The (better than expected) consequences of asking sensitive questions

Misplaced Divides? Discussing Political Disagreement With Strangers Can Be Unexpectedly Positive

Differences of opinion between people are common in everyday life, but discussing those differences openly in conversation may be unnecessarily rare. We report three experiments (N = 1,264 U.S.-based adults) demonstrating that people's interest in discussing important but potentially divisive topics is guided by their expectations about how positively the conversation will unfold, leaving them more interested in having a conversation with someone who agrees versus disagrees with them. People's expectations about their conversations, however, were systematically miscalibrated such that people underestimated how positive these conversations would be-especially in cases of disagreement. Miscalibrated expectations stemmed from underestimating the degree of common ground that would emerge in conversation and from failing to appreciate the power of social forces in conversation that create social connection. Misunderstanding the outcomes of conversation could lead people to avoid discussing disagreements more often, creating a misplaced barrier to learning, social connection, free inquiry, and free expression.

In Defense of Moderate Romantic Curiosity and Information Avoidance: A Conceptual Outlook of Balanced Curiosity

Curiosity, which is the human motive to seek information, is extremely valuable, since it enables people to widen their horizons and develop their capacities. However, there are many cases in which curiosity is harmful and not learning more information is preferable. In the romantic realm, this complexity is particularly relevant. Although knowledge is valuable in romantic relationships, there are circumstances in which ignorance and avoidance of information may be more beneficial. I suggest the restriction of central virtues of romantic love, such as curiosity and sensitivity, while giving some limited weight to oft-called vices in romantic relationships, such as ignorance and indifference. This suggestion has significant implications for the nature of romantic relationships, and in particular, for enhancing flexibility and diversity of such relationships, and the ongoing need to find an optimal balance.

Does a robot's gaze aversion affect human gaze aversion?

Gaze cues serve an important role in facilitating human conversations and are generally considered to be one of the most important non-verbal cues. Gaze cues are used to manage turn-taking, coordinate joint attention, regulate intimacy, and signal cognitive effort. In particular, it is well established that gaze aversion is used in conversations to avoid prolonged periods of mutual gaze. Given the numerous functions of gaze cues, there has been extensive work on modelling these cues in social robots. Researchers have also tried to identify the impact of robot gaze on human participants. However, the influence of robot gaze behavior on human gaze behavior has been less explored. We conducted a within-subjects user study (N = 33) to verify if a robot's gaze aversion influenced human gaze aversion behavior. Our results show that participants tend to avert their gaze more when the robot keeps staring at them as compared to when the robot exhibits well-timed gaze aversions. We interpret our findings in terms of intimacy regulation: humans try to compensate for the robot's lack of gaze aversion.

Talking to strangers: Intention, competence, and opportunity

Despite having more opportunities than ever to connect with strangers, and much to gain from doing so, people often refrain from talking with, and listening to, strangers. We propose a framework that classifies obstacles to connecting with strangers into three categories concerning intention (underestimating the benefits of conversations), competence (misunderstanding how to appear likeable and competent in conversation), and opportunity (being constrained in access to a diverse set of strangers). To promote conversations among strangers, interventions have attempted to calibrate people's expectations, improve their communication, and create more opportunities for strangers to connect. We identify the need to better understand how miscalibrated beliefs emerge and are sustained, what contextual factors impact conversation likelihood, and how conversations evolve as relationships develop.

Kindness in short supply: Evidence for inadequate prosocial input

In everyday life, people often have opportunities to improve others' lives, whether offering well-intentioned advice or complimenting someone on a job well done. These are opportunities to provide "prosocial input" (information intended to benefit others), including feedback, advice, compliments, and expressions of gratitude. Despite widespread evidence that giving prosocial input can improve the well-being of both givers and recipients, people sometimes hesitate to offer their input. The current paper documents when and why people fail to give prosocial input, noting that potential givers overestimate the costs of doing so (e.g., making recipients uncomfortable) and underestimate the benefits (e.g., being helpful) for at least four psychological reasons. Unfortunately, the reluctance to give prosocial input results in a short supply of kindness.

Questions and deception: How to ask better questions and elicit the truth

Questions are important tools for uncovering information, but to avoid deception, question askers must be strategic in what and how they ask-and consider the social implications of their questions. Askers should consider that in addition to soliciting information, questions also signal information about expected answers, askers' own knowledge, and the parties' relationship. We review literature on deception, conversations, and impression management to discuss signals embedded in question phrasing, and how these signals affect the truthfulness of respondents' disclosures. Askers can increase truthful disclosure by remaining neutral about the desirability of possible responses, conveying knowledge of the topic, and signaling trust. We identify how asking better questions requires being more cognizant of the informational and relational signals that questions send.

Undersociality: miscalibrated social cognition can inhibit social connection

A person's well-being depends heavily on forming and maintaining positive relationships, but people can be reluctant to connect in ways that would create or strengthen relationships. Emerging research suggests that miscalibrated social cognition may create psychological barriers to connecting with others more often. Specifically, people may underestimate how positively others will respond to their own sociality across a variety of social actions, including engaging in conversation, expressing appreciation, and performing acts of kindness. We suggest that these miscalibrated expectations are created and maintained by at least three mechanisms: differential construal, uncertain responsiveness, and asymmetric learning. Underestimating the positive consequences of social engagement could make people less social than would be optimal for both their own and others' well-being.

The Power of Listening at Work

Listening is associated with and a likely cause of desired organizational outcomes in numerous areas, including job performance, leadership, quality of relationships (e.g., trust), job knowledge, job attitudes, and well-being. To advance understanding of the powerful effects of listening on organizational outcomes, we review the construct of listening, its measurement and experimental manipulations, and its outcomes, antecedents, and moderators. We suggest that listening is a dyadic phenomenon that benefits both the listener and the speaker, including supervisor-subordinate and salesperson-customer dyads. To explain previous findings and generate novel and testable hypotheses, we propose the episodic listening theory: listening can lead to a fleeting state of togetherness, in which dyad members undergo a mutual creative thought process. This process yields clarity, facilitates the generation of novel plans, increases well-being, and strengthens attachment to the conversation partner.

The Conversational Circumplex: Identifying, prioritizing, and pursuing informational and relational motives in conversation

The meaning of success in conversation depends on people's goals. Often, individuals pursue multiple goals simultaneously, such as establishing shared understanding, making a favorable impression, having fun, or persuading a conversation partner. In this article, we introduce a novel theoretical framework, the Conversational Circumplex, to classify conversational motives along two key dimensions: 1) informational: the extent to which a speaker's motive focuses on giving and/or receiving accurate information; and 2) relational: the extent to which a speaker's motive focuses on building the relationship. We use the Conversational Circumplex to underscore the multiplicity of conversational goals that people hold and highlight the potential for individuals to have conflicting conversational goals (both intrapersonally and interpersonally) that make successful conversation a difficult challenge.

Some things aren't better left unsaid: Interpersonal barriers to gratitude expression and prosocial engagement

Gratitude promotes well-being, but people may not express it even when they feel it. A core aspect of rational behavior is that people make decisions based on the expected value of their actions. While acting on expectations may be rational, the choices one makes may not be optimal if those expectations are misguided. Because people underestimate the benefit and overestimate the cost of expressing gratitude, miscalibrated predictions can create a misplaced barrier to gratitude expression. These mistaken beliefs about interpersonal interactions stem partly from a perspective-based asymmetry between actors and targets. The propensity to undervalue one's positive impact on others may reflect a broader tendency that undermines prosociality in daily life - to the detriment of one's own, and others', well-being.