You see them before they see you. A coworker, a neighbor, someone from your kid’s school, an acquaintance you really don’t know well (but know too well not to acknowledge) standing in front of the pasta sauce with a cart half full.
And without deciding anything, you’re suddenly very interested in aisle five. Yep, definitely, suddenly need cookie tins and a pound of flour.
It’s a small, slightly absurd maneuver, and almost everyone has done it, myself included.
What’s strange is how bad we feel about it afterward. The guilt assumes the dodge was a judgment: that we don’t like this person, that we’re antisocial, that something is wrong with us.
Psychology has not run a study on grocery store aisle-ducking specifically, and no research can tell you why you, personally, hid behind the cereal.
But the aisle is just the version with a shopping cart in it.
The same maneuver answers your phone. It’s the call from someone you genuinely love that you watch ring out on a Tuesday. It’s the five extra minutes in the driveway before you walk into your own house. The headphones at your desk with nothing playing in them. The “seen” text you’ll answer beautifully, later, when you’re a person again.
All of it runs on the same machinery: social interaction has a measurable cost that arrives on a delay.
Whether alone time restores you depends heavily on whether you chose it. And there’s a documented gap between how much people expect to enjoy an unplanned conversation and how much they actually do, which turns out to be the most interesting part of the story.
Being sociable feels good in the moment and sends the bill two to three hours later
The most direct evidence that socializing draws on a finite amount of energy, a social battery if you will, comes from experience-sampling research, where people report on their behavior and energy several times a day as they live their normal lives.
In a 12-day study by psychologists Sointu Leikas and Ville-Juhani Ilmarinen, being talkative and sociable was linked to better mood and less tiredness in the moment. The same behavior predicted higher fatigue about three hours later.
The sample was small, 48 people, which is a real limitation. But Leikas ran a second study to check the result, this time with 74 people and over a thousand observations, and the pattern held: sociable behavior predicted feeling tired two to three hours on.
Two details matter for anyone who has ever hidden behind a cereal display.
The fatigue showed up regardless of trait extraversion. The researchers found no evidence that introverts paid a higher price than extroverts, which means the account exists for everyone, not just the people who claim it does.
And the delay explains why the cost is so easy to deny. The conversation itself feels fine, even pleasant. The withdrawal doesn’t clear until later.
It’s why you can leave a party you genuinely enjoyed and sit in the car feeling like someone let the air out of you. Why a wedding weekend with people you love requires a recovery day you can’t explain. Why a 40-minute errand sometimes takes something a 40-minute errand shouldn’t take.
You weren’t faking the enjoyment. The bill just hadn’t arrived yet.
The person who ducks the aisle isn’t necessarily avoiding an unpleasant experience. They may be declining a pleasant one they know they’ll pay for later.
Editor’s Pick: Psychology says these are the 9 moments in life when you should just keep your mouth shut (RuinMyWeek)
Solitude only restores you if you chose it, and a surprise encounter un-chooses it mid-use
There’s a second finding that gives the word “unbudgeted” its force, and it comes from research on the other side of the ledger: what being alone actually does to you.
In a series of studies, psychologist Thuy-vy Nguyen and her colleagues found that time alone reliably dials down high-arousal emotional states. They called it the deactivation effect.
But the most relevant result came when they looked at how people entered the solitude. When individuals actively chose to be alone, time by themselves produced relaxation and reduced stress. The same condition, imposed rather than chosen, didn’t carry the same benefit.
Now look at the strange little solitudes people defend hardest, and notice they’re all chosen ones.
The driveway sit: home, engine off, going nowhere, for five whole minutes. The shower that runs long past clean. The headphones with nothing in them, worn purely as a do-not-disturb sign. The errand itself: in public, but functionally alone, list in hand, half-thinking, running the one mental mode that gets the milk bought.
These aren’t wasted minutes. Per Nguyen’s work, they’re doing measurable regulatory work, and they’re doing it because you picked them.
The surprise encounter doesn’t just cost conversational energy. It revokes the “chosen” status of the solitude while you’re still inside it, and choice is a large part of what made the solitude restorative in the first place.
Seen that way, the duck down aisle five isn’t a rejection of the person. It’s a defense of the ledger. You’re not refusing to spend. You’re refusing to be spent without having signed anything.
More Bolde Stories
Psychologists say the #1 mistake grandparents make with their grandkids is the same one they made...
Too many Boomer parents relied on these 11 toxic behaviors that still hurt their relationships wi...
Psychology says people who do these 7 things alone without feeling lonely tend to be more secure ...
Psychology has a word for not getting enough time to yourself, and it predicts this move
In 2019, psychologist Robert Coplan and his colleagues at Carleton University named a construct they’d been circling for years: aloneliness, the mirror image of loneliness.
Loneliness is the distress of wanting more connection than you’re getting.
