EE2160/1 - "Make a difference" Stuart Gleave

Research > Problems I face > Communication

Why strangers don't talk to each other:

In order to reach a solution I must first understand the problem.

“Why don't strangers talk to each other?”

The difficulty lies in making first contact with a stranger. For the following example we will consider two strangers standing at a bus stop with other strangers frequently walking past. Neither strangers is particularly shy or outgoing. First time interactions are a daunting prospect. Neither party knows how the other will react to them, whether they will be well received, or their attempts to interact be rejected. As this particular potential interaction is occurring in a public place there is also the chance of public humiliation, which is undesirable to say the least.

Also, because these two people are strangers they have no idea of each others likes or dislikes. Unless a common event or interest can be deduced from external perceptions any attempt to start a conversation would involve a topic selected at random, within a certain range society has deemed acceptable if the conversation starter is hoping for a positive response. There are a lot of topics which could be selected for our pair at the bus stop, none of which could be gaged as more interesting than the other for any two given strangers.

If however our pair were an a convention for example then the chances of pickling a successful conversation starting topic are increased, as they must both share an interest in the conventions purpose. Another SIRC report by Kate Fox cites a day at the racecourse as the topic for research into corporate bonding. One particular observation is pertinent to my common interest or mutual ground point which I feel strangers often require to start conversation:

“Racecard rituals
-The racecard, for example, is a vital social tool for all racegoers, used in many social-bonding rituals, but it is probably more important in the corporate hospitality context than among any other groups. One of the racecard's primary social functions is as a passport to conversation with strangers. It is used in the standard .Introduction Ritual. in which any racegoer can approach any other and ask is "What do you fancy in the next?" This opening line is almost always accompanied by a racecard-gesture, in which the initiator indicates his/her own racecard, gestures towards the stranger's racecard, or brings the two alongside each other, sometimes even touching the edges together in a clear symbolic indication of the social contact desired....

-In addition to the Introduction Ritual, the racecard is in constant use as a social device and indispensable prop throughout the day. Corporate racegoers rely more heavily on the racecard in their social interactions than any other group. De-coding the racecard is a standard 'default' conversation among corporate racegoers, and the racecard is brought into play whenever there is a potentially awkward pause or the conversation seems to be flagging. Corporate racegoers are very quick to recognise the social value of the racecard: it is carried around like an actor's script and consulted whenever one is in need of a 'prompt'.”1

In this instance the racecard acts as the mutual ground for the strangers, it has the ability to open a conversation and revive a flagging one. The research report goes on to mention another potential bounding point for strangers:

“Among corporate guests, strangers who had backed the same horse seemed to discover an instant affinity (often referring to it as 'our horse'). This was particularly evident among females, for whom the discovery of shared opinions or indeed any factor in common is always an important element of social bonding. Ironically, mock-rivalry between individuals or groups who had backed different horses seemed to have a similar bonding effect(particularly among males, perhaps due to the competitive nature of male-bonding processes).” 2

This second reference to a common interest further strengthens my argument that people need that unifying event in order to be more at ease starting a conversation with a stranger. The research paper also reflects on the nature of a day at the races, and how the entire event is geared to encourage socialising. For example, the races themselves are short, “lasting only a few minutes, interspersed by half-hour intervals dedicated to sociability. Socialising at the races does not involve ‘missing the action’: it is a central part of the action.”3 Another interesting observation was that “Unlike other sports, racing has a long tradition of embracing large numbers of spectators who have no interest in the sport itself and attend for purely social reasons. The introduction of corporate hospitality has therefore not provoked the ‘real fan backlash’ experienced by many other sports.” 3 In my eyes, this further explains why the 'mock-rivalry' is so acceptable, and encourages bonding.

Unfortunately, for the pair at the bus stop there is no racecard, no betting and no obvious common ground on which a conversation could be started. Clearly they are both going somewhere, but a conversation started with “So where are you headed?” would most likely be seen as inappropriate, invasive and worrying. A poorly picked topic can lead to uncomfortable silences, feelings of apprehension and the strengthening of our guard. One person could simply turn to the other and say “hello”, a standard, very open conversation starter. But even this simple word takes courage to say to a stranger. Our two strangers, who remember are neither particularly shy or extrovert may never get that push they need to start a conversation.

All these factors contribute to the shut up nature of strangers around each other. If I am to get these hypothetical strangers, and their real world equivalents talking, then I need to create an artifact which is able to give a person the common ground or edge they need to start a conversation which will be stimulating for both parties. In short the risk of embarrassment from poorly picked topics needs to be removed from the equation. So in essence my multimedia artifact needs to read strangers minds.

Mini evaluation:
Back to the top

My research thus far indicates that common ground, as i suspected, is an essential factor in starting a conversation with a stranger. Armed with the knowledge that you share something in common with the target stranger increases confidence and makes a conversation more likely to start. Because both parties will have this common ground they are both able to converse on it, increasing the chances of the conversation flowing smoothly. Whether or not the interaction itself can be deemed 'successful' or not i cannot say. My goal is to create an artifact which will get the conversation started as easily as possible. Successfulness of said conversation would differ from person to person, dependent on their goals for the interaction.