SHEREEN JEHAN CHAUDHRY

Shereen J. Chaudhry, Ph.D.

Associate Professor of Behavioral Science and Neubauer Family Faculty Fellow

University of Chicago Booth School of Business

chauds [at] chicagobooth [dot] edu

Google Scholar // Conversation Research // HOPE LAB // SSRN // LinkedIn

I study how communication shapes reputations and social reality.

My research examines two sides of social communication: how people infer motives, character, and relationships from what others choose to say (or not say), and how communicators use conversation to shape how people understand responsibility and social events.

I develop theories of meta-signals and responsibility exchange to explain why ordinary acts—such as expressing gratitude, acknowledging shortcomings, promoting oneself, assigning blame, or remaining silent—have consequential effects on trust, conflict, impressions, and relationships.

KEY PUBLICATIONS * Denotes student co-author

Jang, M., Chaudhry, S. J., & Fishbach, A. (2026). The downside of generosity: How rare giving fosters stronger social connection. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 194, 104478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2026.104478
Data, code, pre-registrations, and materials

Giving serves not only to benefit others and society but also to foster social connections between givers and recipients. However, more giving is not necessarily merrier. This research finds that social connection depends not only on the act of giving but also on how many others receive the gesture from the same giver. Rare givers—those who give to fewer recipients—are perceived as more socially connected to each recipient than broad givers—those who give to many (the rare giving effect). This effect emerges across diverse contexts, including interpersonal gift exchanges in both new and existing relationships and corporate donations. As a result, rare givers enjoy a relational advantage: their gifts are valued more, and they are more likely to receive reciprocation (e.g., a gift in return or purchasing from the firm), even though they are perceived as less generous than broad givers. However, the negative effect of the number of recipients on perceived connection is attenuated when recipients are closely connected (e.g., donations to multiple charities supporting the same cause) or when gifts reinforce connections between recipients (e.g., friends sharing items in a matching set). These findings highlight an overlooked cost of broad generosity, with implications for managing interpersonal relationships and firms’ giving strategies.

Wald, K.A.* & Chaudhry, S.J. (2025) “‘Ignorance can be Trustworthy: The Effect of Social Self-Awareness on Trust”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 128(3), 611-638. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000481
Data, code, pre-registrations, and materials

Much research has found self-awareness to be associated with positive qualities, but we explore cases in which self-awareness sends a negative signal to others. Specifically, we propose that when a target person appears to be high in social self-awareness—i.e., seems to accurately know what others think of them—observers infer that the target’s actions are more intentional because the target is acting while seeming to know what others think of their actions. Because perceived intent is the key input to trust judgments, perceived self-awareness impacts observers’ trust toward the target, but does so differently depending on whether the target behaves in ways that positively or negatively impact others. When the target behaves in positive ways, exhibiting high (relative to low) self-awareness should increase trust, as the positive behaviors will be interpreted as conveying stronger positive intentions toward others. However, for negative behaviors, exhibiting self-awareness should decrease trust, as it should convey stronger negative intent toward others. Across six studies (N = 4,707) using online experiments, a recall study paradigm, and live interactions in a laboratory setting, we find support for this framework. We also show that when we constrain the extent to which people can infer a target’s intentions toward others from their behaviors—by reducing the target’s control over their own behavior or by reducing the impact of the target’s actions on others—the effect of self-awareness on trust attenuates. Our findings suggest that self-awareness, though often considered a desirable quality, does not universally increase others’ trust.

Wald, K.A.*, Chaudhry, S.J., & Risen, J. (2024) “The Credibility Dilemma: When a (Perceived) Lack of Credibility Can Make a Boast More Believable”. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 183, 104351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2024.104351
Data, code, pre-registrations, and materials

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.

