When Meeting Someone New, Try Skirting the Small Talk and Digging a Little Deeper

Even as the COVID-19 pandemic persists, there's hope that life will return to some level of normalcy in 2022. This includes more opportunities to meet new people and build friendships, a process that's critical for mental and physical well-being. This does not, however, mean that everyone will take advantage of these new chances to connect.

Even before fears of a virus compelled most people to stay physically distant, our research suggests that people were already keeping too much social distance from one another. In particular, our new research suggests that people tend to be overly pessimistic about how conversations with new acquaintances will play out.

Across a dozen experiments, participants consistently underestimated how much they would enjoy talking with strangers. This was especially true when we asked them to have the kinds of substantive conversations that actually foster friendships. Because of these mistaken beliefs, it seems as though people reach out and connect with others less often and in less meaningful ways than they probably should.

Moving Beyond Water Cooler Talk

People usually only disclose their deepest disappointments, proudest accomplishments, and simmering anxieties to close friends and family. We tested the seemingly radical idea that deep conversations between strangers can end up being surprisingly satisfying.

In several experiments, the participants first reported how they expected to feel after discussing relatively weighty questions like, "what are you most grateful for in your life?" and "when is the last time you cried in front of another person?"

These participants believed they would feel somewhat awkward and only moderately happy discussing these topics with a stranger. But after we prompted them to actually do so, they reported that their conversations were less awkward than they had anticipated. Furthermore, they felt happier and more connected to the other person than they had assumed.

We also asked people to write down questions they would normally discuss when first getting to know someone—"weird weather we’re having these days, isn’t it?"—and then to write down deeper and more intimate questions than they would normally discuss, like asking whether the other person was happy with their life. Again, we found that the participants were especially likely to overestimate how awkward the ensuing conversations about the more meaningful topics would be, while underestimating how happy those conversations would make them. These mistaken beliefs matter, because they can create a barrier to human connection. If you mistakenly think a substantive conversation will feel uncomfortable, you're going to probably avoid it. And then you might never realize that your expectations are off the mark.

Yes, Others Do Care

Misconceptions over the outcomes of deeper conversations may happen, in part, because we also underestimate how interested other people are in what we have to share. This makes us more reluctant to open up.

But as it turns out, more often than not, strangers do want to hear you talk about more than the weather; they really do care about your fears, feelings, opinions, and experiences.

The results were strikingly consistent. In our research, we recruited college students, online samples, strangers in a public park, and even executives at financial services firms, and similar patterns played out within each group. Whether you're an extravert or an introvert, a man or a woman, you're likely to underestimate how good you'll feel after having a deep conversation with a stranger. The same results even occurred in conversations over Zoom.

Aligning Beliefs With Reality

In one telling demonstration, we had some people engage in both a relatively shallow and comparatively deeper conversation. People expected that they would prefer a shallow conversation to the deeper one before they took place. After the interactions occurred, they reported the opposite.

Moreover, the participants consistently told us that they wished they could have deeper conversations more often in their everyday lives. The problem, then, is not a lack of interest in having more meaningful conversations. It's the misguided pessimism about how these interactions will play out. It's possible, though, to learn from these positive experiences. Think of the trepidation kids have of diving into the deep end of a swimming pool. The uneasiness is often unwarranted: once they take the plunge, they end up having a lot more fun than they did in shallower waters.

Our data suggest that something similar can happen when it comes to topics of conversation. You might feel nervous before starting a deeper conversation with someone you barely know; yet once you do, you might actually enjoy digging a little deeper than you typically do.

The broader takeaway of our work is that these miscalibrated expectations can lead many people to be not quite social enough for their own good and the well-being of others. Having deeper conversations joins a growing list of opportunities for social engagement—including expressing gratitude, sharing compliments, and reaching out and talking to an old friend—that end up feeling a lot better than we might think.

Note: A version of this article originally appeared in The Conversation, and this piece was co-developed by Character & Context for the SPSP Blog.


For Further Reading

Kardas, M., Kumar, A., & Epley, N. (2022). Overly shallow? Miscalibrated expectations create a barrier to deeper conversation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychologyhttps://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000281

Kumar, A., & Epley, N. (2018). Undervaluing gratitude: Expressers misunderstand the consequences of showing appreciation. Psychological Science, 29(9), 1423-1435. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797618772506
 

Amit Kumar is an assistant professor of Marketing and Psychology at the University of Texas at Austin. His research focuses on happiness, prosociality, and consumer behavior.

Michael Kardas is a postdoctoral fellow in Management and Marketing at Northwestern University. His research focuses on conversation and social judgment and decision making.

Nicholas Epley is the John Templeton Keller Distinguished Service Professor of Behavioral Science at the University of Chicago. His research focuses on social cognition: how, and how well, people make inferences about each others' thoughts, beliefs, emotions, and motives.

 

Do You Want to Connect With Others? Listen to Them

Think of a great date. You are sitting close to your romantic partner, who is looking at you with curiosity and rapt attention as you share a story. They lean in towards you, and their facial expressions make you feel that they are right there with you in reliving the memory. Then, they ask a question—right on point—which leaves you feeling that they totally understand the story and its significance for you.

