Machiavelli aptly described the uncertainty inherent in proposing any kind of change in The Prince, and the fear of rejection and loss of face is indeed considerable. New research from Exeter Business School suggests that a matching platform similar in style to Tinder could help remove that fear and ensure innovation occurs more frequently.
The researchers set out to create an environment that removes the fear of rejection called a ‘Conditionally Anonymous Environment’ (CAE). In this environment, a third-party intermediary, whether man or machine, assesses each proposition from both angles. To avoid any humiliation, the outcome is only ever revealed if both parties say ‘yes’.
“The fear of loss of face may have a huge impact, and not only in the context of dating. If people are afraid to put themselves forward for fear of seeming needy or being rejected, then many great projects, partnerships, and endeavours will never occur. Society may be missing out on huge gains,” the authors explain. “What Tinder and before that speed dating have done is introduce anonymity; participants say they like someone but that person won’t find out, unless they like you too.”
Game theory of matching
The authors make heavy use of game theory to underpin the matching markets inherent in their system. Whilst CAEs do introduce a degree of complexity, and therefore cost, the team believe that their value makes the benefits outweigh those costs significantly.
They aim to provide ideal scenarios that are ‘more desirable’ for both sides of the exchange. Participants are introduced to others who are typically on the opposite side of the spectrum, before they choose to reject or accept them depending on how desirable they are.
The study finds that people who believe there’s a strong likelihood of them being rejected are subsequently reluctant to accept others in any future exchanges. When the cost of losing face increases therefore, the potential for beneficial exchanges reduces considerably. Indeed, this can even result in more attractive propositions being rejected out of fear of rejection themselves. This results in scenarios where rejection occurs, even when both parties want to collaborate, purely out of the fear of rejection dominating their thinking.
“If using a third party person or machine isn’t practical there are ways to create a similar result,” the authors conclude. “For example, if people from a particular socio-economic background felt unsure about applying to what they see as ‘high status’ jobs, employers could look to reach out to them, as already happens in some areas to help encourage more diversity.”
