Research Deep Dive Day 3: The Science of Speaking Up: A Research Deep Dive

Research Deep Dive - Day 3 of The Quiet Power Playbook

The Quiet Power Playbook: For kind leaders who want promotions, not politics

By Martin Schweinsberg, Ph.D. | kindandquiet.com

The Full Asch Conformity Experiments

The main email covered the key finding, but Solomon Asch's 1955 experiments are worth looking into a bit more. Let's see¹.

The Complete Setup

Participants sat in a room with 7-9 confederates (actors). They were shown a reference line and three comparison lines:

• Reference line: ——————
• Line A: ——— (clearly shorter)
• Line B: —————— (exact match)
• Line C: ——————————— (clearly longer)

The confederates answered first, unanimously choosing the wrong line. The real participant answered last or second-to-last.

Surprising Variations

Critical trials: Conformity happened on 31.8% of critical trials, but 75% of participants conformed at least once.

Group size matters (but not how you'd think):

These stats are from Asch (1955, Figure 3.5):

• 1 person giving wrong answer: 3.6% of participants conform and also say the wrong answer
• 2 people giving wrong answer: 13.6% of participants conform and also say the wrong answer
• 3 people giving wrong answer: 31.8% of participants conform and also say the wrong answer
• 4+ confederates: No significant increase

If 1 person gives the wrong answer, only 3.6% of people are swayed. But if there's just +1 more person also giving the wrong answer, now 13.6% knowingly conform to the wrong answer!

And just three confident voices are enough to create maximum social pressure to conform.

The Freedom of Speaking Truth: It's enough for just one person to speak up and dissent from the majority. Conformity drops to 5-10%, even if that other person gives another wrong answer!² Isn’t that crazy? You don't need everyone, you just need one. And you could be that one for someone else! They might speak up if you speak up.

Private vs. public: When participants wrote answers privately, conformity nearly disappeared. The pressure is social, not perceptual.

William James and the Birth of Emotion Theory

In 1890, William James proposed something radical: we don't run from a bear because we're afraid; we're afraid because we run³.

James's Original Theory

"Our natural way of thinking about these coarser emotions is that the mental perception of some fact excites the mental affection called the emotion, and that this latter state of mind gives rise to the bodily expression. My theory, on the contrary, is that the bodily changes follow directly the perception of the exciting fact, and that our feeling of the same changes as they occur IS the emotion. Common-sense says, we lose our fortune, are sorry and weep; we meet a bear, are frightened and run; we are insulted by a rival, are angry and strike. The hypothesis here to be defended says that this order of sequence is incorrect, that the one mental state is not immediately induced by the other, that the bodily manifestations must first be interposed between, and that the more rational statement is that we feel sorry because we cry, angry because we strike, afraid because we tremble, and not that we cry, strike, or tremble, because we are sorry, angry, or fearful, as the case may be. Without the bodily states following on the perception, the latter would be purely cognitive in form, pale, colorless, destitute of emotional warmth. We might then see the bear, and judge it best to run, receive the insult and deem it right to strike, but we should not actually feel afraid or angry."

• James, William. Delphi Complete Works of William James (Illustrated) (pp. 1419-1420). (Function). Kindle Edition.

James argued that:

1. We perceive a stimulus (bear)
2. Our body reacts automatically (heart races, muscles tense)
3. We perceive these bodily changes
4. Our interpreation of this perception CREATES the emotion

While James's pure theory has been refined, modern research supports some of his key ideas. To read up on this, see⁴.

The Science of Arousal Reinterpretation

Alison Wood Brooks's research builds on decades of work on arousal and performance⁵.

Why 'Calm Down' is likely to fail

Trying to 'calm down' requires:

1. Reducing physiological arousal (hard to do quickly)
2. Shifting from high to low arousal state (metabolically expensive)
3. Fighting your body's natural preparation response

Why "Get Excited" Works

Reframing as excitement only requires:

1. Keeping the same arousal level (no physical change needed)
2. Shifting valence from negative to positive in a subtle way. Because these physiological responses you don't have to 'tell yourself something you don't feel' (as in saying to yourself "Calm down" when you know you're not calm because your heart is racing, your palms are sweaty, etcetera…). Instead you just introduce a sense of doubt, or almost curiosity as in saying 'I might be excited'(cognitive only)
3. Aligning with your body's preparation response

The Yerkes-Dodson Connection

The Yerkes-Dodson 'law'⁶ suggests that performance on a variety of tasks might follow an inverted U-curve with arousal:

• Too little arousal = poor performance (bored, disengaged)
• Optimal arousal = peak performance (alert, focused)
• Too much arousal = poor performance (panicked, overwhelmed)

Reframing anxiety as excitement can help you stay in the optimal arousal zone: ready and prepared, but not panicking.