Most of us can recall moments like this, perhaps with some nostalgia, when we felt wholly connected with a conversation partner. Such conversations are not limited to dates—they can also occur with a sibling or close friend, in families, in the workplace with a colleague, or even with a stranger. They help us feel that our conversation partner really “gets” us—that is, that they understand our core feelings, needs, and values and that they respect and appreciate what those important experiences mean to us.

We All Need To Feel Understood And Valued

A well-established line of research shows that this feeling of connection arises when people perceive their interaction partners to be responsive. In 1988, Dr. Harry Reis from the University of Rochester and Prof. Philip Shaver from the University of California, Davis, theorized that intimacy occurs when people are responsive to their conversation partners’ core traits, values, and experiences, which they do by showing understanding, validation, and caring. Subsequent research has found that listener responsiveness produces a variety of beneficial intra- and interpersonal outcomes. The former includes enhanced subjective well-being, open-mindedness, and intellectual humility. The latter includes feeling greater relationships and increased emotional openness, gratitude, caregiving, and social support.

In short, research shows that when people perceive that others are responsive to them, they and their relationships benefit. Perceived partner responsiveness may therefore provide important clues for learning more about how relationship qualities influence well-being.

So How Do People Convey Responsiveness?

Our recent research show that one way is high-quality listening. High-quality listening involves three components:

  • Displaying undivided attention towards the speaker
  • Showing understanding of the speaker’s message, and
  • Intending to benefit the speaker.

Unlike perceived responsiveness, which is a broad and often abstract perception that may reflect the speaker’s personal motives, good listening entails specific behaviors that communicate attention, interest, and engagement—for example, maintaining constant eye contact, facial expressions that convey curiosity and concern, an open body posture, nodding, asking open-ended questions to encourage elaboration, and paraphrasing speakers’ content. Interestingly, despite its multiple components, speakers usually grasp rather quickly and accurately if their conversation partners are listening authentically. In other words, you cannot fake listening, at least not for long.

Imagine a conversation between two friends, Frank and Megan. Megan shares with Frank that she has been feeling stressed lately, which has led her to make errors at work and harmed her relationship at home. Frank devotes his full attention to Megan, keeps his eyes on her, leans forward in a way that conveys openness, and pays no mind to the distractions around them. After Megan finishes, Frank summarizes what he has heard and asks her to elaborate on one of the points she mentioned. Megan would likely feel that Frank is being attentive and appreciates her values and experience. Put differently, Megan would perceive that Frank is responsive. Now imagine the same conversation with Frank sneaking glances at his smartphone, making inappropriate facial expressions that seem judgmental to Megan and leaning away from Megan. He interrupts Megan with his own perspective on her situation before Megan finishes talking and then changes the subject. It is safe to assume that Megan would perceive Frank as uninterested in her experience and unresponsive. 

We believe that when listeners exhibit high-quality listening, their speakers are likely to experience a sense of understanding, validation, and caring that is good for the relationship. listeners will help their conversation partners feel comfortable and authentic about their views by listening well. Moreover, perceived partner responsiveness tends to engender mutuality. People who experience high-quality listening are more likely to provide the same kind of listening back to their partners (though not necessarily at the same moment in time). In this way, the benefits of high-quality listening can accrue to both partners in the conversation. 

Contrary to a common misperception, the listener is much more than a passive recipient in the conversation. Listening well is more than merely being silent with an occasional head nod. Listeners shape the direction of the conversation and determine the extent to which speakers will feel responded to. When we listen well, we create moments of connection that promote the well-being of speakers, listeners, and their relationships.


For Further Reading (and watching)

Listening video Templeton World Charity Foundation

Itzchakov, G., Reis, H. T., & Weinstein, N. (2021). How to foster perceived partner responsiveness: High-quality listening is key. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, e12648. https://doi. org/10.1111/spc3.12648

Kluger, A. N., & Itzchakov, G. (2022). The power of listening at work. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 9. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-091013

Reis, H. T., Clark, M. S., & Holmes, J. G. (2004). Perceived partner responsiveness as an organizing construct in the study of intimacy and closeness. In D. J. Mashek & A. P. Aron (Eds.), Handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 201-225). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Reis, H. T., & Shaver, P. R. (1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal process. In S. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships (pp. 367-389). Wiley.


Guy Itzchakov is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Human Services, Faculty of Social Welfare and Health Science at the University of Haifa. Guy’s research focuses on the effects of high-quality listening on speakers’ emotions, attitudes, and behaviors.

Harry T. Reis is a Professor in the Department of Clinical and Social Sciences in Psychology at the University of Rochester. His research concerns interpersonal processes that affect the course and conduct of close relationships.

Netta Weinstein is an Associate Professor in the School of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences at the University of Reading. Her research explores the links between interpersonal interactions, motivation, well-being, and behavior.

 

Why Do People Avoid Talking to Strangers?

When American expat Jonathan Dunne got tired of sitting in silence during his commute in London, he figured others must feel the same way. He started a movement to get people talking to each other, handing out free “Tube chat?” badges.

