Why are we so critical of ourselves after meeting someone new? Self-protection.

A new study discovers the “liking gap” — the difference between how we view others we’re meeting for the first time, and the way we think they’re seeing us.

We tend to be defensive socially. When we meet new people, we're often concerned with how we're coming off. Our anxiety causes us to be so concerned with the impression we're creating that we fail to notice that the same is true of the other person as well. A new study led by Erica J. Boothby, published on September 5 in Psychological Science, reveals how people tend to like us more in first encounters than we'd ever suspect.


We spend an inordinate — some would say “unhealthy" — amount of time worrying about what others think of us. We don't really know how we come off, in truth, but we regularly construct a metaperception of ourselves that represents how we think we do. And we tend to be unkind to ourselves, according to the new study.

The “liking gap"

What the study reveals is that there's a major disconnect between the way two people are likely to judge each other on first meeting, but it's not what you might expect. Their experiments show that in a first encounter, each person thinks well of the other person but assumes that they themselves have come off poorly. Since both parties feel this way, an almost comical asymmetry occurs, with a significant gap between how we're viewed and how we think we're viewed.

Co-author Margaret S. Clark tells YaleNews, “We call this a 'liking gap,' and it can hinder our ability to develop new relationships." She adds, “They seem to be too wrapped up in their own worries about what they should say or did say to see signals of others' liking for them, which observers of the conservations see right away."

Since both people like the other person more than they assume they themselves are being liked, “We're self-protectively pessimistic and do not want to assume the other likes us before we find out if that's really true." This makes the process more awkward than it needs to be, risking the loss of an opportunity for enjoyment. Later on, “We critically monitor ourselves and regret not telling the joke more smoothly or worry about whether we sound as if we are bragging."

The study's experiments

Boothby and her colleagues performed a series of experiments.

Experiment 1a: Is There a Liking Gap?

In this test, the researchers recruited 36 people from the Yale community, 72.2 percent female, and 27.8 percent male. The average age of participants was 23.25 years, with a standard deviation of 6.12 years.

Each subject was introduced to a same-sex partner, and, having been provided some ice-breaking questions to keep the conversation going, the two were seated side-by-side at a large table and tasked with chatting until a researcher returned in five minutes. The conversation was recorded on a computer nearby that displayed a large analog-style clock to help the new acquaintances pace themselves.

Afterward, the subjects were separated and asked to rate their agreement with eight statements.

Four assessed how much they liked the other person:

  • “I generally liked the other participant."
  • “I would be interested in getting to know the other participant better."
  • “If given the chance, I would like to interact with the other participant again."
  • “I could see myself becoming friends with the other participant."

Four assessed how much they thought the other person like them:

  • “The other participant generally liked me."
  • “The other participant would be interested in getting to know me better."
  • “If given the chance, the other participant would like to interact with me again."
  • “The other participant could see himself/herself becoming friends with me."

The researchers concluded, “after a brief conversation with another person, people significantly underestimated how much others liked them." They found their experiment “provided the predicted evidence of the liking gap."

Before moving on, a follow-up test, 1b, assessed whether or not subjects were clearly signifying their approval of each other during the conversation, and the researchers concluded that they clearly had — the signals were just not being picked up.

The results from Study 1a above and Study 2 below (Boothby, et al)

Study 2: Why Does the Liking Gap Exist?

In this experiment with paired same-sex conversants from a pool of 84 students and recent graduates — 59.5 percent female, 40.5 percent male and a median age of 19.25 years — there were no icebreakers provided. Instead, the instructions were simple: “You'll have about five minutes to talk, and you can talk about whatever you like. I'll keep time from the other room and then return when it's time to move on."

Afterward, they were separately asked two questions:

  1. “What are the top three moments from your conversation that caused you to form the impression of the other person that you did?"
  2. What are the top three moments from your conversation that caused the other person to form the impression of you that he/she did?"

Subjects were then asked to describe the significant moments in detail and assign them a rating of 1–7, from "extremely negative" to "extremely positive."

The researchers were able to conclude, “When participants reflected on their conversations, their most salient thoughts about how others viewed them were more negative than their most salient thoughts about how they viewed others, and this difference was related to how much they believed their conversation partners liked them."

Study 3: Does the Liking Gap Persist in Longer Conversations?

