January 1, 2014
1 min read
Add Us On GoogleAdd SciAmTrying to See the Other Side of an Argument May Backfire
Attentive listening results in more relationship satisfaction than perspective-taking
By Tori Rodriguez
On supporting science journalism
If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
Well-meaning arguers often attempt to see things from their partner's point of view, but doing so can backfire, according to a paper in the January 2013 issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. In problem-solving discussions among 111 couples, researchers found that the person who attempted to take his or her partner's perspective had an increase in self-focus and overestimated how obvious his or her feelings were.
After the discussion, the perspective-taking partner reported feeling less satisfied with the relationship in general, and the other partner reported no change in relationship satisfaction. When subjects were instead instructed to take an objective approach and pay close attention to the other person's behavior, satisfaction increased for both partners—probably because this approach fostered a sense of shared reality. “I think what is critical is paying attention to what the other person says and does, rather than trying to work it all out inside one's own head,” says Jacquie Vorauer, one of the study's authors and a psychology professor at the University of Manitoba.
Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism
Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.
When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.
Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber