Journal oj Personality and Social Psychology

1970, Vol. 16, No. 2, 250-264

TO ERR IS HUMANIZING—SOMETIMES:
EFFECTS OF SELF-ESTEEM, COMPETENCE, AND A PRATFALL
ON INTERPERSONAL ATTRACTION 1
ROBERT HELMREICH,2 ELLIOT ARONSON, AND JAMES LsFAN
University of Texas at Austin

The effects on liking for a stimulus person were studied in a 3 X 2 X 2 factorial

design varying subjects' self-esteem, stimulus-person competence, and the pres-
ence or absence of a pratfall by the stimulus person. The competent stimulus
person with or without a pratfall was found to be significantly more attractive
than his incompetent counterpart. However, subjects of average self-esteem
found the attractiveness of a competent person enhanced significantly if he
experienced a pratfall, while subjects of high and low self-esteem were signifi-
cantly more attracted to the superior when he did not blunder. A pratfall did
not significantly affect liking for the incompetent stimulus person by any of the
self-esteem groups. Subjects of low self-esteem volunteered at a higher rate for
experimentation than those of high or average self-esteem.

While competence seems to be a generally attraction. In a 2 X 2 design subjects listened

admired characteristic in American society,
the demonstration of human weakness may
serve to enhance the attractiveness of a highly
competent individual. Indeed, competence
per se does not seem to lead inexorably to
attractiveness. Bales (1953, 19SS, 1958) has
found that group members who initiate the
most ideas and who are perceived by the
group as "idea men" are usually not the most
chosen sociometrically. Hollander and Webb
(1955) and Radloff and Helmreich (1968)
have also found that those nominated by the
group members as leaders are not necessarily
best liked.
A possible explanation for this phenomenon
was explored by Aronson, Willerman, and
Floyd (1966), who conducted an experiment
on the effects of competence and a pratfall on
1 approachable; consequently he will be liked better
The research was supported by a contract be-
tween the Office of Naval Research and the Univer-
sity of Texas at Austin, Robert Helmreich, Principal
Investigator, and by a grant from the National Insti-
tute of Mental Health (MH 12357) to Elliot Aron-
son. The authors wish to thank Daniel Pitts, who
served competently as the stimulus person, and Marie
Mulkey, who served as the interviewer in the video-
tapes. They are also indebted to Mark Althaus, Ellis
Copeland, Chris Kristner, David Lamon, Helen May-
field, Larry Scherwitz, Joy Stapp, and Gregg Warr,
who assisted in the experiment.
3
Requests for reprints should be sent to Robert
Helmreich, Department of Psychology, Univer-
sity of Texas at Austin, 211 Mezes Hall, Austin,
Texas 78712.
259
to one of four tapes of a stimulus person who
was purportedly trying out for the College
Bowl quiz team. On one tape, the stimulus
person was of superior ability; on the second
he was of only average ability. On the third
and fourth tapes a pratfall (clumsily spilling
a cup of coffee) was committed by either the
superior or average stimulus person. The de-
pendent variable was expressed liking for the
stimulus person. The results indicate that a
pratfall enhanced the attractiveness of the
superior person, while it tended to reduce the
attractiveness of the average person. These
investigators offered the following interpreta-
tion for their findings:
A near perfect or superior individual who shows that
he is capable of an occasional blunder or pratfall
may come to be regarded as more human and more
because of this pratfall. On the other hand, if a
mediocre or average person commits an identical
blunder, he will not undergo an increase in attrac-
tiveness. Indeed, since it would suggest only that he
is very mediocre, it should lower his attractiveness
|p. 2 2 7 ] .
A pratfall makes a superior individual more
approachable and more human to whom? Do
all segments of a population react uniformly
to competence, incompetence, and blunders?
It is likely that persons of differing self-
esteem may differ in their, perception of a
pratfall by a superior person. The explanation
260 R. HELMREICH, E. ARONSON, AND J. LKFAN
[nit forth by Aronson et al. would seem to be
most appropriate for persons who consider
themselves to be of moderate ability. That is,
the individual who sees himself as being of
average ability and social competence prob-
ably finds a pratfall by a superior person
particularly endearing as it not only "human-
izes" the superior, but brings him closer to the
"average" observer. On the other hand, we
would suggest that the individual with very
high self-esteem may identify with the supe-
rior, competent person and may be more at-
tracted to this individual when he does not
err than when he commits a blunder.
What about the person with low self-