He couldn’t have anticipated the backlash. Media coverage in The Guardian said: “‘Tube chat’ campaign provokes horror among London commuters.” Hundreds of people took to Twitter to protest the campaign:

“What is this monstrosity?! This is too much. Make it stop. Say no to #tube_chat”

“Some irresponsible fool trying to undermine the fabric of society by encouraging talking on the London Underground”

People created their own badges in response:

“Don’t even think about talking to me”

“Wake me up if a dog gets on”

Why did people have such extreme reactions to what amounts to a suggestion to have a friendly chat?  Our research, conducted in England and the U.S., finds that many people harbor a wide range of fears about talking to strangers. When we’ve asked people specifically what they are concerned about, some common responses include: not enjoying the conversation, not liking their conversation partner, and not having adequate social skills. 

But that’s not all...People also worry that their conversation partner will not enjoy the conversation, will perceive them unfavorably, and will lack social skills.  

We studied people’s concerns by looking at data from seven studies we ran over the past few years. In some studies people had to approach a stranger “in the wild” and start a conversation, and in others we arranged for them to talk to a stranger in the laboratory. One study was conducted at a “How to Talk to Strangers” workshop.

Across the board, we found that people worry more about their partner not enjoying the conversation than they do about not enjoying the conversation themselves.

Similarly, although people worry that they won’t hit it off with their partner, they are even more concerned that their partner won’t like them. This finding is consistent with the “liking gap” that people experience after talking to a stranger: falling prey to the negative voice in their heads, people tend to underestimate how much their conversation partner liked them and enjoyed their company. In other words, people are liked more than they know.

The good news therefore is that people’s fears are overblown. People worry before talking to a stranger, but when they report back after talking to a stranger, they admit that the conversation went better than they expected, and the things they worried about didn’t happen nearly as much as they anticipated.

And yet these fears can be a barrier, preventing people from talking to strangers even when they could benefit from doing so. Multiple research studies, conducted in Canada, the U.S., and Turkey, find that when people do talk to strangers—like a barista at their local coffee shop, a fellow commuter, or a shuttle bus driver, in the respective studies—they are in a better mood, and feel more connected to other people. In other words, talking to strangers is a readily available source of happiness that people often fail to benefit from, because they are overly pessimistic about how well these conversations will go.

Given that people have these fears, is there a way to overcome them? You might think having some conversational tips at the ready heading into a conversation would help. Something like: “Talk about something you have in common,” or “Give them (or their dog or baby) a compliment.” When we put this to the test, we found that tips only helped people a little. It didn’t remove their concerns about not liking their partner or not having the skills they needed to carry out the conversation successfully.

We also tried letting people get some practice talking to strangers. After all, practicing a musical instrument or a backhand swing does increase our confidence in our ability. Does the same logic apply to conversations? We found that after having one pleasant conversation with a stranger, people worried less than they had before their conversation, but their fears were still higher than their recent pleasant experience warranted. It’s all too easy to think, “Just because I had a nice chat with the dog walker doesn’t mean I’d also have a nice chat with the bus driver.”

Although having a single pleasant conversation didn’t fully calibrate people’s expectations, we found that repeated practice did do the trick. In one of our studies, people played a scavenger hunt game that involved talking to at least one stranger every day for a week. After participating in this study, people’s fears about future conversations were quite well-aligned with their recent experiences. In other words, practice might really make perfect when it comes to taming one’s fears about talking to strangers.

As American-in-London Jonathan Dunne discovered, when he tried to encourage people to chat on the Tube, people are often reluctant to talk to strangers. Our research suggests that these commuters are more worried than they should be, and they would probably enjoy talking more than they expect.


For Further Reading

Sandstrom, G. M., & Boothby, E. J. (2021). Why do people avoid talking to strangers? A mini meta-analysis of predicted fears and actual experiences talking to a stranger. Self and Identity, 20(1), 47-71. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15298868.2020.1816568

Boothby, E. J., Cooney, G., Sandstrom, G. M., & Clark, M. S. (2018). The liking gap in conversations: Do people like us more than we think? Psychological Science, 29(11), 1742-1756.

Sandstrom, G. M., & Dunn, E. W. (2014). Is efficiency overrated? Minimal social interactions lead to belonging and positive affect. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5(4), 437-442.
 

Gillian Sandstrom is a Senior Lecturer in Psychology at the University of Essex in the UK Her research focuses on the social interactions we have with strangers and weak ties. This research focus stems, in part, from the micro-friendship she developed with a lady who worked at a hot dog stand.

Erica Boothby is a postdoctoral researcher at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. Her research focuses on social connection and the psychological barriers that inhibit connection. Erica completed her PhD at Yale University and worked at Cornell University’s Behavioral Economics and Decision Research Center.

 

Foodie Calls: Who Dates for Free Food?

Image by rawpixel.com

Not many research studies start with a copy of Maxim magazine, but this one did. We leafed through an article about the cost of dating and then stopped to ask each other, “Do you know what a foodie call is?”

In case you don’t know, a foodie call occurs when a person, despite their lack of romantic attraction to someone, agrees to go on a date just to get a free meal. So, after we awkwardly read the definition of a foodie call from Urban Dictionary and the testimonies of women in Maxim, we were left asking two questions. “How often do foodie calls happen, and who would do that?”

