In 1961, President John F. Kennedy stood before the American people and did something remarkable for a politician: he admitted total failure.
The Bay of Pigs invasion—a CIA-backed attempt to overthrow Fidel Castro—had been an utter disaster. Over 1,400 Cuban exiles were captured or killed. It was a humiliating defeat, just three months into Kennedy’s presidency.
Kennedy didn’t deflect. He didn’t blame his predecessor. He didn’t hide behind classified briefings.
He said: “Victory has a hundred fathers, but defeat is an orphan… I am the responsible officer of the government.”
Political analysts predicted this admission would destroy his presidency. A leader showing weakness? Acknowledging mistakes? Political suicide.
Instead, something unexpected happened.
His approval rating shot up to 83%.
Americans liked him more for failing and owning it.
The Experiment
Psychologist Elliot Aronson wanted to understand this phenomenon. In 1966, he designed a clever experiment.
He had participants listen to recordings of students trying out for a quiz show. The students answered trivia questions (some correctly, some incorrectly), and then:
Group A: Student performs well, no mishap Group B: Student performs poorly, no mishap Group C: Student performs well, then spills coffee all over themselves Group D: Student performs poorly, then spills coffee
Then participants rated how likeable each student was.
The results were surprising:
- Most likeable: High performer who spilled coffee (Group C)
- Second: High performer with no mishap (Group A)
- Third: Poor performer with no mishap (Group B)
- Least likeable: Poor performer who spilled coffee (Group D)
The high-performing student became MORE likeable after an embarrassing mistake.
What Is the Pratfall Effect?
The Pratfall Effect is the tendency for someone’s appeal to increase after they make a mistake—but only if they were already perceived as competent.
A pratfall is a fall onto your buttocks (physical comedy term). The effect describes how minor blunders make successful people more relatable and human.
Key insight: Perfection is intimidating. Competence + vulnerability is attractive.
Modern Examples
1. Steve Jobs and the iPhone 4
- “Antennagate”: Holding the phone wrong caused signal loss
- Instead of denying, Jobs said “We’re not perfect”
- Offered free cases, acknowledged the issue
- Result: Customer loyalty increased
2. Jennifer Lawrence Tripping at the Oscars
- Fell walking up to accept Best Actress (2013)
- Laughed it off, made self-deprecating joke
- Result: Became even more beloved, “relatable”
3. Elon Musk’s Cybertruck Window Fail
- “Bulletproof” glass shattered during demo
- Stood there awkwardly, admitted it failed
- Result: Viral moment, more publicity than perfect demo
4. Barack Obama’s “Uh” and “Um”
- Frequent filler words in unscripted moments
- Made him seem thoughtful vs robotic
- Result: “Authentic” vs “too polished”
Why It Happens
The Pratfall Effect works because:
- Reduces Intimidation - Competent people seem unreachable; mistakes humanize them
- Increases Relatability - “They’re successful AND they mess up like me”
- Signals Authenticity - Perfection feels fake; flaws feel real
- Reduces Envy - Success + struggle is inspiring; effortless success breeds resentment
- Demonstrates Resilience - How you handle failure matters more than avoiding it
Critical caveat: This only works if you’re already perceived as competent.
If you’re seen as incompetent, mistakes confirm that perception (remember Group D—the poor performer who spilled coffee was rated least likeable).
