NPR⁠84%

The psychology behind why you dread small talk 

By Emily Kwong⁠0% Regina G. Barber⁠0% Ailsa Chang⁠0% Rachel Carlson⁠0% Jeffrey Pierre

4/17/2026, 7:00:00 AM

BS Summary: The article has not yet been analyzed.

Do you avoid small talk with that co-worker near the water cooler or that neighbor in the elevator? 
Well, if so, you might want to think again. 
According to a study just published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, even when participants were primed that a conversation would be boring, they ultimately found it more interesting than expected. 
Researchers looked at nine different experiments that totaled 1800 participants and found the same result each time: Conversations about boring topics are actually enjoyable and engaging. 
Elizabeth Trinh, the lead author of the study, mentioned these results may be due to the loneliness epidemic described in the 2023 report out of the US Surgeon General's office. 
Trinh says the most interesting part of the results was that engaging with another person drove enjoyment more than the topic itself. 
"So people assume that interest comes from having a fascinating subject that you're talking about," she said. 
"But in reality, what makes conversations really enjoyable is that it's the sense of connection." 
She suggested you lean into small talk and reap the benefits. 
Interested in more social science? 
Email us your question at shortwave@npr.org. 
Listen to every episode of Short Wave sponsor-free and support our work at NPR by signing up for Short Wave+ at plus.npr.org/shortwave. 
Listen to Short Wave on Spotify and Apple Podcasts. 
This episode was produced by Rachel Carlson and Jeffrey Pierre. 
It was edited by Rebecca Ramirez and Christopher Intagliata. 
Tyler Jones checked the facts. 
The audio engineers were Maggie Luthar and Ted Mebane. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 8.3%Emily Kwong: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 3.4%Confirmation Bias8.3%This article: 0.0%Emily Kwong: 5.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Kwong: 5.5%Goats and Soda (NPR): 3.8%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 9.8%Emily Kwong: 4.5%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic9.8%This article: 0.0%Emily Kwong: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Kwong: 2.8%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Kwong: 17.3%Goats and Soda (NPR): 11.1%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Kwong: 2.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Kwong: 1.9%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.1%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Kwong: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Kwong: 6.7%Goats and Soda (NPR): 3.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Kwong: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.3%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Kwong: 7.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 11.3%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Kwong: 0.8%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.3%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Kwong: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Kwong: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Kwong: 3.3%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.3%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Kwong: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Kwong: 3.4%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.8%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Kwong: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Kwong: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Kwong: 4.6%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.7%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Kwong: 0.6%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Kwong: 0.8%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Kwong: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Kwong: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 23.9%Emily Kwong: 7.8%Goats and Soda (NPR): 6.1%Appeal to Authority23.9%This article: 0.0%Emily Kwong: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Kwong: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Kwong: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 9.8%Emily Kwong: 6.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 4.4%Hasty Generalization9.8%This article: 0.0%Emily Kwong: 0.3%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Kwong: 2.6%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Kwong: 2.6%Goats and Soda (NPR): 6.6%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 5.7%Emily Kwong: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.9%Begging the Question5.7%This article: 11.4%Emily Kwong: 1.9%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)11.4%This article: 0.0%Emily Kwong: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Kwong: 0.5%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Kwong: 5.4%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Kwong: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Kwong: 0.7%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.8%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Kwong: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Kwong: 4.3%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Kwong: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Kwong: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Kwong: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Kwong: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Kwong: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.5%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 6.4%Emily Kwong: 0.8%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.3%Unattributed Quote6.4%This article: 0.0%Emily Kwong: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 3.0%Emily Kwong: 3.3%Goats and Soda (NPR): 3.1%Biased Writer Voice3.0%This article: 13.3%Emily Kwong: 2.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.0%Indoctrination13.3%This article: 0.0%Emily Kwong: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Kwong: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 15.9%Emily Kwong: 13.7%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…15.9%

264 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers57%attributed speech114writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageJournal of Personality and Social Psychology • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageElizabeth Trinh • 30 words • 0.0% coverageElizabeth Trinh • 22 words • 0.0% coverageElizabeth Trinh • 17 words • 100.0% coverageElizabeth Trinh • 15 words • 100.0% coverageElizabeth Trinh • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageNPR • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Elizabeth Trinh

100%flagged-word coverage
95 attributed words63% of attributed speech55% writer coverage
0%15.0%30.0%Indoctrination+19.5 ptsWriter: 7.9%Elizabeth Trinh: 27.4%27.4%Unattributed Quote+17.9 ptsWriter: 0.0%Elizabeth Trinh: 17.9%17.9%Attempt to Sell a Product -17.5 ptsWriter: 17.5%Elizabeth Trinh: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-7.0 ptsWriter: 7.0%Elizabeth Trinh: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.