Introduction to the Psychology of Sharing
Announcer: The Brainy Business Podcast digs into the psychology of why people buy.
Melina Palmer: Welcome to episode 561 of the Brainy Business: Understanding the Psychology of why People Buy. In today’s episode, I’m excited to introduce you to Dr. Leslie John, author of Revealing: The Underrated Power of Oversharing. Ready? Let’s get started.
Announcer: You are listening to the Brainy Business Podcast, where we dig into the psychology of why people buy and help you incorporate behavioral economics into your business, making it more brain-friendly. Now, here’s your host, Melina Palmer.
Melina Palmer: Hello, everyone. My name is Melina Palmer and I want to welcome you to the Brainy Business Podcast. When you hear the word oversharing, what comes to mind? A cringey social media post? That coworker who always tells you too much about their weekend? We’ve all been conditioned to think that the real risk is saying too much. But what if the bigger danger comes with saying too little?
That is the provocative argument from today’s guest, Dr. Leslie John, a behavioral scientist at Harvard Business School and the author of the new book Revealing: The Underrated Power of Oversharing. Her research turns the typical advice on its head, showing that while oversharing might get the headlines, the real issue for most of us is undersharing and the missed opportunities that come with it.
So often we hold back out of fear of embarrassment or rejection. But what Leslie has found is that thoughtfully revealing more than we think we should can actually build stronger connections, increase trust, and even improve decision-making in work and life. As you listen today, I encourage you to consider where might you be holding back a little too much and what could shift if you shared just a little more.
Really quickly, before we get into the conversation, I want to be sure you know that there are links in the show notes for my top related past episodes and books, ways to get in touch, and more. It’s all waiting for you in the app you’re listening to and at thebrainybusiness.com/561. Now let’s jump right in. Dr. Leslie John, welcome to the Brainy Business podcast.
Dr. Leslie John: Hi, Melina, it’s great to be here. Thanks for having me.
Melina Palmer: Oh, absolutely. I am so excited to have you here to have our nice chat today. For everyone who doesn’t yet know you, can you share a little bit about yourself and the work that you do?
Dr. Leslie John: Sure. I am a behavioral scientist. I work at Harvard Business School. I would call myself somewhat of a recovering privacy expert because for many years—the first half of my career so far—I studied people’s decisions to share or not share, largely online. I documented in true behavioral economics form the errors that we make with our privacy, how we give marketers all this information without thinking about it, and how we sign privacy policies carte blanche.
And that’s not wrong, but it’s also, I think, very narrow. Over time, what I realized about my research was that the single most consistent thing was how much people revealed to me and how willing they were to be forthcoming. That suggested to me—I don’t think people are stupid. I think there must be something really right about what they’re doing. Sure, we make mistakes and we get tricked, but it led me to be really fascinated in the question of why do we reveal and what does it get us? So that’s a little bit about me.
Lessons from the Prisoner’s Dilemma
Melina Palmer: Yeah. And so, as you started digging into why we reveal things, I have to ask—knowing that I saw some of this in your book—how much of that choice to really dig in on that came down from that very first Prisoner’s Dilemma experience that you had on your first day of school?
Dr. Leslie John: A hundred percent. I am a hardcore decision scientist, a behavioral economics gal. It’s in my DNA because I come from a long line of very indecisive and very quirky decision-makers. So I don’t think it was ever possible for me to not become a decision scientist. It was very much in this “what are the decision-making errors that we make” box.
Melina Palmer: Yeah. And so I know you had mentioned for people that haven’t read the book yet—you go into school, can you tell a little bit about that story?
Dr. Leslie John: Yes, of course. So, it was the first week of grad school and of course I’m on my best behavior. Intelligence and competence are king in grad school. You want to send a signal that you’re smart. Like most people, I had imposter syndrome, but of course did not want to reveal that.