Additional Performance Psychology Techniques

Beyond the "get excited" reframe, research reveals other strategies for managing speaking anxiety:

1. Implementation Intentions

Instead of vaguely telling yourself that "I'll speak up more," use if-then planning⁷:

• "IF someone makes a claim I disagree with, THEN I'll ask: 'What evidence supports that?'"
• "IF I have relevant expertise, THEN I'll share one thing they should know."

2. Self-Distancing Language

Use your name or "you" instead of "I" when self-talking⁸:

• Instead of: "I'm so nervous"
• Try: "Martin, you're prepared for this" or "You've got this"

This creates psychological distance to the anxiety-provoking situation and reduces anxiety by 8-10% in studies. People who use this also perform better on tasks such as giving a speech (Figure 3, Panel C).

3. Pre-Performance Routines

Elite performers use consistent routines to channel arousal productively⁹. Think of tennis players who go through the same simple movements each time they are about to serve. Think of fighters before they go into the ring, swimmers before they jump into the pool, or (less noticeable obviously) professors before teaching a class. Pre-performance routines help all these people reach their optimal level of arousal to be at their best.

You probably already do a version of this in your own life. You might just have to formalize this a bit. Consider these categories:

• Physical: Deep breath, shoulder roll, power pose
• Cognitive: Visualization, affirmation, intention setting
• Behavioral: Arrive early, choose strategic seating, prepare opening line

The Introvert's Hidden Advantage

Research on affective forecasting reveals introverts systematically underestimate both how much they will enjoy speaking up, and the benefits they can gain from this¹⁰:

The prediction error: Introverts expect to feel drained and anxious after participating. When introverts actually speak up, they feel energized and satisfied.

Why this matters: This forecasting error creates a negative cycle:

1. You expect a bad outcome → you don't speak up
2. You don't have the positive experience of speaking up (because you didn't) → reinforces your decision not to speak up
3. You don't get a chance to learn & update your prediction → your avoidance becomes habitual and the cycle continues

Breaking the cycle: Track your actual feelings after speaking up. Most quiet leaders discover reality is 2-3 points better (on a 10-point scale) than predicted.

Practical Integration

To leverage this research:

1. Before meetings: Remind yourself that arousal helps performance. If you feel some arousal, it means you're getting ready (remember: this is what Bruce Springsteen tells himself before getting on stage)
2. During meetings: Use the 3-second rule so you don't overthink
3. After meetings: Track how you actually felt vs. how you thought you would feel
4. Over time: Build evidence that speaking up feels better than anticipated

Remember: Your arousal is a signal that you're getting ready. Your anxiety is excitement about what's to come. The sensations you feel aren't bugs, they're features.

References

💡 Can’t access these papers? Here’s how to get them legally (often free), and here’s why it costs $40 in the first place.

1. Asch, S. E. (1955). Opinions and social pressure. Scientific American, 193(5), 31-35.
   
2. James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. Henry Holt and Company.

- See also: James, W. (1884). What is an emotion? Mind, 9(34), 188–205.

- And: James, W. (1894). The physical basis of emotion. Psychological Review, 1(5), 516–529.

3. Modern emotion theory:

- LeDoux, J. (2012). Rethinking the emotional brain. Neuron, 73(4), 653–676.

- Barrett, L. F. (2017). How emotions are made: The secret life of the brain. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

- Damasio, A. (1994). Descartes' error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. Putnam.

4.Brooks, A. W. (2014). Get excited: Reappraising pre-performance anxiety as excitement. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(3), 1144-1158.DOI link

5. Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans. American Psychologist, 54(7), 493-503.DOI link

6. Kross, E., et al. (2014). Self-talk as a regulatory mechanism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106(2), 304-324.DOI link
   
7. Yerkes, R. M., & Dodson, J. D. (1908). The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit‐formation. Journal of Comparative Neurology and Psychology, 18(5), 459–482. DOI link

Note: This paper has taken on a bit of a life of its own. It is cited to support a wide range of situations and circumstances. But read the actual paper and you might scratch your head: how on earth could 'that study' support 'these claims'? It's not entirely clear. The original paper features mice choosing between black and white boxes. You can go down a deep rabbit hole trying to figure out how that study came to be called a 'law'. Personally, I don't think of this (or any empirical evidence) as 'law', but if you talk about a possible curvilinear relationship between anxiety and performance, the Yerkes-Dodson paper is typically the first to come to mind.

8. Cotterill, S. (2010). Pre-performance routines in sport: Current Directions and Future Directions. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 3(2), 132-153. DOI link
   
9. Zelenski, J. M., et al. (2013). Personality and affective forecasting: Trait introverts underpredict the hedonic benefits of acting extraverted. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 104(6), 1092. DOI link | Read my Research Summary

—

The Quiet Power Playbook: For kind leaders who want promotions, not politics

More at kindandquiet.com

Martin Schweinsberg, Ph.D. (ESMT Berlin)

¹

²

³

⁴

⁵

⁶

⁷

⁸

⁹

¹⁰