How to Better Understand People You Love
A gift for any relationship
Since we’re a relationship newsletter, let me begin by wishing any who celebrate a happy Valentine’s Day. And if you detest it, then I offer my condolences and wishes for easy access to an endless supply of cheap supermarket chocolate. (I happen to be fond of the holiday because of that endless supply of chocolate.)
I also want to congratulate the two winners of the burnout book giveaway, Jamie and Elizabeth. They won copies of ACT for Burnout and Rest (links to purchase for yourself below).
For those of you who are just joining Relational Riffs after reading a piece in The Washington Post, I wanted to offer a quick welcome and (re)introduction to myself and this newsletter:
I’m Yael Schonbrun, a practicing clinical psychologist with an academic background. I specialize in relationships (both scientific study and clinical practice), and write about them (one book about the relationship between important roles is already out, and I’m working on a new one that I’ll share more about in the coming months).
Basically, I love riffing about relationships using research and practices from the therapy. Each week in this newsletter, we’ll use science and practices from the therapy room to riff and provide guidance for common questions, like:
I’d love to hear what you’re relationally curious about. What befuddles, angers, or amazes you in relational life? What’s most helpful to read about? I welcome you to comment, chat, or email me to share your thoughts, practices, reads of the science, or whatever else relates to the topic of science-based relational thriving.
And now, let’s turn to today’s topic.
What you don’t know you don’t know
In an advice piece I recently penned for The Washington Post, I discuss a common communication issue that shows up in many kinds of close relationships: overconfidence about how well we understand people we are close to (and how well they understand us).
It’s common to think you know exactly what your partner (or friend or kid) means, what they think and feel. You might even assume they do (or should) understand you pretty darn well. This phenomenon is known as closeness communication bias. It’s defined as the human tendency to overestimate accurate understanding in close relationships.
In The Washington Post piece, I talked about two of the experiments in the study that first named this bias. Briefly, these studies showed that ambiguous phrases (like, “It’s getting hot in here!”) are just as likely to be misunderstood by people we are close to as by strangers.
The other experiment that I want to dig into today uncovered a different part of the closeness communication bias. That is, we tend to assume people we are close to “see” things just as we do—even when they don’t. We are less likely to make these perspective-taking errors with strangers.
In the experiment, one participant was tasked with directing another participant (either a friend or stranger) to move an object in a display case. But some of the objects were visible only to the person receiving the instruction and not to the person giving them.
As you can see below, directors asked addressees to move “the mouse.” The person receiving the instructions could see two mice: one toy furry mouse, the other a computer mouse. Because there is no green cardboard causing a visual obstruction, only the computer mouse (and not the furry mouse) was visible to both participants.
Compared to exchanges with strangers, participants were less likely to consider that their friends may have been seeing things differently. As the researchers explained, the error wasn’t about the initial observation—it turns out we are all reflexively egocentric. But with strangers, participants were more likely to double check their egocentric assumptions.
The study itself isn’t terribly related to day-to-day issues (unless you’re someone who regularly has to communicate whether it’s a furry mouse or computer mouse you want someone to nab on your behalf). But it’s easy to see the implications. If my friend and I are super close, I am more automatically assume they have similar notions about “good political views” and “bad ones,” like the movies I like, prefer the same amount of self-disclosure at a friends’ dinner, and be similar in either seeing Valentine’s Day as a delightful holiday or an evil scheme designed by the dark overlords at Hallmark.
Spoiler alert: Assuming that people we love have the same perspectives and preferences as we do and failing to check whether or not our assumptions are accurate is a breeding ground for misunderstanding and conflict.
Solving for Closeness Communication Bias*
*Or, catching it early and often.
Biases are part and parcel of having a human brain. Human brains are remarkable machines that do marvelous things. But their capacity relies on efficiently processing vats of information.
Our brains regularly sacrifice accuracy and depth in the service of efficiency.
We cannot change the ways that our brains are wired—nor would we necessarily want to—efficiency turns out to be pretty useful. But we can learn to work better with what we’ve got.
This works begin by educating ourselves about our biases, including the tendency to get overconfident in how well we understand others we love, and how their perspectives may differ even though we are close.
A next step involves active curiosity and considering alternatives to initial assumptions. Studies show, for example, that actively contemplating opposing perspectives/arguments can help debias judgements. And asking partners, friends, and our kids what they think offers a way to actively correct any misunderstandings you might have.
Remember, too, that expressing a desire to know a loved one more deeply and to gain insight into their perspective is among the most loving of gifts. So, ask your friend what they genuinely prefer (even if it’s not what you prefer). Query your partner about what they really meant when they said “it’s getting hot in here!”
Of course, the combo gift of correcting for closeness communication bias and some chocolate might really be ultimate Valentine’s Day slam dunk.
Elsewhere on the Internet…
Some random relationship writing that I enjoyed this week:
I just watched in Nyad, a biopic about marathon swimmer Diana Nyad who, at age 64, was the first to swim from Cuba to the Florida Keys. The most beautiful part of this movie was the incredible love story of best friends, Diana and her coach Bonnie Stoll, driving home the power of love to help us achieve the impossible.
This piece in The Atlantic describes how villages of care aren’t limited to parenting.
This New York Times piece on what to do if you’re in a romantic relationship with mismatched libidos offers terrific advice and normalizes this very common issue.
I spend much of my professional time thinking about how science and clinical practice can foster relational thriving, including relationships between parents, children, and even between our life roles. A newsletter isn’t therapy, but it can be therapeutic. Share your questions about how social science and clinical practice can help you navigate specific relationship challenges more skillfully via comment or email!
Relationally yours,
Yael
I love this wisdom on V-day -- and your permission to eat supermarket chocolate. Thank you!
Such a helpful relationship reminder!