Talking about evil might make someone look like they are condoning the evil behavior, as found in the study completed by Miller, Gordon, and Buddie. But what happens when you're delivering the bad news? What effects do you have as the messenger? Researchers in Ankara, Turkey, have decided to examine the effects that delivering news, good and bad, has on the messenger. In general people tend to shy away from delivering bad news, something which is called the MUM effect. In this sense, people would rather keep quiet (mum!) about negative messages, than to deliver them several reasons.

Three reasons that someone might shoot the messenger

One hypothesis as to why the news delivering person might keep mum is to avoid something called the "guilt hypothesis," which implies that the deliverer feels guilty for delivering bad news to the recipient because the bad news does not effect them. Thus, they feel guilty for having an inequality of fate; they are unaffected by the bad news that will negatively affect someone else. Another hypothesis is that the delivering person does not want to be associated with the bad news that they are delivering; they fear "negative evaluation." A third hypothesis they identified is that messengers keep mum in order to avoid a negative alteration in the mood that might accompany having to deliver bad news. In addition to these potential, personal effects on the messenger, it is possible that the messenger does not want to negatively influence the person to whom they are delivering the news. These different hypotheses all revolve around keeping mum; because they do not involve an active role, keeping mum is a passive process. Messengers seem more likely to keep mum if they are passing along information that already has definitive consequences, and if they are delivering bad news to someone that they do not consider a friend.

Choosing to pass along the good news

If keeping silent and not delivering the bad news is a passive process, it seems obvious that choosing to deliver positive news to someone is an active process. Because good news is good, not bad, the messenger does not want to keep mum, avoiding the potential negative feelings they might experience delivering negative news. It seems logical that no one would feel guilty telling someone something good. The hypothesis of fearing negative evaluation based upon the bad news being delivered no longer applies. However, it's possible that messengers actively choose to deliver good news so that the person to whom they are delivering the news evaluates them positively. The third hypothesis about affecting the mood of the receiver of the news may definitively influence the messenger; if the receiver hears something good, they will become happier, which has the potential to spread to the messenger. There seem to be more benefits delivering good news over bad news because the messenger may become viewed in a more positive light. This desire to present a positive self image to others is called ingratiation, and it is often accompanied by ulterior motives. Delivering bad news might actually allow the messenger to exploit their social exchange with the recipient, receiving a more positive image than they "paid for."

Playing the part

If you're delivering good news, you have to look the part. If you are the messenger who is delivering bad news, maintaining a cheerful persona might make the recipient of the news think you are blase and unsympathetic. If you are the messenger delivering good news, looking upset or maintaining a sad disposition might make the recipient think that you're simply jealous of their good news, whatever it may be. Try to picture the Publisher's Clearing House Prize Patrol entering an office with scowls and frowns; it would produce a much different experience for Angela than demonstrated by her reaction on the video. Her reaction would most likely be accompanied by different emotions and a completely different experience even though she's receiving the million dollar prize.




Should the messenger really be shot?

Ahmet Uysal and Bengi Oner-Ozkan, the psychologists who conducted the study: "A Self-Presentational Approach to Transmission of Good and Bad News," did find some support for the idea that messengers utilize their ability to deliver messages or keep mum as a way to manage peoples' impressions of them. Thus, messengers are less willing to deliver bad news than good news; they would rather associate themselves with a positive message than a negative one. In the end, the messenger delivering the positive message would anticipate a positive increase in the way that others viewed them. They might also expect that the recipient of the message to later "return the favor" to them, the messenger. A third observation made during their study observed that delivering good news to someone engages the messenger in the delivery of indirect flattery to the recipient of the good news. Thus, messengers with ulterior motives to deliver good news might be using their ability to tell the recipient something good as a means to take advantage of their position.

What are the leadership implications?

When making decisions and leading groups it's important to have a clear picture, and much of that comes from having the real perspective. If followers or other leaders are too concerned with delivering bad news to those making decisions, leaders will not always have a true sense of reality. Thus, they may make their decisions upon false pretenses or using imperfect information which has had catastrophic results, that sometimes seem evil, in the past.

References

Miller, A. G., Gordon, A. K., & Buddie, A. M. (1999). Accounting for evil and cruelty: Is to explain to condone? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 254-268

Uysal, A. & Oner-Ozkan, B. (2007). A self-preservational approach to transmission of good and bad news. Social Behavior and Personality, 35, 63-78.