In their third experiment, this time with 102 subjects — 52.9 percent female, 47.1 percent male and a median age of 23.62 — were given up to 45 minutes to chat about anything, self-regulating the duration as they saw fit, and then questioned.

The team wanted to ascertain whether the length of a conversation affected the presence of a liking gap. The answer? No: “In sum, across conversations that ranged from 2 min to 45 min, people systematically underestimated the extent to which their conversation partners liked them and enjoyed the conversation."

Results of Study 3 (Boothby, et al)

Study 4: Can the Liking Gap Be Observed in the Real World?

To find this out, 128 people attending “How to Talk to Strangers" workshops were evaluated —52 percent female, 42 percent male and a median age of 29.61.

Before pairing off to talk for five minutes with someone they'd selected and didn't know, subjects were questioned on their expectations. They were asked to guess how interesting they would find their conversation partner to be and how interesting they thought their partner would find them.

After the conversations ended, subjects were again questioned, this time about how interesting they found their partner and how interesting they felt their partner had found them.

An analysis of their responses revealed that, yes, the liking effect is not just something that happens in the unnatural environment of the lab. Interestingly, in this case, it existed both before and after the experiment, with researchers finding that, “when anticipating a future conversation, participants underestimated how interesting their conversation partner would find them. This mistaken belief persisted — and indeed was magnified — after participants actually talked to their conversation partner."

Results of Study 4 (Boothby, et al)

Study 5: Does the Liking Gap Persist Over Time?

In this final test about the persistence and long-term effect of the liking gap, 102 first-year college students — 49.5 percent female and 50.5 percent male — participated in a year-long study looking into “how relationships normally develop."

They were questioned at the beginning of the study and then four other times over the course of the year regarding from one to four people in their dorm area. Of the other people, they were asked:

  • “How much do you like [name of suite mate]?"
  • “How interested are you in getting to know [name of suite mate] better?"
  • “How interested are you in becoming better friends with [name of suite mate]?"
  • “How interested are you in spending more time with [name of suite mate]?"

They were also asked how they thought they were perceived:

  • “How much do you think [name of suite mate] likes you?"
  • “How interested do you think [name of suite mate] is in getting to know you better?"
  • “How interested do you think [name of suite mate] is in becoming better friends with you?"
  • “How interested do you think [name of suite mate] is in spending more time with you?"
Results of Study 5 (Boothby, et al)

Concerningly, when the results were analyzed, says the study, “The liking gap persisted over short, medium, and long conversations and even over the course of a year, as suite mates developed new relationships." This means that first impressions really do matter, in the sense that they help us develop habits regarding how we feel about others and how they feel about us.

What are we supposed to do with this information?

When you find yourself wondering how you're seeming to a person you're just meeting, take comfort in the fact that they probably aren't paying that much attention to you — they're too busy wondering what you think of them. The best strategy? You might try just relaxing and having a good time meeting someone new.

Big Think
Sponsored by Lumina Foundation

Upvote/downvote each of the videos below!

As you vote, keep in mind that we are looking for a winner with the most engaging social venture pitch - an idea you would want to invest in.

Keep reading Show less

Essential financial life skills for 21st-century Americans

Having these financial life skills can help you navigate challenging economic environments.

Photo by Jp Valery on Unsplash
Personal Growth
  • Americans are swimming in increasingly higher amounts of debt, even the upper middle class.
  • For many, this burden can be alleviated by becoming familiar with some straightforward financial concepts.
  • Here's some essential financial life skills needed to ensure your economic wellbeing.
Keep reading Show less

Scientists create a "lifelike" material that has metabolism and can self-reproduce

An innovation may lead to lifelike evolving machines.

Shogo Hamada/Cornell University
Surprising Science
  • Scientists at Cornell University devise a material with 3 key traits of life.
  • The goal for the researchers is not to create life but lifelike machines.
  • The researchers were able to program metabolism into the material's DNA.
Keep reading Show less

New fossils suggest human ancestors evolved in Europe, not Africa

Experts argue the jaws of an ancient European ape reveal a key human ancestor.

Surprising Science
  • The jaw bones of an 8-million-year-old ape were discovered at Nikiti, Greece, in the '90s.
  • Researchers speculate it could be a previously unknown species and one of humanity's earliest evolutionary ancestors.
  • These fossils may change how we view the evolution of our species.

