# 285 | ResearchBox


ResearchBox # 285 - 'The Thought Gap'


Bingo Table
  Show file names
  Show file IDs
  Show timestamps
Study 1


  Study 1.docx


  


  study1.csv



  Study 1.R


Study 2


  Study 2 - AsPredicted #12959.pdf



  Study 2.docx


  


  study2.csv


  


  study2_apim.csv


  


  study2_apim_different.csv


  


  study2_truth_bias.csv



  Study 2.R


Study 3


  aspredicted_12360.pdf



  Study 3.docx


  


  study3.csv


  


  study3_truth_bias.csv



  Study 3.R


Study 4


  aspredicted_9386.pdf



  Study 4.docx


  


  study4.csv



  Study 4.R


Study 5


  Study 5 - AsPredicted #56925.pdf



  Study 5.docx


  


  study5.csv



  Study 5.R


Study 6


  aspredicted_8332.pdf



  Study 6.docx


  


  study6.csv



  Study 6.R


Study 7


  Study 7 - AsPredicted #12475.pdf



  Study 7.docx


  


  study7.csv



  Study 7.R


Study 8


  Study 8 - AsPredicted #56920.pdf



  Study 8.docx


  


  study8.csv



  Study 8.R


Previewing files
Files can be previewed by clicking on descriptions.
Codebooks can be previewed by clicking on


  

Tell us if something is wrong with this Box



BOX INFORMATION

SUPPLEMENTARY FILES FOR
Gus Cooney, Erica Boothby, Mariana Lee, 'The Thought Gap After Conversation: Underestimating the Frequency of Others’ Thoughts About Us', Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

LICENSE FOR USE
All content posted to ResearchBox is under a CC By 4.0 License (all use is allowed as long as authorship of the content is attributed). When using content from ResearchBox please cite the original work, and provide a link to the URL for this box (https://researchbox.org/285).

BOX PUBLIC SINCE
August 28, 2021   (files may not be changed, deleted, or added)

BOX CREATORS
Gus Cooney (gusco@wharton.upenn.edu)
Erica Boothby (boothby@wharton.upenn.edu)

ABSTRACT
After conversations, people continue to think about their conversation partners. They remember their stories, revisit their advice, and replay their criticisms. But do people realize that their conversation partners are doing the same? In eight studies, we explored the possibility that people would systematically underestimate how much their conversation partners think about them following interactions. We found evidence for this thought gap in a variety of contexts, including field conversations in a dining hall (Study 1), “getting acquainted” conversations in the lab (Study 2), intimate conversations among friends (Study 3), and arguments between romantic partners (Study 4). Several additional studies investigated a possible explanation for the thought gap: the asymmetric availability of one’s own thoughts compared with others' thoughts. Accordingly, the thought gap increased when conversations became more salient (Study 4) and as people’s thoughts had more time to accumulate after a conversation (Study 6); conversely, the thought gap decreased when people were prompted to reflect on their conversation partners’ thoughts (Study 5). Consistent with our proposed mechanism, we also found that the thought gap was moderated by trait rumination, or the extent to which people’s thoughts come easily and repetitively to mind (Study 7). In a final study, we explored the consequences of the thought gap by comparing the effects of thought frequency to thought valence on the likelihood of reconciliation after an argument (Study 8). Collectively, these studies demonstrate that people remain on their conversation partners’ minds more than they know.