Pratfall Effect

Aronson's experiment

Aronson, Willerman and Floyd (1966) had students listen to tape recordings of candidates auditioning for a quiz show. One candidate was portrayed as highly competent, answering 92% of questions correctly, and another as average, answering 30%. At the end of the tape, in some conditions, the candidate was heard spilling coffee over his suit. The competent candidate became more likable after the blunder, whereas the average candidate became less likable after the same blunder. Kiesler and Goldberg (1968) likewise reported that a competent person's blunder affected ratings of attractiveness. Aronson interpreted the result as showing that an overly perfect person seems distant and a small mistake closes that distance.

Conditions and limits

Helmreich, Aronson and LeFan (1970) reported that the pratfall effect was clearest among observers of average self-esteem and differed among those with very high or low self-esteem. Deaux (1972) found that male observers viewed a competent man's blunder more positively, whereas the effect was weaker or reversed for female observers or female targets. Mettee and Wilkins (1972) showed that the effect of a blunder depended on how observers compared their own ability with the target's. These results suggest the pratfall effect is less a universal law than a conditional phenomenon that appears when competence is already established and the blunder is minor. Because the original samples were small, later researchers have urged caution about replication and generalization.

Competence, warmth and later research

Fiske, Cuddy and Glick (2007) concluded that people judge others on two dimensions, competence and warmth; the pratfall effect can be read as a person of established competence gaining warmth and approachability through a blunder. In consumer research, Ein-Gar, Shiv and Tormala (2012) reported a blemishing effect, in which adding a minor piece of negative information after positive product information improved evaluations. Bruk, Scholl and Bless (2018) proposed the beautiful mess effect: people expect showing their own vulnerability to be judged negatively, yet evaluate others' displays of vulnerability positively. Gilovich, Medvec and Savitsky's (2000) research on the spotlight effect shows that people overestimate how noticeable their own mistakes are to others. The pratfall effect is used alongside research on the halo effect and first impressions to understand person perception.

FAQ

What is the pratfall effect in simple terms?

When someone who seems perfect makes a small mistake, they come across as more human and approachable, and people like them more. A mistake by someone whose ability is not yet recognized, however, can lower their likability.

Does the pratfall effect always occur?

No. It mainly appears when the person's competence is already recognized and the mistake is minor. It can weaken or reverse depending on conditions such as the observer's self-esteem and gender.

Sources reviewed: 2026-10-26

References

1. Aronson, E., Willerman, B., & Floyd, J. (1966). The effect of a pratfall on increasing interpersonal attractiveness. Psychonomic Science, 4(6), 227–228.
2. Helmreich, R., Aronson, E., & LeFan, J. (1970). To err is humanizing—sometimes: Effects of self-esteem, competence, and a pratfall on interpersonal attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16(2), 259–264.
3. Deaux, K. (1972). To err is humanizing: But sex makes a difference. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 3(1), 20–28.
4. Mettee, D. R., & Wilkins, P. C. (1972). When similarity 'hurts': Effects of perceived ability and a humorous blunder on interpersonal attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 22(2), 246–258.
5. Kiesler, S. B., & Goldberg, P. A. (1968). Multi-dimensional approach to the experimental study of interpersonal attraction: Effect of a blunder on the attractiveness of a competent other. Psychological Reports, 22(3), 693–705.
6. Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., & Glick, P. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(2), 77–83.
7. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8. Ein-Gar, D., Shiv, B., & Tormala, Z. L. (2012). When blemishing leads to blossoming: The positive effect of negative information. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(5), 846–859.
9. Bruk, A., Scholl, S. G., & Bless, H. (2018). Beautiful mess effect: Self–other differences in evaluation of showing vulnerability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 115(2), 192–205.
10. Brooks, A. W., Dai, H., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2014). I'm sorry about the rain! Superfluous apologies demonstrate empathic concern and increase trust. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5(4), 467–474.
11. Pfeffer, J., & Fong, C. T. (2002). The end of business schools? Less success than meets the eye. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 1(1), 78–95.
12. Gilovich, T., Medvec, V. H., & Savitsky, K. (2000). The spotlight effect in social judgment: An egocentric bias in estimates of the salience of one's own actions and appearance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(2), 211–222.