Wang, J.*, Chaudhry, S.J., & Koch, A. (2024) “Reminders Undermine Impressions of Genuine Gratitude.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 126(6), 1084–1102. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/pspi0000442.
Data, code, pre-registrations, and materials

While reminders can help by encouraging prosocial behaviors, we propose that they can also hurt. Across 10 studies, most of which focus on reminders to express gratitude, we find that reminders interfere with impressions of genuine prosociality. Whether people are reminded subtly (Studies 1a and 6–8) or blatantly (Studies 2–5) to express gratitude, the reminder is perceived to put social pressure on the potential thanker, making reminded thankers seem less genuine and less likable than spontaneous thankers. This is true from the perspective of both a third-party observer (Studies 1a and 2–7) and the receiver of thanks (Study 4), regardless of whether the judgments are about hypothetical (Studies 1a, 2–3, and 6–7) or real behavior (Studies 4–5). We find that this phenomenon can have material consequences: Receivers of gratitude expressions allocated a larger proportion of bonus money to a spontaneous thanker compared to a reminded thanker (Study 5). We also find that to overcome the decrement in their perceived genuineness, reminded thankers must engage in costly signaling by thanking more elaborately (Study 7), and reminded thankers spontaneously do this (Study 8). Overall, while reminding people to engage in prosocial actions may encourage laudable behavior (Study 6), our findings suggest that doing so may also undermine the actor’s perceived genuineness, leading to material consequences and raising the bar for what is required to signal sincerity.

Yu, J.* & Chaudhry, S.J. (2024) “‘Thanks, but no thanks’: Gratitude Expression Paradoxically Signals Distance,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 126(1), 58–78. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/pspi0000435.
Data, code, pre-registrations, and materials

Many studies have found that feelings and expressions of gratitude bring profound benefits to people and relationships. We complicate this view of gratitude. We examine two variables known to impact people’s expectations for relationships: culture (collectivist vs. individualist) and relational distance (close vs. distant), and we find evidence that expressing gratitude conveys that relationship expectations have been exceeded, such that people view it as less desirable to give and receive gratitude for actions that are expected duties of a relationship. In both observational data and real behavior in an experiment, we found that people in a collectivist culture (China) are less likely than those in an individualist culture (America) to express gratitude to close others (Studies 1 and 2). Using hypothetical vignettes, we confirmed this pattern and further found there was no cultural difference for distant others (Study 3). These differences in expressing gratitude reflect differences in underlying feelings of gratitude, as well as differences in expectations of how the target would react to being thanked (Study 4). This cultural difference can be explained by cultural differences in the extent of duties placed on close others (Studies 5 and 6): People in China expect more of their close others. Perhaps as a result, people in China show a weaker preference than Americans for direct expressions of gratitude toward close others, but no difference for distant others (Study 7). Overall, our findings suggest that expressing gratitude may not always be good for close relationships.

Molnar, A., Chaudhry, S.J., & Loewenstein, G. (2023) “’It’s not about the money. It’s about sending a message!’: Avengers Want Offenders to Understand the Reason for Revenge,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 174, 104207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2022.104207
Data, code, and pre-registrations

While revenge is typically thought to serve utilitarian goals (deter future offenses) or as an end in itself (restore fairness, equate suffering), we test whether “belief-based” motives also shape revenge behavior. Across four studies—one observational, two hypothetical choice, and one real choice—we find evidence that avengers want the offender to understand why (and sometimes by whom) they are being punished, even when doing so cannot change the offender’s future behavior. Avengers prefer punishments that allow them to communicate the reason to offenders, and they are willing to compromise on distributive justice to do so. Furthermore, avengers are less motivated to cause suffering if offenders remain ignorant of the reason. We explore reasons beyond deterrence that explain why avengers may care about what offenders believe, and also discuss the implications of these motives for organizations.

