The Buffer Effect

The mediating nature of communication technologies (e.g., telephone, voice message, or chat) can buffer the experience of conversations by establishing a figurative shield between sender and receiver. From a psychological perspective, this buffer effect may affect senders’ communication channel choices depending on their respective communication goals. Building on the impression management model of strategic channel use ( O’Sullivan, 2000 ), we examine how valence and locus of a message and the interlocutors’ relationship lead to differences in the buffer effect people establish through their channel choices. In two vignette-based, mixed-design studies, participants indicated which channel they would choose to communicate with a receiver in different situations, depending on the valence of the episode (positive vs. negative; Studies 1 and 2), who is at the center of the issue (self vs. other; Studies 1 and 2), and their interpersonal closeness (friend vs. acquaintance; Study 2). In Study 1, people chose channels with a higher buffer effect for negative (vs. positive) issues and episodes that focused on themselves (vs. the receiver). Study 2 supported a moderating effect of relationship. While people still chose channels with higher buffer effects for negative (vs. positive) issues in the acquaintance condition, the opposite was true when people were to communicate with friends. We attribute this to the higher salience of relational compared to self-presentational communication goals under increasing interpersonal closeness. The present studies expand the impression management model by focusing on the subjective buffer effect of communication channels and introducing the decisive role of relationship in its application.

Nature and determinants of social actions during a mass shooting

Reactions to danger have been depicted as antisocial but research has shown that supportive behaviors (e.g., helping injured others, giving information or reassuring others) prevail in life-threatening circumstances. Why is it so? Previous accounts have put the emphasis on the role of psychosocial factors, such as the maintenance of social norms or the degree of identification between hostages. Other determinants, such as the possibility to escape and distance to danger may also greatly contribute to shaping people’s reactions to deadly danger. To examine the role of those specific physical constraints, we interviewed 32 survivors of the attacks at ‘Le Bataclan’ (on the evening of 13-11-2015 in Paris, France). Consistent with previous findings, supportive behaviors were frequently reported. We also found that impossibility to egress, minimal protection from danger and interpersonal closeness with other crowd members were associated with higher report of supportive behaviors. As we delved into the motives behind reported supportive behaviors, we found that they were mostly described as manifesting cooperative (benefits for both interactants) or altruistic (benefits for other(s) at cost for oneself) tendencies, rather than individualistic (benefits for oneself at cost for other(s)) ones. Our results show that supportive behaviors occur during mass shootings, particularly if people cannot escape, are under minimal protection from the danger, and feel interpersonal closeness with others. Crucially, supportive behaviors underpin a diversity of motives. This last finding calls for a clear-cut distinction between the social strategies people use when exposed to deadly danger, and the psychological motivations underlying them.

Conceal Don’t Feel: Study of Interpersonal Closeness Between High School Males in California

Recognizing the importance of genuine connection for human, this research dives into the study of interpersonal closeness between high school males in California. This paper includes a literature review with current scholarly work, consensus, and polls on interpersonal closeness and cultural views and effects through gender stereotypes. In the research design, a mixed method including causal-comparative research, content analysis, and coding was used. The main source of data was collected through interview responses. The responses were compared, coded, and analyzed. The conclusion that high school males in California have the capability of producing interpersonal closeness with each other was reached. Furthermore, differences were found in the ways female pairs and male pairs develop interpersonal closeness. Implication of encouraging interpersonal closeness within males were suggested.

Loudness Perceptions Influence Feelings of Interpersonal Closeness and Protect Against Detrimental Psychological Effects of Social Exclusion

We propose that perceptions of auditory loudness and interpersonal closeness are bidirectionally related. Across 12 experiments (total N = 2,219; 10 preregistered; with Singaporean, British, U.S. American, and Australian participants), we demonstrated that louder audio made people feel physically (Study 1a) and socially (Study 1b) closer to others, presumably because loudness activates interpersonal closeness-related concepts implicitly (Studies 1c and 1d). This loudness–interpersonal closeness effect was observed across diverse samples (Studies 2a, 3a, and S1), for longer listening intervals (Study 2b), and in natural settings (Studies 3a and 3b). Conversely, individuals made to feel socially excluded rated their surroundings as quieter (Study 4). Furthermore, following social exclusion, individuals showed a preference for louder volume (Study 5). Finally, exposure to loud stimuli mitigated detrimental psychological effects of social exclusion (Study 6). Theoretical implications for the social cognition of loudness, social exclusion and compensatory strategies, and practical implications for ameliorating loneliness are discussed.

