Mistakenly seeking solitude - Epley, Schroeder (2014) - Article

What is the final thought of the researchers at the end of this article?

The researchers conclude that their experiments are consistent with a growing number of studies that demonstrate the positive effects of prosociality. Prosociality benefits not only another, but also ourselves. The world is getting busier. Ignoring the benefits of social involvement can have very negative consequences. The researchers conclude with the conclusion that both the hedonist who seeks happiness and the idealist who seeks civilization must choose the same path.

Looking for loneliness?

Why do we ignore strangers when connecting with others increases our success?

There are two reasons for this. First of all, loneliness is perhaps a more positive experience than contact with other people. A second reason is that people misunderstand the consequences of social connections.

Where did the researchers conduct their research?

The researchers opted for public transport. They instructed travelers on trains and buses to make contact with a stranger in their area, to avoid contact with a stranger in their area or to behave exactly as they would when traveling by bus train.

What conclusion did the researchers draw from their research?

Their research showed that the participants who made contact with strangers had experienced it as more positive and no less productive than when they did not. This is remarkable because all participants from the contexts, individually, had predicted the opposite. This incorrect assessment may be due to the fact that the interest of others to commit is underestimated. The result of this underestimation is that people who do not learn the real consequences of social interaction.

Can the pleasure in connection be contagious?

Yes, that's possible. This is apparent from a study in a laboratory where people had to talk to each other in a waiting room. Both those who did this spontaneously and those who did it because it was the assignment both experienced a positive experience. This is also proof that people are social animals. A lack of social interaction is bad for human well-being.

What are the most important keywords in this article?

The most important keywords in this article are social cognition, social connection, mind perception, affective prognosis and well-being.

Why do social connections have to be regulated?

It is important that social connections are regulated because modern life offers many opportunities for social involvement. As well as choosing food that we expect will satisfy our hunger, we like to make contact with people from whom we expect social support.

Which people do we often evaluate as poor sources of social support?

We often evaluate distant strangers and outgroup members as relatively poor sources when it comes to social support. Sometimes this is wise. Consider, for example, the confrontation with an unsatisfactory stranger as a potential discussion partner. Then it is often better to avoid a conversation than to try to connect with this person. Research has also shown this. We easily connect with people we know, such as friends, but we ignore strangers easily.

What is the core of the researchers' research?

In this article, the researchers wonder whether connecting with a stranger is less favorable than staying completely isolated. Although connecting with a stranger does not have the same long-term benefits as connecting with friends. Perhaps people misunderstand the consequences of distant social interactions. As a result, they may expect that staying isolated is more pleasant than talking to a stranger. However, the opposite is true. This is apparent from various studies.

Which studies show this?

For example, studies in which extroverted people expect to have a more positive conversation with another extroverted person. However, the investigation revealed that they had an equally pleasant experience with both an extrovert and an introvert person. Another experiment revealed that there were no differences in mood between people who interacted with a stranger like those who interacted with a dating partner. These studies show that we wrongly prefer isolation to interaction with a stranger.

What two different patterns can this misunderstanding assume about the actual consequences of social connection?

First of all, the relatively mild misunderstanding that people expect that connecting with a stranger in a conversation will be more negative than staying isolated. In reality, talking to a stranger cannot be worse (or perhaps a little bit worse) than staying isolated. The other pattern can be a reflection of a more extreme misunderstanding. Namely not just an error in the size or duration of an effect, but an error in the actual valence of an effect. This pattern mainly occurs when people are told to act extroverted instead of introverted.

What joint conclusion can be drawn from these studies?

All studies show the profound misunderstanding that people expect that connecting with a stranger will be more negative than staying isolated. In fact, the opposite pattern is true.

What was the goal of the researcher to perform nine experiments?

The aim was to explain at least partly an apparent social paradox both in the field and in the laboratory. Namely, why people prefer isolation between strangers rather than connection with strangers. This is remarkable because people benefit greatly from social connection.

In which two contexts did the researchers start their research?

On commuter trains and in public buses. The researchers chose these contexts because they are places where strangers come very close together but almost never connect.

What did the researchers ask the participants in their studies?

In each context, they first asked in one experiment to talk to a stranger, not to talk to a stranger, or to do whatever they normally do. They did this to be able to measure the actual consequences of distant involvement versus isolation.

In another experiment, the researchers asked participants in every context to predict their experiences in the same circumstances. In these field experiments, the researchers wanted to clarify whether a wrong expectation was the cause of human behavior. People may prefer isolation to social contact because they have wrong expectations of social contact.

In their fifth and final experiment, the researchers investigated whether the effects of the social connection are contagious. In general, the studies focused on whether people are sufficiently social in their daily lives or if they are not social enough for their own well-being.

Why, according to the researchers, do people expect that connecting to a stranger is less pleasant when sitting alone?

People may not have learned directly or indirectly about reality. A false belief can be created by any barrier that prevents a person from learning from reality. A possible barrier may be a common shared belief that other people are not interested in connecting. The belief can come directly from existing standards of conduct. The studies show that people can improve their well-being of the moment by being more social towards others.

How did the participants in the experiment start their obligatory conversation?

A large part of the participants could no longer clearly remember the start of their conversation. Of the people who could still remember, 29% asked about current events, 39% asked a personal question and 16% opted for a different start. For example, by talking about themselves. None of the participants in the study reported that they were participating in a study. What the participants had in common was that they all tried to say something that was worth responding to.

The researchers encouraged extraverted behavior among the participants in their research. But why wouldn't extrovert (as well as introverts) think that being isolated on the train would be unpleasant?

The researchers have several possible explanations for this question. First of all, it could be that the experiments had too little power to detect stable moderators of personalities. The experiments could at least detect theoretically modest effects. In addition, the researchers used only a measure of 10 items from the Big Five in their prediction experiments. This instead of a more specific measure of extraversion.

According to the researchers, what is probably the reason that there are specific social functions and habits?

According to the researcher these are there to relieve our fear. We are afraid of the negative consequences that could result from attempted interactions. According to the researchers, the most effective way to interact with strangers is to remove the barrier to start a conversation. This would work better than enhancing one's own property of extraversion.

What do the researchers mention in this article about the qualifications of their research?

The researchers emphasize that entering into interactions with foreigners does not always have to be pleasant. In addition, they suspect that there are some important preconditions for pleasant interactions with strangers that the researchers could not test with their experiments. For example, the interactions usually lasted only a few minutes and there were no repeated interactions or particularly long interactions. The studies indicate that other studies show that the pleasure of interacting with a stranger diminishes over time. This is because more is learned about the other person.

What is the final thought of the researchers at the end of this article?

The researchers conclude that their experiments are consistent with a growing number of studies that demonstrate the positive effects of prosociality. Prosociality benefits not only another, but also ourselves. The world is getting busier. Ignoring the benefits of social involvement can have very negative consequences. The researchers conclude with the conclusion that both the hedonist who seeks happiness and the idealist who seeks civilization must choose the same path.