Aloneliness is the distress of wanting more solitude than you’re getting, and their research linked it to higher stress, more depressive symptoms, and more anger.
Their measure includes items like “It would be nice if I could spend more time alone each day.” If reading that sentence produced a small pang of recognition, the ducking probably needs no further explanation.
Because for a lot of people, the scraps are all that’s left. The job takes the day. The family takes the evening. The phone takes the gaps.
What remains is the commute, the shower, the driveway, and 40 minutes with a cart. And then someone is standing between you and the pasta sauce, warmly, innocently, about to take one of the last ones.
A person running low on money notices every unplanned expense. A person running low on solitude notices every unplanned conversation. Neither reaction says much about the merchant.
The conversation you dodged would probably have gone fine
To be fair to the people who never duck, the research on the other side is real, and it deserves its say.
In a well-known series of experiments, behavioral scientists Nicholas Epley and Juliana Schroeder asked commuters on trains and buses to either talk to a stranger, keep to themselves, or commute as normal.
People predicted solitude would be more pleasant. The opposite happened: those who connected reported a more positive experience than those who kept to themselves. Follow-up work with London commuters found the same thing.
So the dodge is not a good prediction of how the conversation would have gone. Once a conversation starts, it tends to run better than we forecast.
But notice what that research measures: the experience during the interaction. Leikas’s fatigue findings are about what happens hours after. Both can be true at once, and for most duckers, both usually are.
The chat would have been pleasant, and it would have cost something anyway.
That’s the detail that separates energy management from dislike. Dislike predicts the conversation will be bad. The dodger usually knows it won’t be. They’re declining a good experience they can’t currently fund, the way you can walk past a restaurant you love because it’s the 28th of the month.
Ducking can be a form of consideration, not a withdrawal of it
Here’s my reading of what actually happens in that split second by the pasta sauce, and it’s kinder than the guilt suggests.
The dodger runs a fast, mostly unconscious calculation: what version of me is available right now? And the answer comes back: the errand version. Distracted, budgeted to the minute, capable of producing pleasantries but not presence.
Offering that version to someone you genuinely like can feel worse than offering nothing. The conversation happens, but you’re performing attention rather than paying it, glancing at your list, giving answers a half-beat late. Most people can feel the difference between being talked to and being processed.
There’s no study to cite here, and I won’t pretend there is. But it squares with everything above. If interaction draws on a finite account, then rationing it isn’t hostility. It’s an attempt to make sure the people who get your attention get the funded version of it.
The ignored Tuesday call and the long, unhurried Sunday call to the same person are not contradictions. Neither are the dodged aisle and next month’s dinner.
They’re the same budget, managed.
More Bolde Stories
Budgeting social energy on purpose beats budgeting by ambush
If all of this describes you, there’s a practical upgrade available, because right now your budgeting is happening reactively, in split-second panics next to condiments.
The research above points to a few deliberate versions.
Schedule the solitude instead of stealing it. Nguyen’s findings hinge on choice: alone time you claim on purpose restores more than alone time you scavenge. Ten declared minutes in the driveway beat ten guilty ones.
Plan around the delay. Leikas’s two-to-three-hour lag means the cost of a social morning lands in your afternoon. On days you know are people-heavy, put the recovery on the calendar like it’s a meeting, because physiologically, it is.
Give the funded version on purpose. The Sunday call, the scheduled coffee, the dinner planned when you know you’ll have something to bring. People would rather have your full attention later than your processed half-attention now, and most of them can tell the difference anyway.
And with people who have standing in your life, consider the honest sentence over the disappearing act. “I’m completely fried today, catch me this weekend” costs one moment of mild exposure. The dodge costs a week of low-grade guilt. It’s rarely the cheaper option; it’s just the faster one.
When every aisle becomes a hiding place, energy stops being the explanation
There’s a line where all of this stops being energy management, and it’s worth knowing where it sits.
Dodging a coworker on a tired Tuesday is budgeting. Dodging everyone, everywhere, for months is a different pattern, and clinical psychology is fairly blunt about how it works: avoidance tends to feed the discomfort it protects against.
Every dodge delivers a small hit of relief, the relief reinforces the dodge, and the pool of people who feel manageable to encounter quietly shrinks. That loop is a core feature of social anxiety, and it doesn’t respond to more avoidance. It responds to the opposite, ideally with support.
The test isn’t whether you duck. Nearly everyone ducks.
The test is whether the ducking is a choice you make sometimes or a rule you can’t break. Whether you also, on funded days, stop and have the conversation. Whether the person in aisle five is someone you’ll happily see at dinner next month, or someone you’ve been avoiding across every context for a year.
If it’s the first, the guilt is misspent. You saw someone you like, checked the account, and made a decision a budget-keeper makes.
The pasta sauce aisle will host the reunion some other week, when the funds are in.