Shared Reality: From Sharing-Is-Believing to Merging Minds

Humans are fundamentally motivated to create a sense of shared reality—the perceived commonality of inner states (feeling, beliefs, and concerns about the world) with other people. This shared reality establishes a sense of both social connection and understanding the world. Research on shared reality has burgeoned in recent decades. We first review evidence for a basic building block of shared-reality creation: sharing-is-believing, whereby communicators tune their descriptions to align with their communication partner’s attitude about something, which in turn shapes their recall. Next, we describe recent developments moving beyond this basic building block to explore generalized shared reality about the world at large, which promotes interpersonal closeness and epistemic certainty. Together, this body of work exemplifies the synergy between relational and epistemic motives. Finally, we discuss the potential for another form of shared reality—shared relevance—to bridge disparate realities.

Partner intimate touch is associated with increased interpersonal closeness, especially in non-romantic partners

Relationship closeness promotes desirable health outcomes. Most interventions to increase relationship closeness are verbal, which may not suit all couples. We consider whether Orgasmic Meditation (OM), a structured, partnered, largely non-verbal practice that includes genital touch, also increases relationship closeness. We hypothesized that OM would increase feelings of closeness for both romantic and non-romantic partners. This is important, because intimate touch with non-romantic partners is commonly considered deleterious by clinicians, which may inadvertently increase feelings of shame. Dyads (n = 125) reported their feelings of closeness before and after OM. Approximately half of the participants were romantic partners, while the other half only engaged in OM together (non-romantic). Closeness after OM increased on average across participants. Non-romantic dyads increased self-other overlap more than romantic dyads. These data support that a partnered, largely non-verbal practice is associated with increased feelings of closeness in the moment, including for individuals who are not in a romantic relationship.

Interpersonal Closeness Impairs Decision Memory

We hypothesized that self-other confusion as a result of interpersonal closeness impairs people’s memory of their own decisions. Four studies (min N = 352) tested whether closeness affects memory in cooperative decisions. Participants played trust games in which they entrusted resources to another person and then had to recall their own decisions. Study 1 showed that people with an independent self-construal recalled their decisions more accurately, suggesting that less self-other overlap results in higher accuracy. Studies 2–4 showed that people made more recall errors when they played the trust game with a close in comparison with a distant partner. The findings suggest that interpersonal closeness impairs people’s memory of cooperative decisions.

Closeness and other affiliative outcomes generated from the Fast Friends procedure: A comparison with a small-talk task and unstructured self-disclosure and the moderating role of mode of communication

A Fast Friends procedure was created years ago as a method to generate closeness between people interacting for the first time and to provide an experimental procedure to test hypotheses about factors that may lead to initial closeness. In their original study, Aron et al. (1997) validated their closeness-generating task by comparing the degree of interpersonal closeness it generated versus that by a small-talk task. Few subsequent studies, however, have tested the validity of the closeness task by comparing the affiliative outcomes resulting from it with that from other activities. To further examine its validity, this study involved zero-history dyads randomly assigned to become acquainted through either Aron et al.’s closeness-inducing task, Aron et al.’s small-talk task, or an unstructured getting-acquainted task. The dyads were then compared on the closeness they experienced as well as on several other affiliative outcomes. In support of the validity of the closeness-inducing task, the task generated more closeness and other positive outcomes, relative especially to the small-talk task. A second manipulation in the study was the mode of communication (video-chat vs. face-to-face). No significant differences in outcomes (e.g., closeness, liking) were found based on mode of communication. Furthermore, the effectiveness of the closeness task (relative to the other tasks) for generating closeness and other affiliative outcomes was not moderated by the mode of communication.