Intimacy and the behaviors people explain

This project extends our research on the behavioral events people explain. In previous studies we found that, as "actors," people tend to wonder about and explain their own experiences (e.g., feelings, sensations, desires), whereas as "observers," they tend to wonder about and explain other people's intentional actions. This asymmetry holds in all private contexts (e.g., thinking, silent talk, diary). In communicative contexts, however, actors shift towards explaining those events that observers wonder about, namely, actions. This shift is helpful to the actor's interaction partner, who can better understand the meaning of the actor's behavior.

But the actor's resulting shift away from experiences creates a problem. Studies show that information about experiences is particularly diagnostic of an actor's personality (Andersen, 1984). Yet observers are unlikely to receive this type of information. In communicative contexts; the only context in which observers receive any information at all; people rarely explain experiences and thus deprive observers of the most diagnostic type of information. The present research therefore explores (a) conditions under which people do explain experiences and (b) consequences of such explanations.

Our first hypothesis is that actors explain more experiences to people with whom they have intimate relationships. If a stranger asks Anne about her day, she will probably explain her observable behaviors ("I worked out for two hours this morning"), but if a friend asks the same question, she may be more willing to explain her unobservable behaviors ("I felt so great during my workout this morning"). Study 1, which is almost completed, invites pairs of friends and pairs of strangers into the laboratory and ask them to have a conversation about recent life events. We expect that conversations between friends will contain more explanations of experiences than conversations between strangers. Moreover, to the extent that conversations between strangers contain more explanations of experiences, the two people will feel "closer."

Our second hypothesis is that observers explain more experiences when talking about an actor with whom they are on intimate terms. If Anne is discussing President Bill Clinton, she is unlikely to explain his feelings, thoughts or desires. But if the conversation shifts to her best friend Ben, she may provide many explanations for such experiences. Study 2 will invite people to the laboratory and ask them to talk about recent life events of different people; one person they know very well and another person they do not know very well. We expect that they will explain more experiences when talking about the person they know well than when talking about the person they don't know well.

Our third hypothesis is that an observer may also focus on experiences if she is on more intimate terms with her conversation partner. In the presence of her most intimate friends, Anne may feel comfortable explaining Ben's thoughts and feelings. But she is likely to confine herself to his actions when speaking with a stranger. Study 3 will invite pairs of friends and pairs of strangers to the laboratory and ask them to talk about recent life events of someone they know well. We expect that people will explain more of that person's experiences when talking to a friend than when talking to a stranger.

Our fourth hypothesis is that intimacy might "transfer." That is, when two friends (who first talk about themselves using experience explanations) switch to talking about another person, they will tend to explain that person's experiences, at least more so than if they hadn't talked "intimately" among each other first. In support of this hypothesis we found in initial studies that intimate conversations among friends contained an unusually great number of explanations of other people's experiences (in addition to explanations of their own experiences). Study 4 will examine this hypothesis more directly. We will invite pairs of friends to talk first about their own life events and then about a stranger's life events. In a control condition, pairs of friends would only talk about a stranger's life events. A transfer effect would occur if people in the experimental condition explained more of the stranger's experiences than people in the control condition. Such an effect could be explained in different ways, so Study 4 will include two more conditions to test those explanations. First, talking about experiences might simply "prime" people with experiences. If so, we should be able to replicate the transfer effect by first presenting people with a list of experience descriptions (e.g., "Ben felt bad because she had forgotten Jeff's birthday") and then asking them to talk about a third person's life experiences. A second possible explanation is that talking about oneself is necessary for the transfer to occur because it encourages people to empathize with the other person's experiences. If so, writing about one's own experiences should replicate the transfer effect as well.

Andersen, S. M. (1984). Self-knowledge and social inference: II. The diagnosticity of cognitive/affective and behavioral data. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 294-307.

Social Interaction Page