Content area
Full text
Contents
- Abstract
- Perceiving Others’ Thoughts: During and After Conversation
- Content of Thoughts
- Egocentric Projection
- Frequency of Thoughts
- Availability of Thoughts
- Innovations and Contributions to Existing Literature
- Summary of the Argument
- Analysis Plan
- Question
- Hypothesis
- Operationalization
- Open Practices
- Study 1: Field Survey
- Method
- Participants
- Procedure
- Results
- Studies 2 and 3: The Laboratory
- Study 2: Conversations Between Strangers
- Method
- Participants
- Procedure
- Results
- Study 3: Conversations Among Friends
- Method
- Participants
- Procedure
- Results
- Additional Analyses: Studies 2 and 3
- A Note on “Accuracy”
- Truth and Bias Model
- Interim Discussion: Predictions of Our Differential Availability Account
- Study 4: Resolved Versus Ongoing Arguments
- Method
- Participants
- Procedure
- Results
- Argument Seriousness
- Resolved Versus Ongoing Arguments
- Study 5: Evidence of Others’ Thoughts
- Method
- Participants
- Procedure
- Results
- Study 6: The Thought Gap Over Time
- Method
- Participants
- Procedure
- Results
- The Thought Gap
- Effects of Availability
- Study 7: The Thought Gap and Trait Rumination
- Method
- Participants
- Procedure
- Results
- The Thought Gap
- Effects of Rumination
- Study 8: Thought Frequency and Thought Valence
- Method
- Participants
- Procedure
- Results
- Positive Thoughts
- Neutral Thoughts
- General Discussion
- Additional Consideration of Mechanism
- Conceptual Scope of the Thought Gap
- Limitations of the Current Research
- Implications of the Thought Gap
- Conclusion
- Context
Figures and Tables
Abstract
After conversations, people continue to think about their conversation partners. They remember their stories, revisit their advice, and replay their criticisms. But do people realize that their conversation partners are doing the same? In eight studies, we explored the possibility that people would systematically underestimate how much their conversation partners think about them following interactions. We found evidence for this thought gap in a variety of contexts, including field conversations in a dining hall (Study 1), “getting acquainted” conversations in the lab (Study 2), intimate conversations among friends (Study 3), and arguments between romantic partners (Study 4). Several additional studies investigated a possible explanation for the thought gap: the asymmetric availability of one’s own thoughts compared with others' thoughts. Accordingly, the thought gap increased when conversations became more salient (Study 4) and as people’s thoughts had more time to accumulate after a conversation (Study 6); conversely, the thought gap decreased when people were prompted to reflect on their conversation partners’ thoughts...