In Software Engineering
The Pratfall Effect appears everywhere in tech:
Public Incident Post-Mortems
Company A: Hides outage, denies problems
Result: Trust erodes, customers leave
Company B: Publishes detailed post-mortem, admits mistakes
Result: Respected for transparency, customers stay
Example: GitHub, Stripe, AWS all publish failures
Conference Talks
Speaker A: Only shows perfect demos, claims zero problems
Result: Audience skeptical, feels like sales pitch
Speaker B: Shows what broke, lessons learned, trade-offs
Result: Audience engaged, feels authentic
Code Reviews
Senior Dev A: Never admits when they're wrong
Result: Team afraid to challenge them, resentment builds
Senior Dev B: "Oh, you're right, I missed that edge case"
Result: Team trusts them more, psychological safety
Job Interviews
Candidate A: Pretends to know everything
Result: Comes across as arrogant or dishonest
Candidate B: "I haven't used that, but here's how I'd approach learning it"
Result: Honest, self-aware, coachable
Technical Writing
Blog A: "This is how you build a perfect system"
Result: Readers feel inadequate, suspicious
Blog B: "Here's what I tried, what failed, what worked"
Result: Readers trust the author, learn more
How to Harness the Pratfall Effect
1. Build Competence First
You must be good at what you do BEFORE mistakes become endearing.
- ❌ Junior dev constantly making mistakes (incompetence)
- ✅ Senior dev admitting they don’t know something (humanity)
2. Own Your Mistakes
Don’t hide, deflect, or minimize. Kennedy said “I am responsible.”
Bad: "The system was confusing" (blame shifting)
Good: "I misunderstood the requirements" (ownership)
3. Show the Struggle
Don’t just show polished results. Show the messy middle.
- Write about what didn’t work
- Share debugging stories
- Admit when you changed your mind
4. Be Specific About Failures
Vague humility is performative. Specific mistakes are real.
Performative: "I make mistakes sometimes"
Real: "I deployed without testing and took down prod for 2 hours"
5. Don’t Overdo It
Strategic vulnerability ≠ constant failure.
One coffee spill is endearing. Spilling coffee daily is a problem.
6. Pair Vulnerability with Competence
Always bookend mistakes with capability.
"I've shipped 50 features, but last week I merged a breaking
change to main. Here's how I improved our CI to catch it."
The Dark Side
The Pratfall Effect can be weaponized:
Calculated Authenticity
- Politicians stage “candid” moments
- Influencers manufacture “relatable” content
- Brands create fake “oops” moments
Competence Washing
- “I’m just a regular person” (from billionaires)
- Performative humility to dodge accountability
Gender/Race Dynamics
- Women and minorities judged more harshly for mistakes
- White men benefit more from Pratfall Effect
- “Likeable” vs “competent” is a gendered trade-off
The effect isn’t fair. It rewards people who are already privileged.
The Deeper Lesson
The Pratfall Effect reveals a fundamental human truth: we’re drawn to excellence that doesn’t hide its humanity.
Kennedy’s 83% approval wasn’t despite his failure. It was because he owned it.
Perfection creates distance. Vulnerability creates connection.
But—and this is critical—vulnerability without competence is just incompetence.
You can’t skip the hard work of being good at what you do. The Pratfall Effect isn’t a shortcut. It’s the final polish on genuine skill.
The Programmer’s Perspective
As engineers, we’re trained to hide failure:
- Comment out broken code
- Delete failed experiments
- Ship only polished features
- Pretend we knew the answer all along
But the best engineers do the opposite:
- Write post-mortems
- Share “stupid mistakes I made”
- Say “I don’t know” in meetings
- Ask “dumb” questions
They’re confident enough to be vulnerable.
And that’s why people trust them. Follow them. Want to work with them.
Perfection is impressive. But competence + honesty is magnetic.
Key Takeaways
- ✅ Mistakes make competent people MORE likeable
- ✅ Vulnerability signals authenticity and builds trust
- ✅ Only works if you’re already seen as capable
- ✅ Own failures specifically and genuinely
- ✅ Perfection creates distance; humanity creates connection
JFK’s approval rating went UP after a catastrophic failure. Not because Americans love failure, but because they love leaders who are human.
The next time you make a mistake, you have a choice:
Hide it and seem perfect (but distant). Own it and seem human (but real).
Competence gets you in the room. Vulnerability makes people want you to stay.
Spill the coffee. Just make sure you aced the quiz first.