esteem? Does he also like superior individuals
who blunder? Perhaps, but this would appear
too simple. A person of high or average self-
esteem probably has two needs: to appreciate
competence and yet not to be outshone too
badly. But the individual with low self-esteem
is probably less concerned about being out-
shone than is someone with high or moderate
self-esteem—it happens to him regularly and,
indeed, he probably expects it. This individ-
ual's needs are more for someone to take care
of him, to provide an ideal, a hero. A superior
who shows himself to be all too fallible by
committing a pratfall may be rejected by the
individual with low self-esteem because he
fails to fill his interpersonal needs.
On the other hand, a thoroughly incom-
petent stimulus person may appear equally
inept to persons of all levels of self-esteem. A
pratfall by an incompetent, if anything, would
diminish his appeal because it would show
him to be that much more incompetent.
From this reasoning, we would predict a
main effect for competence, with the com-
petent stimulus person liked best by people of
all levels of self-esteem. We would also pre-
dict a triple-order interaction between subject
self-esteem, stimulus-person competence, and
stimulus-person pratfall; specifically, the en-
hancement of attraction for the competent
pratfall will be shown by average subjects,
but not by those of high or low self-esteem,
and the incompetent will be generally rejected.
METHOD
Subjects
One hundred and twenty mule University ol" Texas
undergraduates participated to fulfill research re-
quirements for introductory psychology.3 Subjects
were classified as being of low, average, or high self-
esteem on the basis of test scores.
Sdj-Esteem Assessment
A personality inventory entitled the Texas Social
Behavior Inventory, consisting of 65 multiple-choice
items, was administered to 1,500 female and 1,400
male students enrolled in introductory psychology.'1
Self-esteem was assessed by means of a 22-item scale
from the inventory. Representative items were "I feel
secure in social situations," "I feel confident of my
opinion," "I feel comfortable being approached by
someone in a position of authority over me," "1
would describe myself as self-confident," "I usually
expect to succeed in things I do." All items were
answered on a 5-point scale, with the end points
labeled "not at all characteristic of me" and "very
characteristic of me" and intermediate points labeled
"not very," "slightly," and "fairly." Scores could
range from 0 to 88. Norms were computed separately
for the male and female samples. Male subjects fall-
ing between the 1st and 25th percentilcs were classi-
fied as low self-esteem; those in the 26th to 75th
percentilcs were classified as average, self-esteem; and
those in the 76th to 99th percenliles were designated
high self-esteem.
Overview oj the Design
Subjects in each of the self-esteem classifications
were randomly assigned to one of four experimental
conditions comprising a 3 X 2 X 2 factorial design
with 3 levels of self-esteem, 2 levels of stim-
ulus-person competence, and the presence or absence
of a pratfall. Subjects viewed a videotape showing a
highly competent or an inept stimulus person in an
interview cither experiencing or not experiencing a
pratfall. The major dependent variable was liking for
the stimulus person.
Procedure
On arriving for a scheduled session, a subject was
escorted by the experimenter into a research cubicle
containing a desk, chair, and a 23-inch television
monitor. Each subject was then given the same cover
story.
The experimenter told the subject that he was
participating in the early phases of research on the
evaluation of interview techniques—studying the ac-
curacy of evaluations of both live interviews and
videotapes of interviews. Each subject was told that
"Actually, 129 subjects were run. Four were
dropped because of expressed suspicion about the
procedure. Data from 3 subjects were not counted
because they knew the stimulus person. Data from
1 subject were not tabulated because of language
difficulties, and 1 subject's data were lost because tht
videotape-recorder broke down.
1
Copies of the Texas Social Behavior Inventory
scoring for the self-esteem scale and norms may he
obtained from Ihc senior aulhor at the address given
in Footnote 2.
 SELF-ESTEEM, COMPLIANCE, PRATFALL, AND ATTRACTION
he was assigned to the condition which would watch
a series of short videotaped segments of interviews
and would fill out questionnaires evaluating each
videotape.
The experimenter then explained that the first tape
was a portion of an interview with an applicant for
the post of Student Ombudsman at the University of
Texas. He explained the function of the Ombudsman
and added that it was the most responsible job a