And so I’m trying to impress people. We had one of our first exercises with only about six of us in the cohort. The professor, who’s a very famous, fancy professor of experimental economics, comes in and smacks down 20 bucks on the table. He puts us into pairs and says, “Everyone’s going to make a decision. In your pair, on the count of three, you’re going to simultaneously reveal whether you decide to split or steal.”
If both people decide to split, then you each get 10 bucks. If one chooses steal and the other chooses split, the one who chooses steal gets all $20. And if both of you succumb to temptation—he actually said it in a very rigorous way, like you don’t want to show your cards—if both of you put steal, then nobody gets anything. Burn it down.
This is, of course, a Prisoner’s Dilemma, where if you both cooperate, you get a really good outcome, but there’s always this temptation to defect because you can get the best outcome by betraying the other. The standard result in this paradigm is that the game essentially devolves into both people playing steal and nobody getting anything.
But what I did—because I was “peace and love and happiness” coming in, thinking we’re supposed to cooperate and love each other and be a snuggly-wuggly cohort—I decided to play split. I was the only one that played split. That is an “error” in the sense that you’re supposed to do what standard economics would predict. I basically revealed myself to be an “idiot” to the people I was most wanting to impress.
My partner was the only one who walked away with money—the whole $20. I ruminated about it. I was like, “How do I come back from this?” But in hindsight, I’m glad I did that, because that’s who I am. I wanted to show a signal of welcomingness, and I ended up forging really strong relationships with my cohort. Maybe they befriended me in spite of it, thinking, “She needs help, we need to be nice to her,” but at any rate: hashtag no regrets.
Defining Oversharing vs. Undersharing
Melina Palmer: Well, 100%. I would have also gone split. Which, now everybody knows. I guess everyone should play Prisoner’s Dilemma with us.
Dr. Leslie John: Yeah, I know. But maybe we’ll mix it up!
Melina Palmer: Sometimes you don’t know—it feels like friends, right? Like you’re overthinking whether or not we should share information about ourselves. I know that I personally have had so many times where I have a conversation in my head about what I’m going to say when I tell someone a story. You just wrestle with the idea of whether or not you should share something. It could be anything from what I ate for breakfast today to some big, dramatic personal or work item.
Before we get into that quandary people find themselves in, can you define a little bit of the terms? Academically, I’m guessing you have ideas of what it means to share or overshare vs. undershare. How do you define these?
Dr. Leslie John: Yes. I think of this question of what to reveal and what to not reveal as a question of: “How much of myself, my thoughts, and my feelings should I share?” It’s revealing personal things. It’s quite simple, actually.
Oversharing would be sharing too much, and undersharing is sharing too little. But those are a little bit loose, admittedly. We use the term “oversharing” a lot, but I think we need to use the term “undersharing” a lot more. We worry a lot about TMI (Too Much Information). That’s valid. But we don’t even have a popular term for the other side—I just made one up: TLI (Too Little Information).
It’s hard to be black and white about it because the reality is there are so many goals we’re trying to pursue at once. It could be wanting to become close to someone, to be heard, to motivate, to influence, or just to have fun. You may have all those goals at one time. The vividness of TMI—when we do cross that line—is very vivid to us, but as I discovered writing the book, there is often redemption even when we cross that line.
Melina Palmer: Right. And it would be nice to say, like, if you share about money, that’s oversharing. But there aren’t necessarily categories. I might be comfortable talking about money but not health, while someone else loves talking about health. So me revealing something about my health could feel like oversharing because it’s uncomfortable for me. How much does context play into that?
Dr. Leslie John: Great question. Context, in my view, is at least half of what dictates what’s going on here. Sharing that you have an STD in a doctor’s office is appropriate; it’s not oversharing. In most other contexts, it would be inappropriate.
However, there are things that generally are more sensitive than others. I’ve been asking people sensitive questions for almost 20 years to see how they rate them. The things that are sensitive haven’t really changed over time. The consistently most sensitive things are questions about sex. Finances are second. This sensitivity is also quite consistent across cultures; sex is sensitive here and it’s sensitive in Japan. While there are cultural norms for what is appropriate, the intuition of what is “deep” or “sensitive” is pretty universal.
