LAUSR

Abstract Revealing potentially damaging information about oneself before others reveal the same information is known as “stealing thunder”. The goal of this tactic is to elicit favorable evaluations from others, thus mitigating the damage that might otherwise occur if others were to reveal this negative information first. Although prior research has shown evaluative advantages to stealing thunder, research has not examined whether the specificity of the information provided by the confessor regarding their transgression matters. Thus, our goals were to identify (1) whether confessions at varying levels of specificity provided any benefit relative to when the negative information was revealed by a third party, and (2) whether the severity of the transgression moderated the efficacy of stealing thunder at different levels of specificity. Across 4 studies, stealing thunder was optimally effective when confessions were made at the greatest level of detail. Confessions made at moderately-specific or very general levels of detail provided comparatively weak and limited evaluative protection. In the final study, potential mechanisms underlying the role of confession specificity in the efficacy of stealing thunder were explored.