SHEREEN JEHAN CHAUDHRY

Shereen J. Chaudhry, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor of Behavioral Science and Neubauer Family Faculty Fellow

University of Chicago Booth School of Business

chauds [at] chicagobooth [dot] edu

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

Broadly, I'm interested in how people navigate social interactions and relationships with others. Specifically, my work has uncovered a link between seemingly unrelated speech acts (thanking, apologizing, bragging, and blaming), showing they involve "responsibility exchange." Superficially trivial, these utterances carry weight in everyday exchanges because of the information they convey about credit and blame, with implications for our reputations, our self-image, and how we understand our relationships with others. Thinking about conversations as strategic interactions driven by these concerns helps predict how people communicate with one another, with implications for organizations in terms of navigating conflict and managing impressions.

SOME OF MY RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Why do people care so much about easily uttered (and easily faked) phrases like "thank you" and "sorry" in everyday interactions?
Is it more complicated to reconcile after conflict when transgressions are two-sided—such that both people have done something wrong—instead of one-sided?
If I blame you, you'll likely blame me back—could this be about more than reciprocity?
After team failures, does it look better or worse to claim more blame than you deserve?
Why is thanking close others seen as rude or aversive in some cultures?

KEY PUBLICATIONS * Denotes student co-author

Wald, K.A.* & Chaudhry, S.J. (2024) “‘Ignorance can be Trustworthy: The Effect of Social Self-Awareness on Trust”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Advance online publication. 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 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.

“The Blame Game: Informational motives (not just reciprocity) drive return blaming during conflict discussions” (with Eva Chen*). (in prep)

When discussing conflict, people often blame and believe blaming will elicit apologies. We find the opposite: Blaming begets blaming, and apologizing begets apologizing. Through three pre-registered experiments and a live discussion study between partners with pre-existing conflicts, we find that this is driven by more than reciprocity: People are motivated to ensure their counterpart has the “correct” beliefs about the division of relative blame. Blamers are perceived to think they are blameless. Targets blame back to correct this belief, but this reciprocity is dampened when (1) targets place more blame on themselves or (2) targets have a strong prior belief that the blamer shares their understanding of the relative blame distribution.

“The Downside of Generosity: When Giving More Undermines Social Connection” (with Minkwang Jang* and Ayelet Fishbach). Under review. (Manuscript available upon request.)

This research investigates the negative effect of broad giving on perceived social connection. While generosity typically signals social bonds, giving to multiple additional recipients may dilute the perceived connection with each individual recipient. Nine studies show that rare givers—those who give less overall by giving to fewer recipients—are perceived to have stronger social connections with their recipients compared to broad givers. As a result, gifts from rare givers are valued more and preferred compared to gifts from broad givers. This research underscores the importance of considering the breadth of giving in marketing communication, firms’ giving, and exchanging personal gifts between consumers.

"Meta-signals: A theory of communicative intent and impression formation" (with Deborah Small)

"My bad or your bad? The reputational impacts of claiming blame after joint failures" (with Eva Chen* and Eric VanEpps)

"Sincerity at risk: On the reluctance to prompt symbolic acts" (with Yena Kim* and Rosanna Pottman*)

"More on you or me? The impact of self-focus and other-focus on connection in first conversations" (with Yaoxi Shi*, Mike Yeomans, and Hanne Collins)

“The Language of Apologies in Customer Reviews” (with Akshina Banerjee* and Linhui Wu*)

“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