Transparency vs. Vulnerability in the Workplace
Melina Palmer: Definitely. I’d love to transition and talk about this as it applies to work. What are some initial things that you think are important when sharing information at work?
Dr. Leslie John: The workplace is a unique context where your perceived competence and credibility matter a heck of a lot. People often have the instinct that oversharing is way more dangerous at work. I wouldn’t say that. Just like in romance or friendship, we have opportunities to share more and get more benefits.
One way I find helpful to think about this is to distinguish between transparency and vulnerability. Transparency is “cognitive openness”—letting someone into your thought process and describing how you think. Vulnerability, on the other hand, is a lot more sensitive. It entails revealing sensitive thoughts and feelings. Feelings tend to be more sensitive to talk about.
In general, transparency is usually very safe and much lower risk. Vulnerability is higher risk, higher reward. If you’re getting into vulnerability territory, you have to be very mindful, because once you reveal something, you can’t put the genie back in the bottle.
Melina Palmer: In the book, you give some great examples of what it looks like when being transparent versus vulnerable. Can you share those?
Dr. Leslie John: Transparency is telling people about the process of how you think. Without transparency, you might say: “I read your draft and the writing needs to be a lot tighter.”
If you’re being transparent, you could say: “As I was reading your draft, I was thinking about how the reader would understand this. I’m acting as a reader, and from that perspective, this part wasn’t clear.” You’re lifting the hood and giving someone insight into your brain and your experience of reading it.
Melina Palmer: I love that example because people feel stress about giving feedback. And then it feels like you just have to give a quick, firm answer. But “tighter writing” or “be more firm”—I don’t know what that means!
Dr. Leslie John: Exactly. What does tighter writing mean? I sometimes say that to my colleagues—we academics are not the best at speaking human!
Melina Palmer: So to be transparent, you say, “As I was reading it, I was thinking about this.” It’s such a great prompt to be more open so people feel they know you, without being overly vulnerable. If we were going into vulnerable territory, it might be: “While I was reading, I was feeling very emotional because you used my late aunt’s favorite word.”
Dr. Leslie John: I was going to tease my doctoral advisor, who I love. When I was getting my PhD, I was writing these drafts and they were terrible. He sat me down, opened the document, and went through the first paragraph, having me justify just about every single word. I hated it. It was very uncomfortable.
But sharing that experience is a gift because it was a paradigm shift for me. It helped me get out of my own head. My colleague, Alison Brooks, and I ran studies on how to make the “medicine go down” when giving feedback. We looked at the “feedback sandwich”—starting with a positive, then the negative, then a positive. We thought it was lame, but our tests showed it actually has merit. It’s disarming. Negative feedback activates our reptilian brain and makes us defensive. Starting with something positive makes it easier to receive.
Authenticity and Glue Words
Dr. Leslie John: There’s another thing about being transparent. My colleague Dan Cable at London Business School has done work audio-recording job interviews. They analyzed what it sounds like to be “authentic.” It turns out people who sound more real and transparent use more glue words.
Glue words are connecting words like “and,” “such as,” or “like.” They aren’t technically required for a concise script. When a candidate sounds “canned,” it’s because they’ve memorized a script and lost those natural glue words. Authenticity literally sounds different.
Melina Palmer: That’s perfect. I was going to ask about job interviews next. We want to come off as confident and we’re stressed about every little thing. How do we find the sweet spot of what to share in an interview?
Dr. Leslie John: Again, go to transparency. It lends credence to what you’re saying and makes it more believable. When you prepare, I recommend not writing out a script. Think of the toughest, most dreaded questions and write down bullet points while you’re in your pajamas and comfortable. Focus on the ideas, not the exact words, so you don’t sound scripted.
