Why Talking to Strangers Often Feels Worse in Our Heads Than in Reality

Many people can remember deciding not to talk to someone because they expected the conversation to be awkward. Research by Nicholas Epley and Juliana Schroeder offers a useful counterpoint: in their experiments, people sometimes enjoyed brief social interaction more than they had predicted. That finding is encouraging, but it requires careful interpretation.

The commuter experiments

In a 2014 paper published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, Epley and Schroeder studied social interaction on trains and buses. Some participants were instructed to make a connection with a nearby stranger, while others remained disconnected or followed their usual routine. Participants who connected reported more positive experiences in the studied situations, yet separate groups tended to expect solitude to feel better.

The paper also examined how people underestimate others' willingness to connect. This points to a prediction problem: anticipated discomfort can stop us from discovering how an interaction might actually feel. The result is not permission to demand conversation from people in public. Context, consent and cues matter.

The difference between an invitation and an intrusion

A welcome social approach leaves the other person a choice. At a class, a friendly comment about the activity makes sense. In a quiet train carriage, headphones, body language or a short reply may signal that a person wants to be left alone. The responsible conclusion is not "always talk to strangers" but "do not treat your anxious prediction as proof that a friendly, appropriate interaction will go badly."

The studies' experimental settings differ from a first meetup in a new city. Cultural conventions also differ. Use the research as a prompt for small experiments, not a universal command.

A lower-pressure way to start

Begin with shared context. Ask whether someone has attended the class before, what they thought of the exhibition or whether they know the next event date. A simple question gives them an easy way to participate. If they respond with enthusiasm, follow up. If they provide a brief answer and turn away, accept it gracefully.

You can also choose places where conversation is explicitly part of the experience: volunteering, moderated discussions, team activities or an advertised conversation workshop. That reduces the uncertainty about whether interaction is welcome.

A useful experiment for one week

• Choose a social setting where newcomers are invited to talk.
• Make one brief, context-appropriate opening comment.
• Notice the actual response rather than only your prediction.
• Respect boundaries and end naturally if the person is not interested.
• Return later if the interaction and setting felt good.

One positive exchange will not eliminate social anxiety or solve loneliness. But it can provide evidence that your first prediction was not the only possible outcome, and make a second conversation feel more approachable.

What participants predicted versus experienced

A notable part of the commuter research is the gap between what people expected and what some actually reported after being asked to connect. If you assume that a stranger will not want to talk, you may avoid the interaction and never learn whether the prediction was accurate. Researchers can study the difference between predicted and reported experiences, but that is not the same as knowing how every commuter would feel under ordinary conditions.

An instructed conversation in a study involves a special context, while spontaneous interactions carry uncertainty about attention, safety and social norms. A quiet passenger, someone rushing to work or a person using their phone may have perfectly valid reasons not to engage. Research about average reported enjoyment should never be used as an excuse to override visible signs that someone wants space.

Choose settings where the social invitation is explicit

A beginner language workshop, group walk or community activity already signals that some shared engagement is part of the program. That gives you a gentler place to test your assumptions about conversation than approaching random people on transport. You still need to observe whether a particular person is receptive. Start by talking about the shared activity, then let the interaction proceed or end naturally.

If you feel uncomfortable introducing yourself, try a practical opening question: where the workshop starts, whether someone knows the rules, or whether the organizer has a second session planned. An ordinary answer gives you an opening without demanding personal details. If the exchange is friendly, returning to the same place may allow a continuation without the urgency of asking for contact information immediately.

Avoid turning encouragement into pressure

The study's useful message is not that a person must be constantly social. Rest, solitude and private time can be valuable. Some people face discrimination, accessibility barriers or past experiences that change what counts as a comfortable interaction. Social confidence should not be measured by how many strangers someone approaches in a week.

A small shift in prediction may still be meaningful: instead of assuming that every appropriate greeting will be unwelcome, allow the possibility of a good encounter and make it easy for the other person to opt out. That balance—curiosity paired with respect—is much more useful than an instruction to talk to everyone.