student can hold.
The experimenter then left the room after instruct-
ing the subject to complete the first questionnaire as
soon as the videotape stopped. At this point, one of
the four experimental tapes was started on a Sony
CV2200 videocorder in the adjoining control room.
When the subject reported by intercom that he
had completed the questionnaire, the experimenter
returned to the cubicle, questioned him to uncover
any suspicions, explained the purpose of the experi-
ment, and enjoined the subject to secrecy about the
nature of the study.
Experimental Conditions
Each of the videotapes began with the "applicant,"
a male undergraduate dressed in a coat and tie,
sitting in an office facing a desk and drinking coffee.
As the sequence began, the female interviewer was
saying, "Now that I know something about your
reasons for wanting to be Ombudsman and your
social activities, I would like to find out more about
your activities at the University and in high school."
Then, under questioning from the interviewer, the
applicant's record was elicited.
Competent Conditions
Tn the two competent conditions, the applicant
modestly acknowledged that he was a junior major-
ing in government with a 3.8 grade point average,
was president of the Pro-Law Association, a member
of the National Government Honor Society, a Junior
Fellow of the University, and a member of the
varsity swimming team. The competent applicant also
reported having been an elected officer of the student
government, treasurer of the Arts and Sciences Coun-
cil, and a Freshmen Orientation Advisor. His high
school activities included being editor of the year-
book, member of the basketball team, captain of the
track team, vice-president of the National Honor So-
ciety, and Senior Class President.
Incompetent Conditions
The qualifications of the applicant in the two in-
competent conditions were in stark contrast to those
of the competent applicant. The role was played by
(he same confederate wearing the same clothing. Un-
like the competent applicant, who maintained high
eye contact through the interview, the incompetent
kept his eyes averted from the interviewer most of
the time. Questioning of the incompetent disclosed
that ho was n junior government major, had a 1.9
grade point average, planned to join the Prc-LaW
Association, ran for student government but was
261
defeated, had applied to be a Freshman Orientation
Advisor but was not selected, and had thought about,
but failed to go out for, swimming. The incom-
petent's high school record included being a proof-
reader for the yearbook, going out for freshman
(rack, and no activity in student government.
Prat jail Conditions
Near the end of the interview, the applicant clum-
sily dropped and spilled a cup of hot coffee over
himself and the office. The interviewer uttered an
exclamation of shock, remarked that the applicant
was soaking wet, and said that she would get some
towels. The pratfall was videotaped, duplicated, and
spliced onto a copy of the competent tape and a
copy of the incompetent tape.
Dependent Variables
The major dependent variable was an attraction
score based on the sum of three items on the evalua-
tion questionnaire filled out by the subjects after
viewing the videotape. The items asked the subject to
indicate on 7-point scales how much he liked the
applicant, how much he would like to spend a lot of
lime with the applicant, and how much he would like
to work with the applicant. There was a total of 10
items on the questionnaire; other items asked for
ratings of the applicant's sincerity, adjustment, in-
telligence, poise, and physical appearance. Two items
dealt with the warmth and effectiveness of the inter-
viewer.
RESULTS
The results for attraction to the stimulus
person, the major dependent variable, dra-
matically confirmed the hypotheses. Means for
attraction are shown in Table ] and Figures 1
and 2, and the associated analysis of variance
is presented in Table 2. The three liking vari-
ables summed to form the attraction index
had a mean intercorrelation of .72. r> The pat-
tern of means for each of the three was in the
same direction as the scale, and each effect
significant for the composite variable was also
significant for each of the individual items.
The main effect for competence was signifi-
cant beyond the .0001 level (F = 33.18,
df = 1/108), with the competent stimulus
person liked better than the incompetent. The
main effect for pratfall was also significant
(F-4A1, d f = 1/108, p<M), with the
individual committing a pratfall liked less.
However, since both the Self-Esteem X Prat-
B
Item 1 (general liking) correlated .74 with Item 2
(like to spend time with) and .72 with Item 3 (like
(o work with). Item 2 had a correlation of .70 with
Item 3.
262 R. HELMRKICH, E. ARONSON, AND J. LEFAN
13.0