And that’s the thing about Maxim: their articles are a bit light on population estimates, research methodology, and theoretical frameworks. So, as research psychologists, we narrowed the scope of our questions and tested them ourselves. Anybody can agree to date someone for free food, but we decided to survey heterosexual women because traditional dating scripts suggest that men typically pick up the tab on a first date.

Then in two online studies, we asked women a series of questions. Had they ever agreed to go on a date with someone they weren’t attracted to for a free meal? If they answered “yes,” then we asked them how often they had done so and how acceptable they thought foodie calls are.

We found that 33% of women had engaged in a foodie call at least once. About a quarter of these women indicated that they did so occasionally, and about half said they did so only rarely or very rarely.  These women admitted to engaging in an average of about 5 foodie calls each, although one woman said that she had done it 55 times! Most of the women thought foodie calls were moderately unacceptable, but those who engaged in foodie calls more often thought they were more acceptable.

So, to all those single people out there looking for love … yikes. About a third of women have, at least once, used the norm that men cover the cost of a first date to their advantage. They dated for food rather than the possibility of love.

If this sounds dark, we agree. But who are these women? We suspected that foodie calls might be more common among women who score high on a constellation of three self-centered, manipulative, and antisocial personality traits known as the dark triad—Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and subclinical psychopathy. Narcissists tend to believe they’re superior to other people and that they’re better romantic catches than the rest of us. Machiavellians are cunning and manipulative people who often deceive and exploit others for their own benefit. Subclinical psychopathy refers to people who don’t have much empathy and who tend not to feel much guilt or remorse when they hurt others.  

As we expected, foodie calls were significantly more common among women who scored high in the dark triad. Women who scored high in narcissism likely thought that the wonderfulness of their company on a date justified the cost of the man paying for the meal.  Women who scored high in Machiavellianism exploited traditional gender roles to their advantage. And women who scored high in psychopathy probably didn’t register how bad it may have felt for their date to be used or “led on.” Or maybe they knew it and just didn’t care.

Unsurprisingly, foodie calls were more common among women who believed strongly in traditional gender roles—for example, that men should open doors and pay the tab at dinner.

Before anyone gets too critical of the women who admitted to foodie calls, keep in mind that men generally score higher on the dark triad than women. And men also have a longer track record of manipulative and abusive dating behavior than women.

At times, dating someone you aren’t immediately attracted to may not be a bad thing. After all, you may find love when you least expect it—maybe even during a foodie call.


For Further Reading

Collisson, B., Harig, T., & Howell, J. L. (2020). Foodie calls: When women date men for a free meal (rather than a relationship). Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11(3), 425-432. DOI: 10.1177/1948550619856308

Jonason, P. K., Webster, G. D., Schmitt, D. P., Li, N. P., & Crysel, L. (2012). The antihero in popular culture: Life history theory and the dark triad personality traits. Review of General Psychology, 16, 192–199.

 

Trista Harig received her Bachelor’s degree in psychology from Azusa Pacific University in 2019 and is currently pursuing her Master’s in Psychology at Rutgers University, Camden. Her research interests lie in intergroup dynamics, multiculturalism, and prejudice.

Brian Collisson, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor of Psychology at Azusa Pacific University. His research interests are at the interface of social perception, prejudice, and romantic relationships.

 

Four Guilty Pleasures That Might Just Save Your Sanity During Isolation

Decades of research suggest that human beings need social connections just like we need oxygen, food, and water. A lack of social connections is one of the strongest predictors of depression, anxiety, poor physical health, and even suicide.

So what should people do in this time of physical isolation? Luckily there are easy and fun ways to keep connected and protect ourselves. My research suggests that four of your guilty pleasures may actually help you feel socially connected. In other words, stop feeling guilty and start engaging in the following activities.

Dig into your social media

Post stories of what you are doing. Share your concerns and also your moments of peace. Comment on other people’s posts. And don’t just reach out to the people you are closest to—reach out to your broader social circles. Host a virtual coffee or happy hour on a service such as Zoom. Invite your neighbors to a virtual book club. Make sure you aren’t just lurking on social media—that can make you feel worse because you start comparing your quarantine to someone else’s best three minutes of quarantine. Instead: post, respond, and connect.

Prepare foods you associate with being loved

My research suggests that preparing and eating those foods activates a primitive and implicit feeling of being cared for and loved. The food can fill our need for social connection and protect us from the negative effects of isolation. Also consider sharing your recipes and pictures of your food online. Try recipes other people post. Make eating and enjoying food a social activity.

Take part in new community rituals

Draw on your sidewalks with your neighbors. Sing from your balcony. Put pictures of rainbows in your windows. Our research suggests that these kinds of shared activities foster a sense of collective effervescence—a feeling of connection mixed with a sensation of sacredness. These experiences of collective effervescence make us feel less lonely and they give our lives meaning and that little extra kick of special. Even if it feels a little weird to you, give it a try.

