Why failures spread more easily than successes
Researchers conducted nine studies with a total of 8,229 participants to examine how people decide what personal information to disclose after learning about another person's outcome. The studies tested scenarios in which individuals received either positive or negative results and then learned that a counterpart had experienced either success or failure. Participants consistently matched the valence of the other person's experience. The key asymmetry was that matching occurred much more often with negative outcomes. Failures created a stronger impulse to disclose a parallel experience, while successes prompted hesitation or omission. When both parties had failed, disclosure reached 96 percent. When both had succeeded, disclosure fell to 73 percent. This pattern held whether the information came from a biological-age test or from actual online conversations. The researchers observed the same selective disclosure across multiple designs, indicating the tendency is not limited to one type of outcome or setting. The source material leaves open whether the asymmetry persists across cultures or longer time frames, but the nine studies consistently demonstrated the effect in the conditions tested. The research appeared in Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes and showed the effect held in both imagined scenarios and real interactions, confirming the pattern is robust within the tested conditions.
How shared failure builds connection
When both people had faced similar setbacks, disclosure rates reached 96 percent. Participants reported that revealing their own failure served to offer understanding and solidarity rather than to compare performance. The tendency strengthened when participants liked the other person more. They described the disclosure as an attempt to make the other individual feel less alone or discouraged. The same motivation appeared in real online conversations. People used their own setbacks to signal empathy and reduce the other person's sense of isolation. The researchers noted that the impulse to match failures was not primarily about performance comparison but about creating a sense of connection through shared experience. In the studies, this motive operated even when the other person was not especially close, though the effect grew stronger with greater liking. The source does not specify exact mechanisms beyond self-reported intentions, yet the consistent 96 percent disclosure rate across experiments supports the interpretation that shared failure functions as an act of solidarity. When participants sympathized more with the other person the tendency became even stronger, showing that liking amplifies the drive to share setbacks for the sake of emotional support.
Why successes are often withheld
When one person had failed and the other had succeeded, disclosure of the success dropped to 73 percent. Participants delayed the information, used apologetic language, or added expressions of sympathy first. In some cases they altered or withheld the positive result to avoid making the other person feel worse. This restraint was not primarily about managing one's own image. Instead, participants adjusted their statements based on how they anticipated the listener would feel. The concern for the other person's emotional state overrode the impulse to report good news. Even when the success was clear, many chose to soften or postpone the disclosure. The studies showed this pattern in both imagined biological-age test scenarios and actual chat interactions, confirming that the withholding stems from an active effort to safeguard the counterpart's feelings rather than from external social pressure alone. The behavior appeared whether the counterpart was a colleague or an online contact, indicating the motive centers on anticipated emotional impact.
Evidence from controlled and real-world settings
One experiment asked participants to imagine receiving biological-age test results that were either favorable or unfavorable. They then learned a colleague had received either a good or bad outcome. The pattern of selective disclosure replicated across these conditions and extended to actual chat interactions where both parties had either succeeded or failed. The research appeared in Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. The authors conclude that the behavior reflects an active effort to safeguard the feelings of others rather than a passive social norm. The studies showed the effect across multiple designs, confirming that the asymmetry is robust. The source material provides no additional details on participant demographics or follow-up measures, leaving those aspects unexamined in the reported work. The nine studies together produced consistent results whether outcomes involved test scores or everyday exchanges, reinforcing that the tendency to match failures more readily than successes is reliable under the conditions examined.
Conclusion
The overall findings indicate that people adjust what they share to protect the emotional state of the listener. Failures become a tool for connection while successes are often softened or delayed. This pattern emerged reliably across the nine studies involving 8,229 participants and appeared in both laboratory-style scenarios and real online conversations. The source leaves unsettled whether the same asymmetry would hold in other cultural contexts or over extended periods, yet the reported evidence consistently supports the role of concern for the other person's feelings.
Frequently asked questions
Why do people share failures more than successes?
They share failures to provide empathy and reduce the other person's sense of isolation. The studies showed this motive operates even when participants like the other person more.
Does the pattern only appear in laboratory settings?
No. The 96 percent versus 73 percent difference was also observed in real online conversations between participants who had both failed or both succeeded.
Is the behavior mainly about protecting one's own image?
The research indicates otherwise. Participants adjusted disclosures primarily to avoid hurting the other person's feelings, not to manage how they themselves appeared.
How many people took part in the studies?
Nine studies included a total of 8,229 participants. The findings held across multiple experimental designs and real-world interactions.
What happens when both people succeed?
Disclosure falls to 73 percent. People often delay, soften, or omit the success to prevent the other person from feeling worse.