Chaudhry, S.J. & Wald, K.A.* (2022) “Overcoming listener skepticism: Costly signaling in communication increases perceived honesty,” Current Opinion in Psychology, 101442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101442

When conversing with skeptical listeners, honest speakers face the challenge of proving the credibility of their message. What can speakers do? We argue that incurring an observable cost—in terms of time, effort, emotion, reputation, etc.—to send a message can be a convincing signal of honesty to the listener. We highlight three qualities of signals that can make them seem costly for different reasons: difficult-to-fake, verifiable, and self-sacrificing. We propose that, while each quality impacts the listener's perceptions of veracity, assessing each quality requires a different set of evaluations by the listener. As a result, assessments of each quality are subject to distinct errors in listener perception. Moreover, perceiving a signaling cost to be deliberate (vs. accidental) further impacts perceived veracity, but does so differently depending on the type of cost. Our costly signal framework can help guide speakers in overcoming listener skepticism.

Chaudhry, S.J. & Loewenstein, G. (2019) “Thanking, apologizing, bragging, and blaming: Responsibility exchange theory and the currency of communication.” Psychological Review, 126(3), 313-344. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/rev0000139

From the time we are children, we are taught to say “thank you” and “I’m sorry.” These communications are central to many social interactions, and the failure to say them often leads to conflict in relationships. Research has documented that, alongside the impact they can have on relationships, apologies and thanks can also impact material outcomes as small as restaurant tips and as significant as settlements of medical malpractice lawsuits. But, it is trivial to utter the words; how can such “cheap talk” carry so much value? In this article, we propose a “responsibility exchange theory” that explains why these communications are not costless, and which draws connections between four forms of communication that have not previously been connected: thanking, apologizing, bragging, and blaming. All four of these communications relay information about credit or blame, and thus introduce image-based costs and benefits for both the communicator and the recipient of communication: Each of the four communications involves a tradeoff between appearing competent and appearing warm. By formalizing these social psychological insights with a utility-based approach to modeling communication, and by applying game theoretic analysis, we offer new insights about social communication. We test several of the model’s novel predictions about strategic communication in two experiments: The first involves hypothetical choices in a scenario study, and the second involves real choices in a live interaction. We end with a discussion of the theory’s place in the literature and consider extended predictions and applications as examples of future directions for research.

OTHER PUBLICATIONS

Chaudhry, S.J., Hand, M., & Kunreuther, H. (2021) “Broad bracketing for low probability events,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 61(3), 211-244. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11166-020-09343-4
Data, code, and pre-registrations

Robinson, P.J., Botzen, W.J.W., Kunreuther, H., & Chaudhry, S.J. (2021) “Default Options and Insurance Demand,” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 183, 39-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2020.12.017

Chaudhry, S.J. & Klinowski, D. (2016) “Enhancing autonomy to motivate effort: An experiment on the delegation of contract choice.” in Sebastian J. Goerg, John R. Hamman (ed.) Experiments in Organizational Economics (Research in experimental economics, vol 19). Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp.141-157. [link]

Bhatia, S. & Chaudhry, SJ. (2013). The dynamics of anchoring in bidirectional associative memory networks. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1899-1904). [link]

RESEARCH IN PROGRESS

“The Relative Blame Game: Correcting the Record About Responsibility in Conflict Discussions” (with Eva Chen*). (Revise & Resubmit at Journal of Experimental Psychology: General)

When people try to resolve conflicts where both sides share responsibility, how they begin may shape whether the conversation heals or escalates. An Opener who blames without acknowledging their own role may clarify a grievance and invite apology—or, through reciprocity or self-protection, provoke counterblame. We propose that the response depends partly on perceived disagreement about relative blame—how responsibility is divided between the parties. Opening blame and apology can imply relative-blame allocations, and disagreement with those allocations creates pressure to correct the record by moving the expressed allocation toward one’s own view. Thus, Responders should counterblame when an Opener appears to assign them too much blame but offer a return-apology when an Opener appears to assign them too little. Across five pre-registered studies using real-time online interactions, live conflict discussions, and hypothetical scenarios, we tested these predictions. Opening blame elicited more counterblame and fewer apologies than opening apology (Study 1). In ongoing relationships, counterblame increased with perceived undeserved blame (Study 2); experimentally manipulating relative-blame beliefs shifted counterblame and return-apology in the predicted directions (Study 3). Providing prior information that blaming Openers viewed themselves as more blameworthy reduced perceived disagreement on average but did not significantly change Responders’ choice to counterblame or apologize (Study 4). Counterblame declined when the context led participants to prioritize other conversational goals over correcting the blame narrative (Study 5). Together, these findings suggest that blame spirals are not merely tit-for-tat: Conflict responses also track perceived disagreement about relative blame and the priority placed on correcting it.