Stream your favorite TV show or movie

My research suggests that we can find symbolic social connections through watching (or reading) narratives. See, at the time when our social systems evolved, there was no need for us to differentiate between real relationships and the symbolic ones that we get through media—because media didn’t exist for early humans! So, our brains never developed that ability.  Sure, logically you know that the friends you have on Friends are not real, but to your mind they feel real, and our research suggests that they actually can fill your need to belong and make you happier. Any kind of narrative has the potential to make us feel connected, but my research suggests that in times of stress and anxiety, picking up an old familiar narrative (such as rereading a favorite book or rewatching a favorite show) can be especially rewarding. It is like connecting to an old friend in the safest way possible.

So my advice to you in this crazy and stressful time is to stop feeling guilty about guilty pleasures. Let yourself spend time on social media. Eat the foods that make you feel happy. Do silly and seemingly pointless things just because others are doing them. Watch TV whenever you want to. Think about what else makes you happy and do that too: exercise, art, creative writing… whatever makes your heart sing. And, of course, overdoing any one activity isn’t a good idea, so listen to your heart—if you start to feel like you are unhappy, pull back on one of these activities and try another one.

And wash your hands a lot.


For Further Reading

Gabriel, S., Valenti, J., & Young, A. F. (2016). Watching, reading, and eating your way to belonging: Symbolic social relationships and the social self. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 53, 189-243.

Gardner, W. L., Pickett, C. L., & Knowles, M. (2005). Social Snacking and Shielding: Using Social Symbols, Selves, and Surrogates in the Service of Belonging Needs. In K. D. Williams, J. P. Forgas, & W. von Hippel (Eds.), Sydney Symposium of Social Psychology series. The social outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, and bullying (p. 227–241). New York: Psychology Press.
 

Shira Gabriel is an Associate Professor at SUNY Buffalo and an Associate Editor of Character and Context. She studies the social nature of the self, including how people form psychological relationships with non-human entities, the importance of spending time in large anonymous crowds (such as sporting events and rallies), and how our relationships shape our feelings about ourselves and vice versa.

This blog is reposted from Medium (March 29, 2020).

Does Sharing Plates Increase Cooperation?

If you hate sharing plates at restaurants, you’re not alone. Sharing plates was something I used to avoid at all costs, which became a problem as more and more restaurants pushed tapas-style meals. Recently, though, I’ve begun to change my tune. In research with my collaborator, Ayelet Fishbach at the University of Chicago, we found that diners receive a key benefit from sharing food, which now has me suggesting to share plates at dinner more often than not.

We were curious whether sharing plates might influence coordination and cooperation between diners. We reasoned that sharing plates could have one of two effects. On the one hand, sharing plates could cause people to compete over the food items. This would mean that sharing plates might increase a competitive mindset compared with eating from separate plates, and that competitiveness might spill over even after the meal has ended.

Yet, on the other hand, sharing plates involves coordination and cooperation, which is a more common experience than competing over the last bite of guacamole. To share plates successfully, diners need to take turns eating and need to attend to other diners’ needs – what they eat and how much they consume. So perhaps the coordination required to share plates facilitates coordination and cooperation afterward.

To understand how eating from shared plates affects diners, we conducted a series of experiments. In our studies, we had pairs of research participants eat food from either separate plates or shared plates. Then we measured how much they cooperated with each other during a negotiation.   

For example, in one study, we gave pairs of strangers chips and salsa to eat, but some pairs ate from a shared container, and other pairs ate from their own individual bowls. Afterward, the two strangers took part in a simulation of a tense wage negotiation. In this negotiation exercise, more successful pairs resolve the conflict more quickly, going into fewer days of strike, so we could tell how cooperative participants were by how long the negotiation lasted. Our results showed that pairs of participants who first ate food from shared plates settled their negotiation faster than with pairs who ate from separate plates. So, eating from the same plate led people to be more cooperative.

A second study replicated this finding among pairs of friends and strangers who ate goldfish crackers from either shared or separate bags. Although pairs of friends tended to resolve the negotiation faster than pairs of strangers, sharing food improved negotiation outcomes for both strangers and friends. People felt more coordinated socially when sharing food, and this feeling of coordination carried over after the meal, leading people to behave more cooperatively during the negotiation.

In a third study, we measured cooperation in a new way. Pairs of strangers first ate goldfish crackers from either shared or separate bags before playing an airline pricing game. In this game, participants acted as “airline executives” with the job of setting weekly route prices for their airline. For each of 20 “weeks,” which were actually 20 rounds in this exercise, participants chose whether to compete or cooperate with the other person. Sharing a single bag of goldfish increased the rate of cooperation across the 20 rounds compared with eating from separate bags.

Our research shows that eating from shared plates requires coordination, and that coordination while eating then facilitates cooperation afterwards. That’s good news not only if you’re negotiating but also if you’re sitting down to a family-style meal at home or ordering shared plates with your colleagues.


For further reading:

Shared Plates, Shared Minds: Consuming From a Shared Plate Promotes Cooperation

A Recipe for Friendship: Similar Food Consumption Promotes Trust and Cooperation

Kaitlin Woolley is an assistant professor of marketing at Cornell University.

Why Do People Mourn Celebrities?

