Bad News Transmission: Definitiveness and Relationship Effects
This paper reviews the study by Weenig, Groenenboom, and Wilke (2001) on the factors that influence whether people choose to transmit bad news. It examines three hypotheses: that bad news with indefinite consequences is more likely to be shared than bad news with definite consequences; that news is transmitted more often to friends than to strangers; and that bad news is transmitted less often than good news (the MUM effect). The authors tested these hypotheses across three experiments — one behavioral study and two scenario studies — using undergraduate participants. All three hypotheses were confirmed, with the paper concluding that consequence definitiveness and relationship closeness together account for a meaningful portion of the inconsistency in prior research on bad news transmission.
- Introduction and the MUM Effect: Background on reluctance to share bad news
- Research Hypotheses: Three directional hypotheses on bad news transmission
- Study Design and Methods: Three experiments testing relationship and definitiveness
- Experiment Results: All three hypotheses confirmed across experiments
- Conclusions and Limitations: Partial resolution; further research needed
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper follows a clear, logical progression from theoretical background through hypothesis formulation, methodology, and results, making it easy to follow the research narrative.
- It accurately integrates supporting literature (Latané & Darley; Tesser & Rosen) to justify each hypothesis, demonstrating that the student understands how prior research motivates new investigations.
- The paper honestly notes the study's limitations — such as restriction of variance in Experiment 1 and unresolved discrepancies — rather than overstating the findings.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates effective use of directional hypothesis reporting: each hypothesis is stated precisely and then evaluated against experimental outcomes. The student also correctly identifies the mediating variables (perceived moral responsibility, urgency, helpfulness, and anticipated costs) that the researchers used to unpack the mechanisms behind their findings.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with background on the MUM effect and the tension between MUM effect research and rumor research. It then presents each of the three hypotheses in order, followed by a description of the shared experimental design, summaries of each of the three experiments, and a statement of results for all three hypotheses. It closes with the authors' own limitations acknowledgment and overall conclusion.
Introduction and the MUM Effect
Individuals are much less apt to report unpleasant messages than pleasant ones. This so-called MUM effect can be caused by self-concern, care for the other person, or worry about social norms (Rosen & Tesser, 1970). However, research on rumors indicates that people do not always seem to have such constraints and may transmit bad news readily. In "Bad News Transmission as a Function of the Definitiveness of Consequences and the Relationship Between Communicator and Recipient," researchers Weenig, Groenenboom, and Wilke (2001) argued that it might be productive to analyze some differences between these two lines of research. They therefore sought to determine whether certain factors exist that encourage bad news transmission. Based on Rosen and Tesser's results, they investigated through directional hypotheses whether it is easier to transmit bad messages via rumors or second-hand communication, and whether someone is more apt to relay a message to one type of person versus another.
References
Weenig, M. W. H., Groenenboom, A. C. W. J., & Wilke, H. A. M. (2001). Bad news transmission as a function of the definitiveness of consequences and the relationship between communicator and recipient. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(3), 449–461.
Latané, B., & Darley, J. M. (1968). Group inhibition of bystander intervention in emergencies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10, 215–221.
Latané, B., & Darley, J. M. (1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn't he help? New York: Appleton-Crofts.
Rosen, S., & Tesser, A. (1970). On reluctance to communicate undesirable information: The MUM-effect. Sociometry, 33, 253–263.
Tesser, A., & Rosen, S. (1975). The reluctance to transmit bad news. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 8, pp. 193–232). New York: Academic Press.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.