Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Group Polarization01:01

Group Polarization

34.3K
Group polarization is the strengthening of an original group attitude following the discussion of views within a group (Teger & Pruitt, 1967). That is, if a group initially favors a viewpoint, after discussion the group consensus is likely a stronger endorsement of the viewpoint. Conversely, if the group was initially opposed to a viewpoint, group discussion would likely lead to stronger opposition.
34.3K
Groupthink01:34

Groupthink

44.3K
When in group settings, we are often influenced by the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors around us. Groupthink is another phenomenon of conformity where modification of the opinions of members in a group aligns with what they believe is the group consensus (Janis, 1972). In such situations, the group often takes action that individuals would not perform outside the group setting because groups make more extreme decisions than individuals do. Moreover, groupthink can hinder opposing trains of...
44.3K
Social Exchange Theory02:06

Social Exchange Theory

34.5K
We have discussed why we form relationships, what attracts us to others, and different types of love. But what determines whether we are satisfied with and stay in a relationship? One theory that provides an explanation is social exchange theory. According to social exchange theory, we act as naïve economists in keeping a tally of the ratio of costs and benefits of forming and maintaining a relationship with others (Rusbult & Van Lange, 2003).
34.5K
Relationship Formation02:12

Relationship Formation

40.0K
What do you think is the single most influential factor in determining with whom you become friends and whom you form romantic relationships? You might be surprised to learn that the answer is simple: the people with whom you have the most contact. This most important factor is proximity. You are more likely to be friends with people you have regular contact with. For example, there are decades of research that shows that you are more likely to become friends with people who live in your dorm,...
40.0K
In- and Out-Groups01:31

In- and Out-Groups

39.0K
People all belong to a gender, race, age, and social economic group. These groups provide a powerful source of our identity and self-esteem (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) and serve as our in-groups. An in-group is a group that we identify with or see ourselves as belonging to.
39.0K
Social Facilitation01:04

Social Facilitation

32.0K
Not all intergroup interactions lead to negative outcomes. Sometimes, being in a group situation can improve performance. Social facilitation occurs when an individual performs better when an audience is watching than when the individual performs the behavior alone. This typically occurs when people are performing a task for which they are skilled.
32.0K

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Fleeting generalization: How unstable belief updating keeps people overly pessimistic about talking to strangers.

Journal of personality and social psychology·2026
Same author

Ignorance can be trustworthy: The effect of social self-awareness on trust.

Journal of personality and social psychology·2024
Same author

Gender Differences in Climbing up the Ladder: Why Experience Closes the Ambition Gender Gap.

Psychological science·2024
Same author

Defining key concepts for mental state attribution.

Communications psychology·2024
Same author

Surprisingly good talk: Misunderstanding others creates a barrier to constructive confrontation.

Journal of experimental psychology. General·2024
Same author

Let it go: How exaggerating the reputational costs of revealing negative information encourages secrecy in relationships.

Journal of personality and social psychology·2023
Same journal

Boosting Media Literacy Using Lateral Reading and Online Search Interventions.

Psychological science·2026
Same journal

A Field Experiment Testing Whether Accountability Reduces Racial Gaps in Performance Evaluations.

Psychological science·2026
Same journal

Does Testosterone Affect Cognitive Reflection? Evidence From a Double-Blind, Randomized Controlled Study of 1,000 Participants.

Psychological science·2026
Same journal

Does Overconfidence Really Confer Adaptive Benefits to Children's Learning?

Psychological science·2026
Same journal

How Does the Mind Grow? Cross-Cultural Intuitive Theories of Mental Development.

Psychological science·2026
Same journal

Not All Practice Is Created Equal: Longitudinal Evidence From Over 40,000 Chess Players.

Psychological science·2026
See all related articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jun 29, 2025

Continuous Theta Burst Stimulation of the Posterior Medial Frontal Cortex to Experimentally Reduce Ideological Threat Responses
06:42

Continuous Theta Burst Stimulation of the Posterior Medial Frontal Cortex to Experimentally Reduce Ideological Threat Responses

Published on: September 28, 2018

11.6K

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

Kristina A Wald1, Michael Kardas2, Nicholas Epley3

  • 1The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania.

Psychological Science
|March 28, 2024
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

People avoid discussing disagreements because they misjudge how positive conversations will be. Underestimating common ground and social connection leads to unnecessary barriers in open dialogue and learning.

Keywords:
conversationdialogueopen dataopen materialspreregisteredsocial cognitionsocial learningwell-being

More Related Videos

Peering into the Dynamics of Social Interactions: Measuring Play Fighting in Rats
15:01

Peering into the Dynamics of Social Interactions: Measuring Play Fighting in Rats

Published on: January 18, 2013

15.3K
Experimental Paradigm for Measuring the Effects of Self-distancing in Young Children
07:01

Experimental Paradigm for Measuring the Effects of Self-distancing in Young Children

Published on: March 1, 2019

7.9K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jun 29, 2025

Continuous Theta Burst Stimulation of the Posterior Medial Frontal Cortex to Experimentally Reduce Ideological Threat Responses
06:42

Continuous Theta Burst Stimulation of the Posterior Medial Frontal Cortex to Experimentally Reduce Ideological Threat Responses

Published on: September 28, 2018

11.6K
Peering into the Dynamics of Social Interactions: Measuring Play Fighting in Rats
15:01

Peering into the Dynamics of Social Interactions: Measuring Play Fighting in Rats

Published on: January 18, 2013

15.3K
Experimental Paradigm for Measuring the Effects of Self-distancing in Young Children
07:01

Experimental Paradigm for Measuring the Effects of Self-distancing in Young Children

Published on: March 1, 2019

7.9K

Area of Science:

  • Social Psychology
  • Communication Studies
  • Behavioral Economics

Background:

  • Differences in opinion are common, yet open discussion of divisive topics is rare.
  • Understanding conversational expectations is key to navigating social interactions.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To investigate how expectations about conversational positivity influence willingness to discuss divisive topics.
  • To examine whether people's expectations about conversations are accurately calibrated.

Main Methods:

  • Three experiments involving 1,264 U.S.-based adults.
  • Participants' interest in discussing topics was measured based on expected conversational outcomes.
  • Expectations were compared against actual conversational experiences.

Main Results:

  • Interest in discussion is driven by expected positivity, favoring agreement over disagreement.
  • People systematically underestimate the positivity of conversations, especially those involving disagreement.
  • This underestimation stems from undervaluing common ground and social connection dynamics.

Conclusions:

  • Miscalibrated expectations create barriers to discussing disagreements.
  • Avoiding disagreement hinders learning, social connection, and free expression.
  • Promoting accurate conversational expectations can foster more open dialogue.