12.0

11.0

O 10.0
z

9.0 J

7.0 .

6.0
COMPETENT COMPETENT
NO P R A T F A L L PRATFALL

Fro. 1. Attraction toward tlie competent stimulus person.

(Higher scores indicate greater attraction.)

fall interaction (F = 3.31, dj = 1/108, p conditions to clarify the meaning of the ob-
< .04) and triple-order interaction (F ~ 6.37, tained results.
dj = 2/108, p< .003) were significant, it is The most striking contrasts are found in
necessary to examine simple effects within evaluation of the competent stimulus person.
13.0-

12.0

1.0.

10.0.
O
z
9.0.

AVERAGE SELF- ESTEEM

8.0.

HI S E L F - E S T E E M
70.

6.0
INCOMPETENT INCOMPETENT
NO P R A T F A L L PBATFAU

FIG. 2. Attraction toward (he incompetent stimulus person.

(Higher scores indicate greater attraction.)
 SELF-ESTEEM, COMPLIANCE, PRATFALL, AND ATTRACTION 263

TABLE 1 Self-Esteem Conditions

MEANS MR ATTRACTION TO THE APPLICANT
As mentioned, subjects within each self-
Low Average High esteem level were randomly assigned to ex-
Applicant. self- self- self- perimental conditions. To check on the equiv-
e, com etf ecm es ee
alence of conditions, an analysis of variance
Cornpetcnt-no pratfall 12.0 9.6 12.9 was conducted on esteem scale scores. The
Competent— pratfall 6.9 12.8 10.4
results showed the expected, highly significant
Incompetent- no pratfall 7.4 8.3 7.8 main effect for esteem (F = 456.S3, df —
1 ncompetcn l-pralf al 1 7.4 6.9 7.3 1/108, p < .0001) with no other significant
Note.—Higher scores indicate greater attraction. A* equals 10 main effects or interactions. Thus, the four
for all cells. experimental conditions within each self-es-
teem level did not differ in level of self-esteem.
Subjects of average self-esteem found the per-
Other Variables
son who committed a pratfall significantly
more likable than his "perfect" counterpart Results for the other variables measured by
(F = 4.86, df = 1/108, p < .04). This find- the evaluation questionnaire served primarily
ing strongly replicates the original study by to confirm the effectiveness of the experimen-
Aronson et al. (1966). As can be seen in tal manipulation. The competent stimulus
Figure 1, however, the results for subjects of person was seen as being more intelligent
both low and high self-esteem are dramat- (F= 155.87, #=1/108, p<.000l), more
ically reversed. For subjects in both of these poised (F = 55.82, df = 1/52, p < .0001),
conditions, the competent-no-pratfall appli- and better adjusted (F = 54.32, df = 1/108,
cant was liked significantly better than the p < .0001). At the same time, the stimulus
coffee spiller (low self-esteem, no pratfall person was seen as less poised (F — 14.28,
versus pratfall, F = 14.05, df = 1/108, p df = 1/108, p< .0001) when committing a
<.01; high self-esteem, no pratfall versus blunder. None of the experimental conditions
pratfall, F = 4.23, df = 1/108, p < .04). affected significantly the ratings of sincerit}'
Although the slopes of the lines for high- and physical appearance.
and low-self-esteem subjects are in the same
direction, the two groups differ significantly DISCUSSION
in their liking for the pratfall-committing The results indicate dramatically that an
stimulus person. Low-self-esteem subjects ex- individual's feelings of personal worth influ-
pressed significantly less liking for the coffee ence his attraction to persons of differing
spiller than those of high self-esteem (F competence who may experience pratfalls.
= 5.19, df = 1/108, p<.03); indeed, the While the actions of a perceived incompetent
mean for the low-self-esteem, competent-prat- seem to have little or no effect on his likabil-
fall condition was the second lowest of the ity, a competent individual may either en-
12 conditions.
TABLK 2
Results for the incompetent applicant were
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE I'OR ATTRACTION
quite different. The incompetent was uni-
formly disliked by subjects of all levels of .Source <V MS i'
self-esteem, with the presence or absence of a Self-esteem (A) 2 11.86 J.29
pratfall having little effect on liking. There Competence (B) 1 307.20 33.18***
Pratfall I'D 1 40.83 4.41*
were no significant differences between any of A X B 2 10.22 1.10
the means in the incompetent conditions. AX C 2 30.61 3.31*
BXC 1 6.53 <1
However, average self-esteem subjects showed AX B X C 2 58.96 6.37**
a nonsignificant trend toward more rejection Within 108 9.26
Total 119
of the incompetent-pratfall applicant, which
replicates the findings of Aronson ct al. * p < ,U4.
* * / > < .003.
(1966). ***jp < .0001.
264 R. HELMREICH, E. ARONSON, AND J. LEFAN

