Pratfall effect

The pratfall effect was first described in detail by Aronson, in his 1966 research of a simple blunder's effects on perceived attraction. The experimental subjects consisted of male students from the University of Minnesota. Participants listened to tape recordings of actors pretending to be contestants on College Bowl, staged interviews with difficult questions given to an actor, who plays the role of either an unrealistically knowledgeable individual who almost always answers correctly (92%) or a mediocre one who answers only a few questions correctly (30%). After the questioning, the strong-performing actor admits to a stellar high school career marked with academic and nonacademic successes, while the unremarkable actor describes an ordinary high school career, earning average grades with weak involvement in extracurriculars. At the end of the interview, some tapes recorded the actor spilling a cup of coffee and apologizing for doing so, while others omitted this portion to serve as a control. Aronson's research found that a knowledgeable blunderer was rated to be more attractive, while the more average ones suffered decreases in their perceived attractiveness. Sex In a 1972 study by Kay Deaux, male participants were swayed more strongly by the pratfall effect than women. Severity of pratfall Research by Mettee and Wilkins reveals that the severity of pratfall plays a major role in determining attractiveness after a pratfall is committed. Experimentally, each condition was conveyed by changing the response of the interviewer and blunderer: • Control condition: No blunder. • Minor pratfall condition: The sound of a cup spilling is heard and the actor reacts with anguish. • Major pratfall condition: Cup is spilt, and the interviewer reacts with hostility toward the actor, who apologizes profusely. An able individual who commits a minor pratfall (2) will have an insignificant decrease in average liking and a small decrease in average respect, while the able individual who commits a major pratfall (3) will receive a significant increase in liking and an insignificant decrease in respect. A less able individual who commits any pratfall (2,3) will have a decrease in liking, which increases with the severity of the blunder. Respect only decreases in the less competent individual after a minor mistake is committed. An individual with high self-esteem will prefer the non-pratfalling highly able individual to the pratfalling individual of equal ability. This is well explained by social comparison theory which investigates the tendency to compare oneself to others with similar capabilities. This research implies that similarities in attitude can be more significant in determining attractiveness, especially with the knowledge of congruence in attitude. == Explanation ==

Aronson explained the results of this experiment and the pratfall effect as due to increased sympathy with successful individuals after they make a mistake. Later work has suggested that the pratfall effect is explained by self-comparison between blunderers and observers in addition to the observer's desire for accurate self-evaluations. The derogation toward an average actor appears after the actor commits the pratfall since humor allows the individuals to comfortably rate attractiveness more congruently with immediately felt (negative) emotions. These emotions vary based on the ability of the observer, with the average participant feeling the most discomfort due to the participant's similarity to the mediocre performer, and the performer's mistake. As a result of threatened self-esteem (in the observer), the perceived average individual's attractiveness is rated lower. The perceived able individual is rated higher after the pratfall since the able individual appears more relatable and therefore approachable and likeable. An alternative explanation is that the pratfall effect is due to increased attention to the target individuals, which in turn results in better realization of their appropriateness and/or inappropriateness given the evaluation criteria. == Examples ==

The pratfall effect is notably attributed to John F. Kennedy in the aftermath of the Bay of Pigs Invasion and to Apple Maps' initial failure. == Applications ==

Marketing Research on the potential positive effects of "blemishes" in product marketing suggests that in certain situations, desirability and eventual purchase decisions both increased after presenting a product blemish, but only under low-effort processing conditions, or when cognitive resources are low due to preoccupation or distraction. Under high-effort processing conditions, presenting a blemish decreased desirability and amounts of purchases. Primacy effects suggest that under low-effort processing conditions, positive effects create a reference point at which a product is evaluated, and conflicting negative information presented boosts the initial positive impression formed by the product. This was demonstrated through research by approaching students before an exam—when students likely had their attention focused elsewhere—versus approaching students leisurely walking around and offering to sell them a chocolate bar. The chocolate bar was advertised positively: chilled, favored by consumers on a taste test, and offered at a discount. In the experimental condition, the chocolate bar was described as discounted since it was broken. The chocolate bar was packed in a transparent wrapper, so the broken piece of chocolate could clearly be seen by the students. Students in the low-effort experimental group were twice as likely to purchase the chocolate bar after being presented negative information, while in the high-effort group, students were half as likely to purchase the chocolate bar. == References ==