Homo sapiens have been on earth for 200,000 years — give or take a few ten-thousand-year stretches. Much of that time is shrouded in the fog of prehistory. What we do know has been pieced together by deciphering the fossil record through the principles of evolutionary theory. Yet new discoveries contain the potential to refashion that knowledge and lead scientists to new, previously unconsidered conclusions.

A set of 8-million-year-old teeth may have done just that. Researchers recently inspected the upper and lower jaw of an ancient European ape. Their conclusions suggest that humanity's forebearers may have arisen in Europe before migrating to Africa, potentially upending a scientific consensus that has stood since Darwin's day.

Rethinking humanity's origin story

The frontispiece of Thomas Huxley's Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature (1863) sketched by natural history artist Benjamin Waterhouse Hawkins. (Photo: Wikimedia Commons)

As reported in New Scientist, the 8- to 9-million-year-old hominin jaw bones were found at Nikiti, northern Greece, in the '90s. Scientists originally pegged the chompers as belonging to a member of Ouranopithecus, an genus of extinct Eurasian ape.

David Begun, an anthropologist at the University of Toronto, and his team recently reexamined the jaw bones. They argue that the original identification was incorrect. Based on the fossil's hominin-like canines and premolar roots, they identify that the ape belongs to a previously unknown proto-hominin.

The researchers hypothesize that these proto-hominins were the evolutionary ancestors of another European great ape Graecopithecus, which the same team tentatively identified as an early hominin in 2017. Graecopithecus lived in south-east Europe 7.2 million years ago. If the premise is correct, these hominins would have migrated to Africa 7 million years ago, after undergoing much of their evolutionary development in Europe.

Begun points out that south-east Europe was once occupied by the ancestors of animals like the giraffe and rhino, too. "It's widely agreed that this was the found fauna of most of what we see in Africa today," he told New Scientists. "If the antelopes and giraffes could get into Africa 7 million years ago, why not the apes?"

He recently outlined this idea at a conference of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists.

It's worth noting that Begun has made similar hypotheses before. Writing for the Journal of Human Evolution in 2002, Begun and Elmar Heizmann of the Natural history Museum of Stuttgart discussed a great ape fossil found in Germany that they argued could be the ancestor (broadly speaking) of all living great apes and humans.

"Found in Germany 20 years ago, this specimen is about 16.5 million years old, some 1.5 million years older than similar species from East Africa," Begun said in a statement then. "It suggests that the great ape and human lineage first appeared in Eurasia and not Africa."

Migrating out of Africa

In the Descent of Man, Charles Darwin proposed that hominins descended out of Africa. Considering the relatively few fossils available at the time, it is a testament to Darwin's astuteness that his hypothesis remains the leading theory.

Since Darwin's time, we have unearthed many more fossils and discovered new evidence in genetics. As such, our African-origin story has undergone many updates and revisions since 1871. Today, it has splintered into two theories: the "out of Africa" theory and the "multi-regional" theory.

The out of Africa theory suggests that the cradle of all humanity was Africa. Homo sapiens evolved exclusively and recently on that continent. At some point in prehistory, our ancestors migrated from Africa to Eurasia and replaced other subspecies of the genus Homo, such as Neanderthals. This is the dominant theory among scientists, and current evidence seems to support it best — though, say that in some circles and be prepared for a late-night debate that goes well past last call.

The multi-regional theory suggests that humans evolved in parallel across various regions. According to this model, the hominins Homo erectus left Africa to settle across Eurasia and (maybe) Australia. These disparate populations eventually evolved into modern humans thanks to a helping dollop of gene flow.

Of course, there are the broad strokes of very nuanced models, and we're leaving a lot of discussion out. There is, for example, a debate as to whether African Homo erectus fossils should be considered alongside Asian ones or should be labeled as a different subspecies, Homo ergaster.

Proponents of the out-of-Africa model aren't sure whether non-African humans descended from a single migration out of Africa or at least two major waves of migration followed by a lot of interbreeding.

Did we head east or south of Eden?

Not all anthropologists agree with Begun and his team's conclusions. As noted by New Scientist, it is possible that the Nikiti ape is not related to hominins at all. It may have evolved similar features independently, developing teeth to eat similar foods or chew in a similar manner as early hominins.

Ultimately, Nikiti ape alone doesn't offer enough evidence to upend the out of Africa model, which is supported by a more robust fossil record and DNA evidence. But additional evidence may be uncovered to lend further credence to Begun's hypothesis or lead us to yet unconsidered ideas about humanity's evolution.