Emerging Ideas. A ripple effect: Does I‐sharing with a stranger promote compromise in cohabiting couples?

Abstract

Objective: Drawing from work on the prosocial outcomes associated with I-sharing, we asked whether I-sharing with a stranger enhances couples' ability to compromise. Background: Living together harmoniously requires compromise. Research on the psychological factors that promote compromise frequently focuses on individual differences and interpersonal environment. The current research takes a different approach by asking what role I-sharing (i.e., the feeling that others share the same in-the-moment, subjective experience as oneself) plays in the success of a cohabiting couple's compromise efforts. Method: Both members of a cohabiting couple privately reported the percentage of time they spend on household tasks (the Division of Household Labor inventory [DHL]) before undergoing a manipulation in which they either did or did not have an I-sharing experience with a stranger. Participants then completed the DHL again, this time working together with their cohabiting partner to reach a consensus in their responses. Finally, participants had another chance to complete the DHL in private, receiving the instruction to respond with their true beliefs. Results: When relationship partners worked together to complete the DHL at the second reporting, their responses were identical. At the third (private) DHL reporting, consistent with prediction, couples assigned to the I-share condition showed more agreement with their partner than couples assigned to the No I-share condition. Conclusion: This finding suggests that the prosociality generated by I-sharing can promote compromise in cohabiting couples.

The effect of a 7‐day intensive Buddhist meditation on existential isolation, interpersonal isolation, and compassion among South Koreans

“…Existential isolation also has interpersonal consequences that follow from this same line of logic. To appreciate these consequences, consider research and theory on the prosocial model of existential connection (Gehman et al, 2022;Huneke & Pinel, 2016).…”

“…Existential isolation also has interpersonal consequences that follow from this same line of logic. To appreciate these consequences, consider research and theory on the prosocial model of existential connection (Gehman et al, 2022; Huneke & Pinel, 2016). According to this model (see Figure 1), existential connection—which is the flip side of existential isolation—meets people's affiliative and epistemic needs in one fell swoop.…”

“…People low in existential isolation tend to have their basic needs met and this mediates the link between low levels of existential isolation and high levels of egalitarianism and prosocial acts for one's community (Pinel, 2022; Yawger & Pinel, 2016). Moreover, after experiencing moments of existential connection (in the form or I‐sharing or shared in‐the‐moment subjective experience; see Pinel et al, 2004, 2006, 2018) people show greater selflessness (Huneke & Pinel, 2016); greater willingness to help others (Pinel et al, 2018); a greater tendency to humanize outgroup members (Pinel, Long, et al, 2017; Pinel et al, 2018); and greater levels of compromise with a romantic partner (Gehman et al, 2022).…”

Existential isolation and well-being in justice-involved populations

“…I-sharing is the sharing of one’s phenomenological experience about said event or situation to achieve a shared reality with another person ( Pinel et al, 2010 ) and may help practitioners relate with clients on a more personal level. I-sharing has been related to positive interpersonal outcomes in experimental studies (e.g., selflessness, agreement with a romantic partner; Huneke and Pinel, 2016 ; Gehman et al, 2022 ), and has been theorized to be a mechanism to overcome feelings of EI in clinical settings ( Pinel, 2018 ). Relatedly, language matching may serve as a subtle cue to clients that the therapist is able to understand their experiences.…”

I‐sharing across the aisle: Can shared subjective experience bridge the political divide?

“…Also in this study, we introduce a new outcome variable, one designed to measure whether, after I‐sharing with one another, Trump supporters and Biden supporters would believe they could have a productive dialogue about one another’s political views. Previous research on the prosocial model of existential connection indicates that after an I‐sharing experience, people are more likely to humanize others (Pinel et al, 2017, 2018), help others (Pinel et al, 2018), and better able to compromise with others (Gehman et al, 2022). We wondered in the current context whether I‐sharing would also increase participants’ expectation that they could have a productive dialogue with an ideologically different other.…”