Have you ever wondered why there is so much public mourning for celebrity deaths?  For example, the recent deaths of Nipsey Hussle, actor Luke Perry and the cancer diagnosis of game show host Alex Trebek left many people feeling very sad at the misfortune of someone they had never met.  We asked some social and personality psychologists to help us understand why these events (like the deaths of Elvis, Prince, Princess Diana, David Bowie, and many others before them) have such a strong effect on people.  Why do we mourn for those we have never met?

Our experts suggested that six different psychological processes may be at play.

Celebrities sometimes feel like our friends: The role of parasocial bonds

One reason we feel sad when bad things happen to celebrities is because they feel like our friends.  Dr. Melanie Green of SUNY Buffalo points out that people form parasocial bonds with celebrities. Parasocial bonds are "one-way" relationships with celebrities; many people feel strongly connected to movie and television stars, popular musicians, news broadcasters, on-air meteorologists, and others even though no true interaction occurs. Believe it or not, parasocial bonds are actually pretty normal: many of us have them. Even though we know logically that celebrities are not really our “friends,” because we see them so often and have so much access to information about them, they sometimes feel like our friends. That can be handy when they accomplish great things and we can feel proud of and connected to them.  But it also means that when they get sick or die we grieve them much like we would a real friend.

Celebrities are ties to our youth: The role of nostalgia

We don’t have to have a parasocial bond with a celebrity to feel sad when they die.  We might feel grief because of nostalgia.  According to Dr. Constantine Sedikides from the University of Southampton, people report being nostalgic for people who were important to them during their childhood or adolescence.   Through nostalgic reflection, these people become part of who we are.  So, when they pass away, we can feel like we lost a part of ourselves. Even people who didn’t feel a parasocial bond with Luke Perry might have mourned when he died because they watched the television show, 90210, when they were younger.  Because Perry was a part of that show, some people felt as if they lost a link to their younger selves when he passed away.

Celebrities dying reminds of us our own mortality: The role of terror management

We may also be upset by the deaths of celebrities because their deaths remind us of our own mortality.  Terror management theory argues that we all have a fear of dying that we mostly deal with by not thinking about it.  But when something pushes our own mortality into our minds, it can be unpleasant.  Dr. Eric Wesselmann of Illinois State University points out that, when celebrities die or are diagnosed with life-threatening illnesses, it is a scary reminder of aging and death. Dr. Samantha Cacace of North Carolina State University suggests that seeing an idol die can make death seem even more likely for us.

Celebrities dying reminds us that even special people die: The role of self-serving biases

We may also react to the deaths of celebrities because they challenge our self-serving biases.  A great deal of research in psychology suggests that most people desperately want to believe that the world is safe and predictable.  That desire leads us to develop inaccurate views of the world so we can feel better about our lives.  For example, people think they are much less likely than other people to get awful diseases but much more likely to live a long life.  Dr. Hannah Hamilton of Kenyon College suggests that the death or serious illness of a celebrity challenges our protective self-biases.  In other words, the death or illness of a celebrity makes us realize that, if these awful things can happen to famous people, then we are at risk too.   Celebrity deaths shake us up because they threaten the self-serving illusions that help make us feel secure.

Celebrities dying makes us feel like everyone is dying: The role of the availability heuristic

Celebrity deaths are also distressing because just a couple of celebrity deaths can make it seem like everyone from our youth is dying.  This is due to the availability heuristic: the more easily we can think of examples of something, the more we assume that it happens a lot.  For example, the more easily I can think of Beatles songs, the more I will assume that they wrote lots of songs.  Dr. Jaye Derrick of the University of Houston thinks that the same thing can happen when celebrities die.   We can easily think of stars from the 90s who have died because their deaths were in the news.  But we haven't been thinking about stars from the 90s who HAVEN'T died. Thus, dying stars from the 90s are more available in memory than living stars, which makes us feel like almost everyone we loved in the 90s is dying, which is distressing.

Public grieving for celebrities allows us to express ourselves: The role of grief signaling

Another reason people may mourn for celebrities is grief signaling. In other words, we may mourn celebrities because doing so can signal to others that we are committed to a particular group, cause, or identity.  Dr. Cory Clark of Durham University points out that by publicly mourning the death of celebrities we let other people (maybe our Facebook friends, Twitter followers, or co-workers) know that we are devoted members of the “tribe” who knew and admired the celebrity’s cultural contributions. We thus communicate our group membership and good taste.

Additionally, celebrities are well-known (by definition), so publicly mourning the death of a celebrity allows us to connect with a large group of other people, at least temporarily.  When people mourn Luke Perry, for example, they are showing that they are someone who was into 90s culture, thereby connecting them to all the other people who feel the same way.  Even years after some celebrities die, people may still signal their grief, as fans of Elvis Presley continue to do more than 40 years after his death. 

Putting it all together

So why do people mourn celebrities?  It turns out that there are many reasons.  People mourn celebrities because: they feel a parasocial connection with the celebrities so their death feels like the loss of a friend;  their death severs a link to one’s youth; their death makes us more aware of our own mortality; the passing of famous people makes us realize that we are not special enough to escape illness and death; celebrity deaths make us feel like everyone from our youth is dying; and mourning celebrity deaths allows us to signal to others that we are a part of a certain group or have certain values.