In high-stakes, competitive situations like interviews, you do need to be careful. But studies show that revealing a little more than you’re inclined to can do a lot of good. For example, when asked about weaknesses, give a real weakness—like time management—and frame it as something you are self-aware of and actively coaching yourself on. This sends positive signals. It makes you more likable and can even make you seem more competent because you are confident enough to be real.
I’ll share a story. When I was a “baby academic” interviewing for a very fancy university, I was super nervous. One faculty member looked at my CV and said, “Oh, you used to be a ballet dancer. I was too.” Now, he did not have a ballet dancer’s physique. In that moment, because I blurted things out when nervous, I looked him up and down, cocked my head, and said, “Clearly,” in a super sassy, sarcastic tone.
I thought I had poured gasoline on my job prospects and lit a match. But I got the job—and it was at Harvard. The guy I “insulted” became a close mentor. He loved telling that story because he felt it showed I had the confidence and “sass” needed to succeed in a tough classroom.
Power Dynamics and Vulnerability Loops
Melina Palmer: I love that. As we close out, let’s talk about power dynamics. Is there a difference between employees sharing “up” versus managers sharing “down”?
Dr. Leslie John: Yes, this is a very important variable. As you move up the status totem pole, you gain a “bank” of credibility. If a leader reveals a mild weakness—like getting nervous before public speaking—it’s a drop in the bucket of their overall competence. But the benefit is huge.
Research by Adam Grant and Konstantin Kushlev showed that when leaders ask for feedback, the standard “I can take it, give me your honest thoughts” doesn’t work well because employees don’t believe the boss can handle it. But when a leader models vulnerability first—saying, “I know I struggle with time management, what do you think?”—it makes people comfortable giving honest feedback. It creates a virtuous cycle.
Melina Palmer: I’ve thought a lot about “vulnerability loops.” You can open a loop with vulnerability, but you can also open one with just transparency, right?
Dr. Leslie John: Yes, for sure. You may want to start with transparency because it’s safer. Experiment with it. These decisions are a skill we can learn through practice. Do little mini-experiments. If people react well to transparency but seem “hungry for more,” then give them a little vulnerability.
Melina Palmer: And as a leader, you have to go first. Instead of just saying “make the writing tighter,” you say, “While I was reading, I thought…” or “I’ve always struggled with finding the right opening word, is there anything you noticed in my presentation?”
Dr. Leslie John: Exactly. And pair it with question-asking. We don’t ask nearly enough questions. Studies by Alison Brooks show that the more questions you ask, the more liked you are. In sales, asking more questions makes you more likely to close the deal because it’s about learning, not just persuading. Pairing a little vulnerability with “How do you feel about that?” is a great one-two punch.
Closing Thoughts
Melina Palmer: I love it. Leslie, where is the best place for people to go to learn more and get their copy of Revealing?
Dr. Leslie John: They can go to my website, proflesliejohn.com, or find me on LinkedIn as Prof. Leslie John.
Melina Palmer: We will have those links in the show notes. We should all move forward with a life where we avoid the risk of undersharing. I saw a quote you wrote: “We live in fear of saying too much, but it’s usually saying too little that costs us the most.” Thank you again, Leslie, for joining me.
Dr. Leslie John: Thanks so much.
Melina Palmer: Thank you again to Dr. Leslie John. For me, I loved hearing that most of us are not sharing enough. TLI (Too Little Information) is real and can be dangerous. People can’t connect with you or trust you if they don’t know you. Disclosure builds warmth, especially when leaders go first. This creates the psychological safety teams need to thrive.
If you want to learn more, check out my book, What Your Employees Need and Can’t Tell You. My question for you: What’s something you’ve been holding back that might be worth revealing? Share it with me on social media or LinkedIn. Join me next time for another episode of the Brainy Business Podcast. Until then, remember to be thoughtful.
Announcer: Thank you for listening to the Brainy Business Podcast. Melina offers virtual strategy sessions, workshops, and other services to help businesses be more brain-friendly. For more free resources, visit thebrainybusiness.com.