“The Apologizer's Dilemma: Two-sided transgressions introduce concerns about relative blame” (with Valeria Burdea). Under Review. Working paper available at PsyArXiv: https://psyarxiv.com/yuvbw

Existing research on interpersonal reconciliation often overlooks a critical reality: Most unresolved conflicts that people recall involve two-sided transgressions, where both parties share some blame. We propose that two-sidedness creates unique barriers to reconciliation and highlights a novel informational motive: Individuals seek to not only acknowledge “what” they are to blame for (absolute blame) but also establish a joint understanding about “how much” they are to blame (relative blame) in a way that comports with their own beliefs. Moreover, they expect pragmatic aspects of conversations—namely, number and order of apologies—to impact this shared understanding: Two apologies imply shared blame, whereas one does not; and the first apologizer looks more guilty than the second one. As a result, beliefs about relative blame shape preferences around apology exchanges (Studies 1 and 2) and contribute to coordination challenges in amends-making, which we highlight using a game theoretic framework. For example, two-sidedness makes apologizing first a risky choice. Therefore, a major barrier to reconciliation in real conflicts is fear that the other person will not acknowledge their part in the conflict (Study 3). In behavioral experiments with live interactions, we find that, holding constant what a person did wrong, perceiving the situation as two-sided (vs. one-sided) reduces the likelihood of initiating an apology (Study 4); however, the more blameworthy party is more willing (than the less blameworthy party) to take the risk, since they prefer to apologize first (Study 5). We discuss additional predictions and extensions.

"Meta-signals: How Choosing to Communicate Shapes Impressions" (with Deborah Small)

If people prefer to look good and avoid looking bad, why is it so common for people to reveal negative information about themselves (e.g., self-deprecate, apologize) and suppress positive information (e.g., hide successes, express humility)? We explain these puzzling patterns in a theory of impression formation through communication that distinguishes between two types of signals: those based on the content of the information shared (the primary signal) and those based on the act of sharing it (the meta-signal). Together, these signals shape how impressions are formed. Self-promotion may make the communicator seem competent but also braggadocious; self-deprecation may reveal weakness but also humility; complimenting others makes the communicator look generous; and criticizing others makes the communicator look mean-spirited. We develop a framework organized by who the communication concerns—self versus other—and whether the content is flattering or unflattering. This framework organizes phenomena typically studied separately, including bragging, conspicuous consumption, self-deprecation, apologies, praise, advocating, snitching, and gossip, and generates predictions about when it is better (image-wise) for communicators to speak themselves, outsource the message, or remain silent.

"Dual Blaming: Balancing Truth and Reputation After Team Failure" (with Eva Chen* and Eric VanEpps)

"When 'me' needs 'you': Other-focus licenses the benefits of self-focus in initial conversations" (with Yaoxi Shi*, Mike Yeomans, and Hanne Collins)

*Winner of the Best Paper Award in the Conflict Management (CM) Division, Academy of Management Conference 2026, Philadelphia

"Good acts gone missing: How people perceive those who fail to show care" (with Yena Kim* and Rosanna Pottman*)

“The Lesser of Two Evils: Revealing the Choice Set to Signal Good Intentions” (with Andras Molnar). Available at PsyArXiv: http://dx.doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/8sdme