Shira Gabriel is an Associate Professor at SUNY Buffalo, the Editor of the journal Self & Identity, and an Associate Editor of the SPSP Character and Context blog.

Thinking Too Much About Yourself? Nature Could Help With That

Many people today feel disconnected from others. While it isn't inherently bad to spend time thinking about oneself, thinking about and helping others can improve health and reduce loneliness.

Researchers previously found that being in natural environments predicts pro-social behavior. My colleagues and I wondered whether it could also influence whether people consciously think more about other people and how connected they feel to them. To study this, we first ran a study with 86 participants who each visited both a nature conservatory and an indoor mall. They spent one hour exploring each of these environments and while they explored, they were prompted by an alarm to complete a survey on a cellphone at various times.

Participants were asked who they most recently thought about and how connected they felt to other people. We found that when participants were in the nature conservatory, they thought less about themselves and more about others. They also felt more connected to nearby people and people around the world.

Because there are many differences between a nature conservatory and an indoor mall, we weren't sure if it was 'nature' itself that was leading to these effects. So, we ran another study. We asked 303 Chicago residents to visit 3-5 parks across the city over a two-week period. When they visited each park, they took a survey and reported how natural the park looked and how connected they felt to the other people around them. A natural park is one with trees and grass or water, whereas a less natural park has more man-made elements, like a playground or courts for sports.

We found that people reported higher feelings of connection to others in the park when they were in a more natural park. This was true regardless of how many people they could see nearby.

We also found that visitors to more natural parks felt more connected to the physical environment than visitors to less natural parks. This conceptually replicated the finding from our first study that when people were in the nature conservatory, they felt more connected to the physical environment.

Although our studies focused on how connected people felt while they were visiting the parks, it's possible that cumulative nature exposure can help turn these temporary feelings into something more permanent. More research is needed in this area to explore how "states" of nature connection become "traits" of nature connectedness.

So, if you're feeling disconnected from others or the world around you but live in a city, there's no need to travel far to receive these benefits of being in nature—both of our studies were conducted in urban parks in Chicago. Although other research has found that awe-inspiring nature, or particularly beautiful nature, is associated with increases in prosocial and pro-environmental behaviors, our research suggests that even visiting regular city parks may shift people's focus away from themselves, and towards others and the planet.


For Further Reading

Schertz, K. E., Kotabe, H. P., Meidenbauer, K. L., Layden, E. A., Zhen, J., Bowman, J. E., ... & Berman, M. G. (2023). Nature's path to thinking about others and the surrounding environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 102046. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2023.102046

Goldy, S. P., & Piff, P. K. (2020). Toward a social ecology of prosociality: why, when, and where nature enhances social connection. Current opinion in psychology, 32, 27-31. DOI: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.06.016

Zhang, J. W., Piff, P. K., Iyer, R., Koleva, S., & Keltner, D. (2014). An occasion for unselfing: Beautiful nature leads to prosociality. Journal of Environmental Psychology37, 61-72. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.11.008


Kathryn Schertz is a postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Michigan and studies how natural environments influence emotions, thought content, and overall well-being.

Gul Gunaydin

Gul Gunaydin is a Professor of Psychology at Sabanci University, Istanbul, Turkey. She received her PhD degree in psychology from Cornell University, USA. Her program of research focuses on interpersonal relationships and addresses questions ranging from relationship formation to maintenance to the well-being consequences of relationships.

What led you to choose a career in personality and social psychology?

It was actually a series of happy coincidences. I majored in business so I initially wanted to pursue a PhD in marketing. I thought a master's in social psychology would be a good foundation before I applied to PhD programs. In the first semester of my master's, I took a graduate seminar in close relationships. I was so fascinated by the topic that I had a change of heart and ended up pursuing a PhD in social and personality psychology at Cornell, where I was fortunate to work with Vivian Zayas and Cindy Hazan. And I have been studying interpersonal relationships ever since!

Briefly summarize your current research, and any future research interests you plan to pursue.

In my program of research, I primarily focus on two types of relationships: minimal social connections with weak ties and strangers, and deeper social connections with romantic partners. In my work on minimal social interactions, I study a wide range of phenomena from how we form impressions of strangers to how everyday interactions with them help boost our happiness. In the second line of work, I aim to address questions ranging from romantic relationship formation and maintenance to the well-being functions of romantic relationships.

The project that is currently keeping me busy is a multi-country study on minimal social interactions. I am collaborating with a great team of researchers on this project: Gillian Sandstrom and Ayse Uskul from the University of Sussex, and Emre Selcuk and Esra Ascigil from Sabanci University. Given the importance of minimal social interactions for healthy human functioning, we aim to uncover the predictors of these interactions and their role in well-being across the globe. We now have collaborators from 139 labs across 63 countries, so I am very excited about the next phases of the study!

Do you have any advice for individuals who wish to pursue a career in personality and social psychology?

Maintain work-life balance. This was something I discovered early in my career by following Cindy Hazan's sage advice. Pursuing an academic career offers a more flexible working schedule but you can easily get sucked into long working hours because there is always something else to do. I find that when I spend more time with loved ones and immerse myself in new experiences, work also becomes more productive and fun.

