Going a little deeper
Lesson 3 of 4 in this module · about 7 minutes · Communication
The idea
Go deeper one rung at a time, from facts to preferences to enthusiasms to values, at a pace she matches by what she does. The rungs are facts (“What do you do?”), preferences (“What’s the best part of it?”), enthusiasms (“What would you do with a free Saturday?”) and values and stories (“What’s something you changed your mind about recently?”). The ladder is this course’s own tool, not a tested procedure. Depth is not heaviness: confessions, regrets and old wounds are not for a first conversation, and nothing here asks you to bring them.
Gradual deepening has some support. In one study, a 45-minute procedure in which strangers shared more and more personal things, step by step, produced more closeness than small-talk tasks did 1. In later experiments, strangers expected deep conversations to be more awkward, and their own disclosures to matter less to their partners, than turned out to be true 1. The outcome was self-rated closeness between strangers, not romantic love or attraction 1. The samples were lab and online, largely Western and student or crowdsourced 1. The 1997 sessions were structured and both people had agreed to take part, so they do not show that unsolicited deep disclosure in a first meeting is welcome 1.
Watch what she does with each rung. She is matching if she answers at about the depth you offered or a bit deeper, volunteers something unasked, or asks you something at the same level. She is not if her answers stay at facts, she changes the subject, or she says she would rather not get into it. None of this tells you what she feels about you, only what depth she is choosing now.
When she shares, respond to what she said before you offer anything of yours. That is a course practice. Relationship research points the same way: perceived responsiveness, the sense that someone understands, validates and cares about you, is treated as a central ingredient of closeness 2. That evidence is mostly from established couples and friends. It rests on self-reported perceptions 2. In two diary studies of everyday conversations, people reported more closeness when one person shared and the other responded with understanding, validation and care 3. These were diaries of interactions with anyone, not first dates, and they rest on self-report 3. A warm feeling after a deep talk is not a measure of how well you know each other. A review reports that feeling understood is only modestly related to how accurately someone understands you, mostly in established relationships 4.
Why it matters
In one study, strangers who had agreed to share more and more personal things, step by step, felt closer than after small talk 1. The study does not show that unsolicited deep disclosure in a first meeting is welcome.
What it looks like
Example
At a friend’s potluck, you and Noemi, 33, have covered jobs, neighborhoods and the potato salad. You say, “I used to think running was punishment, and now it’s the only time my head is quiet. What’s something you’ve changed your mind about?” She says she moved here for work and misses her sister, who lives four hours away. You answer that first: “That sounds hard. Do you get to see her much?”
The same moment, handled the other way
Counterexample
Same potluck. You skip to a heavy question about the hardest thing she has been through. She says she would rather not get into it, and you ask her why.
The leap skips the rungs, and asking why after a pass presses her for an answer she has already given.
The one thing to remember
The rule
Go one rung deeper at a time, respond to what she gave first, and treat a pass as an answer.
If she says she would rather not, say “Sure,” and go to something else. Do not ask again in other words, and do not ask why. If she stays at facts after you have offered something of your own, stay where she is.
Try it now
Item 1 of this lesson’s set: The sailboat.
In the real world (optional)
If you like, in a conversation with a friend that you were having anyway, ask one light question a rung deeper than usual, such as “What’s something you’re looking forward to?” Notice only how it feels to ask.
What this doesn’t tell you
The ladder and the pace-matching are course practices, not findings. The research says gradual, mutual, agreed deepening produced closeness in studies of strangers. It does not say that going deeper makes anyone attracted to you, how fast to go with any one person, or that a first meeting is a good place for heavy topics.
Why do we believe this?
Each numbered mark in the text opens the evidence behind that sentence. Every claim in this course carries one of five labels.
- Well supported
- A meta-analysis or several independent studies agree, with no serious failure to replicate.
- Supported with caveats
- Several studies agree, with stated limits such as student samples or lab settings.
- Plausible
- One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question.
- Speculative
- An idea or argument that hasn't been directly tested.
- Marketing claim
- Something a seller says about their product, without published evidence.
Evidence: Supported with caveatsConversations that gradually moved to more personal topics produced more closeness, and deeper conversations felt less awkward and more connecting than people expected.
Why this label
Several studies agree, with stated limits such as student samples or lab settings. A 45-minute escalating-disclosure procedure generated more closeness than small talk, and later experiments showed strangers over-predicted awkwardness of deep talk and under-predicted partners' interest in their disclosures.
