The Psychology Hack Nobody Talks About
Insights from Harvard & Stanford on Why People Engage
gm,
I've been obsessing over a question lately that impacts every interaction we have:
What actually drives people to engage, contribute, and invest their energy?
Have you ever noticed how some people effortlessly inspire engagement while others struggle to get even basic buy-in?
The difference isn't just charisma or authority – it's something far more fundamental.
Most of us focus on the wrong things entirely when trying to get others engaged. We rely on incentives, recognition programs, or persuasive arguments. We craft the perfect messaging or campaign. We emphasize outcomes and benefits.
But research from Harvard and Stanford reveals something surprising about human motivation – something that most professionals completely overlook despite its tremendous power.
Today, I'm sharing what this research tells us about why people truly engage and contribute. These insights have transformed my approach to everything from client relationships to collaboration to everyday conversations.
The Psychology of Engagement: What's Really Happening
Before diving into specific studies, let's establish some context. Humans are fundamentally social creatures. Our brains evolved in environments where connection to others was essential for survival.
This evolutionary history has profound implications for how we engage today:
Our brains process social connection and rejection in the same regions that process physical pain
We unconsciously evaluate every interaction for signals about our status and belonging
Our motivation systems are exquisitely sensitive to whether our contributions matter to others
With this understanding, let's explore what Harvard and Stanford researchers have discovered about the specific psychological mechanisms that drive engagement.
The IKEA Effect: Why Input Creates Psychological Ownership
Harvard Business School researchers Michael Norton, Daniel Mochon, and Dan Ariely conducted a series of fascinating experiments on what they called "The IKEA Effect" – our tendency to value things more highly when we've had a hand in creating them.
In their studies, participants assembled various items (IKEA boxes, origami, and Lego sets) and then indicated how much they valued their creations. The results were striking: people valued their self-made items 63% higher than identical pre-assembled items.
But the most revealing aspect came when researchers manipulated whether participants could complete their projects. When people were prevented from finishing their creations, the positive effect disappeared completely.
This revealed a critical insight: it's not just participation that creates psychological ownership – it's seeing your contribution lead to a completed outcome.
In follow-up studies, the researchers found that when participants' contributions were subtly erased or ignored, not only did the ownership effect vanish, but motivation plummeted below baseline levels. People became less engaged than if they had never contributed at all.
The psychological principle at work is clear: when we invest our effort into something and see that effort visibly incorporated into the final result, we develop a sense of psychological ownership that fundamentally changes our relationship to it.
The Recognition Blindspot: Harvard's Study on Acknowledgment
A comprehensive Harvard Business School study led by Teresa Amabile and Steven Kramer analyzed over 12,000 diary entries from professionals across industries to understand what truly motivated engagement at work.
Their findings revealed a profound disconnect they termed "the recognition blindspot." While 82% of managers believed they provided adequate recognition to team members, only 23% of contributors felt their input was properly acknowledged.
What explained this massive perception gap? The researchers discovered that meaningful recognition isn't about public praise or formal awards. Instead, it's about specific acknowledgment that demonstrates genuine understanding of someone's contribution.
In experimental conditions where managers provided generic positive feedback ("Great job!") versus specific recognition that demonstrated understanding of the person's contribution ("I appreciate how you approached the client situation by..."), the specific recognition led to 40% higher engagement on subsequent tasks.
Most revealing was the finding that recognition from peers who directly benefited from someone's work was even more motivating than recognition from authority figures. This challenges the conventional wisdom that top-down recognition programs are most effective.
The study concluded that people aren't primarily seeking praise – they're seeking evidence that their contributions are seen, understood, and valued by others.
Stanford's Social Belonging Research: The Ultimate Motivator
Stanford psychologists Greg Walton and Geoffrey Cohen conducted groundbreaking research on what they call "Social Belonging" – the sense that one's contributions matter to a group they value.
In a series of studies with students, professionals, and organization members, they found that social belonging was the single strongest predictor of sustained engagement, even outperforming financial incentives and personal achievement.
In one particularly revealing experiment, they tested different ways of framing requests for input. When requests were framed with language like "we need your unique perspective on this" rather than generic requests for feedback, contribution rates increased by 34%.
Follow-up analysis showed that the effectiveness came from two key elements: (1) signaling that the person's specific contribution was valued, not just any input, and (2) connecting their input to a broader group or purpose they cared about.
Most striking was their discovery about follow-up. When people received information about how their input influenced subsequent decisions or directions – even if their specific suggestions weren't adopted – their willingness to contribute in the future significantly increased.
The researchers identified what they called "belonging uncertainty" – the vulnerability people feel when they're unsure if their contributions actually matter to others. This uncertainty was highest among people from underrepresented groups or those new to an organization, but existed to some degree in everyone.
Small signals that addressed this uncertainty had outsized effects on people's willingness to engage and contribute.
Applying These Insights: The Engagement Framework
Now that we understand the research, how do we apply these psychological insights in everyday professional interactions? Here's a practical framework based on the studies above:
1. Create Early Ownership Opportunities (IKEA Effect)
Invite input at the beginning of processes, not just at the end
Make contribution boundaries clear – what aspects can they influence?
Ensure visible incorporation – show exactly how their input shaped the outcome
Create completion experiences – help people see the finished result that includes their contribution
2. Develop Recognition Rituals (Recognition Research)
Provide specific, not general acknowledgment – reference exactly what was valuable
Connect contributions to impact – show how their input affected outcomes
Recognize process, not just results – acknowledge effort, thinking and creativity
Enable peer recognition – create opportunities for those most affected by someone's work to provide direct feedback
3. Establish Belonging Signals (Stanford Research)
Frame requests in terms of unique value – explain why their specific perspective matters
Use inclusive language that signals their contribution belongs in the discussion
Close feedback loops – follow up to show how their input influenced thinking
Create visibility into decision processes so people understand how their input fits into the bigger picture
Things I’ve Learned
The authenticity detector. People have remarkably accurate radar for detecting whether you genuinely want their input or are just going through the motions. The difference comes down to timing, specificity, and follow-through.
The ownership principle. When someone feels ownership over an idea or project, their motivation to see it succeed multiplies. True ownership isn't given—it's cultivated through early involvement and visible impact.
The connection paradox. As our interactions become increasingly digital and transactional, authentic human connection becomes more valuable, not less. What feels like "inefficient" relationship-building actually creates the psychological foundation for meaningful engagement.
Your Action Plan
Here's your three-step process for immediately applying these insights:
Step 1: Audit your request patterns Take note of how and when you ask for input from others this week. Are you primarily seeking confirmation of your ideas, or genuinely inviting contribution? Do you ask early in the process or only when you've hit a roadblock?
Step 2: Close existing loops Identify three recent instances where someone provided input or help to you. Reach out today to specifically acknowledge how their contribution made a difference. Be detailed and authentic.
Step 3: Create a connection ritual Establish one regular practice that creates space for meaningful connection. This could be as simple as a weekly question that invites personal sharing or a structured opportunity for people to recognize each other's contributions.
Remember: The fundamental human needs to feel seen, heard, and valued aren't "soft" factors—they're the psychological infrastructure that enables everything else.
Much love,
Phillip