What are you most proud of in your career?

Receiving the Fulbright Award was a life-changing event in my early graduate career. This award allowed me to do an exchange year at the University of California, Berkeley. There, my interactions with Ozlem Ayduk and Serena Chen shaped my future plans and ultimately led to my decision to pursue a PhD degree in the U.S. I am very grateful for having crossed paths with them.

Do you have a favorite course to teach and why?

I absolutely love teaching Applied Social Psychology! In this course, we read and discuss cutting-edge social psychological research with applied implications. Students also work in groups on "weekly challenges" in which someone from academia or industry describes an everyday problem. Then, students try to address the problem by devising policies based on research findings from the course. It is really fun to teach this course because it is a constant reminder of how relevant social psychological research is for addressing profound day-to-day issues.

Outside of psychology, how do you spend your free time?

I love travelling and exploring new food and cuisines—I am very much a foodie. I recently took up learning Japanese, I am hoping to reach an intermediate level before my next trip to Japan.

 

Learning to Talk to Strangers

Imagine we told you that there was something easy, fast, and free that you could do every day to increase your happiness. Imagine this activity could also help you learn a new hobby, discover a different culture, or even spark a friendship. Chances are you're not going to believe us when we tell you, but the activity we have in mind is: talking to strangers.

Why You Don't, but Should, Talk to Strangers

More and more research has started to reveal the benefits of talking to strangers: it boosts our mood, makes us feel connected to others, and helps us learn new things. However, it's a bit like exercise: it might be good for us, but that doesn't mean it's easy to get over the hump and commit. In our previous work shared in C&C, we have shown that people worry about a lot of things, including that the other person may not want to talk to them, that they will not know what to talk about, or that they will experience a dreaded awkward silence.

Despite the many worries people have about talking to strangers, people's fears are usually overblown. People enjoy conversations with strangers more than they expect to, their partners like them more than they think (a phenomenon we refer to as the "liking gap"), and despite people's fears, silences are rare and feelings of social connection are common.

Unfortunately, people seem to have trouble learning this. Even immediately after an enjoyable and valuable interaction with a stranger, people turn right back around and continue worrying that a future conversation will not go as well. People seem to interpret the success of one conversation as a pleasant exception to an unpleasant rule.

Can People Learn That Talking to Strangers is Generally Positive?

We concluded that in order to help people learn about the value of talking to strangers, we needed to do something more extreme. We decided to run an experiment where we had people talk to as many strangers as they could for an entire week. Our idea was that this repeated experience would leave people no choice but to notice that these conversations typically go well.

To do this, we developed a scavenger hunt game that people could play via an app on their phones. Each day for a week, participants had to choose at least one mission, from a changing list that included things like finding someone "wearing a hat" or "drinking a coffee." People received points in the app and an entry into a prize draw for each mission they completed, and some people completed all 30 possible missions. People in the experimental condition had to chat with someone matching the description for a few minutes, whereas people in the control condition simply had to observe someone for a few minutes.

Repeated Practice Makes People Feel More Comfortable Talking to Strangers

By the end of the study, compared to how they had felt at the beginning of the study, people who had practiced talking to strangers had more positive attitudes about talking to strangers: they predicted fewer rejections and reported more confidence in their ability to start, maintain, and end a conversation. These more positive attitudes persisted even a week after the study ended. In contrast, people who had simply observed strangers showed no change in attitudes over the course of the study.

Repeated practice was a crucial aspect of this intervention. Worries about rejection gradually diminished day by day. In contrast, actual rates of rejection remained low; 87% of the 1336 conversations people had during the study were with the first person they approached. Similarly, in their daily reports over the course of the week-long study, people reported being more and more confident in their conversational ability.

You might be wondering what happened to our "talkers" after the study ended. When we followed up with them a week later, about 40% reported having exchanged contact information and following up with at least one of their conversation partners. Did they keep talking to strangers? There was some preliminary evidence that this might be the case, but given the limitations of how we assessed this, we consider this question still open.

Conversations with strangers are an inexhaustible source of well-being, connection, and information. If you wish you had more confidence to strike up a conversation, you're not alone; apprehension likely explains why people often wear headphones to avoid talking, stay glued to their smartphones in public places, or pretend not to notice a new co-worker they still have not introduced themselves to. Our study finds that repeated practice will allow you to see the possibility of talking to a stranger as a positive opportunity for connection, rather than something to dread—and we promise, the experience will likely be more positive than you expect!


For Further Reading

Sandstrom, G. M., Boothby, E. J., & Cooney, G. (2022). Talking to strangers: A week-long intervention reduces psychological barriers to social connection. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 102, 104356. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103122000750


Gillian Sandstrom is a Senior Lecturer in Psychology at the University of Sussex, and the Director of the Sussex Centre for Research on Kindness. Her research focuses on the social interactions we have with strangers and weak ties. This research focus stems, in part, from the micro-friendship she developed with a lady who worked at a hot dog stand.

Erica Boothby is a Senior Lecturer at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. Her research focuses on social connection and the psychological barriers that inhibit connection.

Gus Cooney is a Senior Lecturer at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. His research focuses on conversation, and in particular, the mistakes people make when talking.