Actually, I'm not so sure it's obvious, and I have concerns about how the study is being interpreted.
People don't actually just go around talking to strangers, so if it was something everyone loved there must be a reason it doesn't happen more often.
I think this is a case where experimental or study context actually is really important.
If you're in an experimental context where you're either aware of the general scenario to occur, or that something unusual might occur, talking to a stranger is really different from out in the real world. That is, sitting in a lab room knowing that what you're about to do might be unusual, and is occurring in the context of a study, being monitored by researchers, is really different from being approached by a stranger with an unknown agenda at an unexpected moment.
Even the willingness to participate suggests a different scenario. The people willing to participate might be different, and in the very least are willing to do so in that moment. For instance, in the paper they asked people to approach others on a London train, but my guess is the people who would be most irritated by talking to a stranger (or having them talk to you) avoided the researchers entirely or declined to participate.
I think there are a lot of benefits to talking to strangers, but there can also be a lot of costs, and when it's occcurring in a totally unregulated environment can be slightly risky. I'm not at all suggesting people shouldn't talk to strangers but I think the study is being extremely misinterpreted. To me it's a prime example of how study context creates limitations to generalizability, something that should be discussed in introductory college psychology courses.
People don't actually just go around talking to strangers, so if it was something everyone loved there must be a reason it doesn't happen more often.
I think this is a case where experimental or study context actually is really important.
If you're in an experimental context where you're either aware of the general scenario to occur, or that something unusual might occur, talking to a stranger is really different from out in the real world. That is, sitting in a lab room knowing that what you're about to do might be unusual, and is occurring in the context of a study, being monitored by researchers, is really different from being approached by a stranger with an unknown agenda at an unexpected moment.
Even the willingness to participate suggests a different scenario. The people willing to participate might be different, and in the very least are willing to do so in that moment. For instance, in the paper they asked people to approach others on a London train, but my guess is the people who would be most irritated by talking to a stranger (or having them talk to you) avoided the researchers entirely or declined to participate.
I think there are a lot of benefits to talking to strangers, but there can also be a lot of costs, and when it's occcurring in a totally unregulated environment can be slightly risky. I'm not at all suggesting people shouldn't talk to strangers but I think the study is being extremely misinterpreted. To me it's a prime example of how study context creates limitations to generalizability, something that should be discussed in introductory college psychology courses.