo & Tongping Ke, 2024. "The influence of eWOM information structures on consumers’ purchase intentions," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 1713-1735, September.
    15. Gill, David & Prowse, Victoria & Vlassopoulos, Michael, 2013. "Cheating in the workplace: An experimental study of the impact of bonuses and productivity," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 120-134.
    16. Hitoshi Matsushima & Shunya Noda, 2020. "Mechanism Design with Blockchain Enforcement," DSSR Discussion Papers 111, Graduate School of Economics and Management, Tohoku University.
    17. Lyn M. Van Swol & Paul Hangsan Ahn & Andrew Prahl & Zhenxing Gong, 2021. "Language Use in Group Discourse and Its Relationship to Group Processes," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(1), pages 21582440211, March.
    18. repec:hum:wpaper:sfb649dp2016-029 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Andreoni, James & Serra-Garcia, Marta, 2021. "Time inconsistent charitable giving," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    20. Petra Nieken & Sven Walther, 2024. "Honesty in Virtual Communication," CESifo Working Paper Series 11094, CESifo.
    21. Alexander Sebald & Markus Walzl, 2014. "Subjective Performance Evaluations and Reciprocity in Principal–Agent Relations," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 116(2), pages 570-590, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:183:y:2024:i:c:s0749597824000438. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/obhdp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.