hance or diminish his appeal depending on the the dynamics causing the differential attrac-
perceived self-worth of those observing him. tion toward competent persons shown by high -
Subjects' low rating of the intelligence and and low-self-esteem subjects.
adjustment of the incompetent indicated that
Cautionary Note
he was perceived as highly inept. It may be
that the addition of a pratfall can have little An incidental finding in the study may
effect when a person is seen as having minimal have important implications for laboratory
ability and poise. research. Although an eligibility list contain-
The situation is quite different for the com- ing an equal number of names of both high-
petent stimulus person. For subjects of av- and low-self-esteem subjects was posted, the
erage self-esteem, the increase in liking in the rate of volunteering for the study was almost
competent-pratfall condition is probably due four times greater for low-self-esteem sub-
to the humanizing of the competent individ- jects. Average-self-esteem subjects volunteered
ual. The superior individual who blunders less than low-self-esteem subjects, and high-
may be perceived as being closer and more self-esteem subjects volunteered less fre-
similar to the average subject, and hence more quently than their average peers. This is
attractive. Average subjects may see the prat- reminiscent of the finding by Capra and
falling superior as being more approachable. Dittes (1962) that firstborns volunteer for
We can only speculate as to the dynamics research in excess of their proportion in the
causing the widely divergent results shown by population. In the case of self-esteem, if an
high- and low-self-esteem subjects. One possi- experiment is using a presumably random
bility is that individuals with high self-esteem sample of the subject population and the re-
sec the competent person as one of equal abil- sults could be affected by the subjects' self-
ity and merit. When such a person blunders, esteem, a disproportionate number of low-
he may lose his equal status and be rejected and high-self-esteem subjects in the sample
as inferior. For example, a championship could seriously affect conclusions from the
golfer may be much more contemptuous of a data. The same excess of low-self-esteem over
fellow top-flight golfer who makes a stupid high-self-esteem subjects has since been found
shot than would a mediocre player who ob- in a second study in our laboratory using
served the same error. volunteers from the same population.
The dynamics may be very different for the REFERENCES
low-self-esteem person observing a superior ARONSON, E., WILLERMAN, B., & FI.OYD, J. The effect
individual. Low-self-esteem subjects showed of a pratfall on increasing interpersonal attractive-
significantly (p < .001) less liking for the ness. Psychonomic Science, 1966, 4, 227-228.
stimulus person in the competent-pratfall con- BALES, R. F. The equilibrium problem in small
dition than in the competent-no-pratfall con- groups. In T. Parsons, R. F. Bales, & E. A. Shils
(Eds.), Working papers in the theory of action.
dition and liked him significantly less than Glencoc, III.: Free Press, 1959.
those in both the average- and high-self- BALES, R. F. How people interact in conferences.
esteem competent-pratfall conditions. Indeed, Scientific American, 1955, 192, 31-35.
low-self-esteem persons liked the competent- BALES, R. I1'. Task roles and social roles in problem
pratfall stimulus person less (nonsigntfi- solving groups. In E. E. Maccoby, T. M. New-
comb, & F. L. Hartley (Eds.), Readings in social
cantly) than the applicant in either of the psychology. (3rd. ed.) New York: Holt, 1958.
incompetent conditions. The causes for this CAPRA, P., & DITTES, J. E. Birth order as a selective
extreme rejection of the superior individual factor among volunteer subjects. Journal oj Ab-
who errs may lie in a need for a perfect hero. normal and Social Psychology, 1962, 64, 302.
When a person with low self-esteem admires HOLLANDER, E. P., & WEBB, W. B. Leadership, fol-
lowership, and friendship: An analysis of peer
a superior, he may be unable to tolerate any nominations. Journal oj Abnormal and Social Psy-
flaws in such a person. This may be analogous chology, 1055, 50, 163-167.
to the churchgoer who perceives himself as RADLOST, R., & HELMREICH, R. Groups under stress:
a miserable sinner but cannot tolerate the Psychological research in SEALAB II. New York:
Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1968.
slightest peccadillo in his minister. A major
goal of subsequent research will be to clarify (Received November 24, 1969)