What it does not show
- Outcome in the 1997 procedure was self-rated closeness between strangers, not romantic love or attraction.
- Studies 2-3 in the same paper found no effect of attitude matching or an explicit goal of getting close.
- Lab and online samples, largely Western and student or crowdsourced.
- Sessions were structured and mutually agreed; they do not show that unsolicited deep disclosure in a first meeting is welcome.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Sources
- Aron, A., Melinat, E., Aron, E. N., Vallone, R. D., Bator, R. J. (1997). The Experimental Generation of Interpersonal Closeness: A Procedure and Some Preliminary Findings, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.
- Kardas, M., Kumar, A., Epley, N. (2022). Overly shallow?: Miscalibrated expectations create a barrier to deeper conversation, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
Evidence: PlausiblePerceived responsiveness, the sense that someone understands, validates and cares about you, is treated in relationship research as a central ingredient of closeness, and feeling understood is linked to relationship well-being.
Why this label
One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. A 2015 review (abstract not seen) treats perceived responsiveness as an organising construct linking relationship processes, and a 2017 review links feeling understood to relationship and personal well-being.
What it does not show
- Reis 2015 abstract not seen, so the claim is capped at plausible.
- Review evidence is mostly from established couples and friends, with self-reported perceptions.
- Perception can differ from what the partner intended or did.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Sources
- Reis, H. T., Gable, S. L. (2015). Responsiveness, Current Opinion in Psychology.
- Reis, H. T., Lemay, E. P., Finkenauer, C. (2017). Toward understanding understanding: The importance of feeling understood in relationships, Social and Personality Psychology Compass.
Evidence: PlausibleCloseness tends to build when one person shares and the other responds with understanding, validation and care, at the level of individual interactions.
Why this label
One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. The interpersonal process model of intimacy holds that disclosure, partner disclosure and perceived responsiveness combine within interactions. Laurenceau and colleagues tested it with diaries of participants' everyday social interactions, with whoever they talked to, not only with romantic partners.
What it does not show
- One paper (two diary studies); abstract seen, full text not read.
- Diaries kept over one or two weeks about everyday interactions with any partner, not first meetings or dates in particular.
- Self-reported diary data.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Source
- Laurenceau, J. P., Barrett, L. F., Pietromonaco, P. R. (1998). Intimacy as an interpersonal process: The importance of self-disclosure, partner disclosure, and perceived partner responsiveness in interpersonal exchanges, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
Evidence: Supported with caveatsPeople's feeling of being understood by someone is only modestly related to how accurately that person actually understands them.
Why this label
Several studies agree, with stated limits such as student samples or lab settings. A review of the feeling-understood literature reports only modest overlap between feeling understood and being understood, so a lesson should not treat felt connection as proof of accurate understanding.
What it does not show
- Narrative review rather than meta-analysis.
- Effect sizes were not extracted from the abstract.
- Mostly established relationships.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Source
- Reis, H. T., Lemay, E. P., Finkenauer, C. (2017). Toward understanding understanding: The importance of feeling understood in relationships, Social and Personality Psychology Compass.
More practice
The rest of the set, Going a little deeper: three builds: 3 items, about 6 minutes. Build a turn from something you notice, something you share and a question. Open the exercise set.
Go further
Outside talks, videos and pages on the topics this lesson cites. Nothing from them loads until you follow a link, and a link is not an endorsement: read the note under each one.
Vanessa Van Edwards: 10 Quirky Questions to Ask On Your Next Date
Example open-ended, curiosity-led questions to ask on a date, relevant to responsiveness and to restarting a conversation that has stalled.
Keep in mind. Light entertainment format; questions are prompts, not a technique that guarantees liking.
Bobby Rio: 5 "Nice Guy" Conversation Mistakes to AVOID
Bobby Rio on conversation habits that undermine engagement, per the title; relevant to engaged versus merely polite behaviour and to conversational re-engagement.
Keep in mind. Commercial dating coach; 'nice guy' framing is contested and the channel also carries manipulation-style content the app must not teach.
Jeffrey Hall (University of Kansas): Research defines more behaviors that reveal romantic attraction
University summary of Hall's study of 51 stranger pairs coding verbal and nonverbal flirting behaviours (leaning forward, nodding, compliments, questions) by self-reported flirting style.
Keep in mind. News release summarising self-reported behaviours; effect sizes and sample details are in the paper.