There’s a category of person in your life who doesn’t have a category. The woman who works the counter at the coffee place. The neighbor two doors down whose dog you know better than her name. The guy who checks your badge at the front desk every single morning and says something about the weather.
There is no good word for what these people are to you. Friend overstates it. Stranger understates it. Most of them occupy a slot with no name, which is part of why they never come up.
Before Gillian Sandstrom was a psychologist she was a computer scientist, and when she started a psychology PhD in Toronto she was a decade older than her classmates and felt completely out of place. What changed that, she told NPR, was a woman working a hot dog stand she passed on her walk to campus.
She never bought a hot dog. They smiled and waved. And on the days the woman was not there, Sandstrom noticed she felt off, in a way that seemed disproportionate to a relationship that consisted entirely of waving.
So she designed a study to find out whether that was just her.
Most of the people you talk to in a day are not people you know well
The method was almost comically low tech. Participants got two handheld clickers. One was for close relationships: family, good friends, the people who would show up at a hospital. The other was for everyone else. Acquaintances, coworkers they did not know well, service workers, near-strangers.
Every time they spoke to someone, they clicked. Then at the end of the day they reported how they felt.
The first thing this produced was a headcount, and the headcount is the part most people find surprising. In one sample of adults over 25, the average day contained 6.7 conversations with close ties and 11.4 with everyone else.
That research was published in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin in 2014 by Sandstrom and Elizabeth Dunn at the University of British Columbia, and the ratio held across their samples.
Roughly 60 percent of a person’s daily social contact is with people they are not close to.
Which means the interactions almost nobody thinks about are the majority of the interactions almost everybody has. We build our entire mental model of our social life around the smaller half.
People were happier on the days they had more of these conversations than usual
The clicker studies were only part of it. A separate study followed 242 undergraduates through a semester, texting them at intervals to ask how they were doing and how many classmates they had talked to.
The comparison that mattered happened inside each individual person.
Ask whether chatty people are happier than quiet people and you learn almost nothing, because all you have discovered is that extroverts exist. Ask whether one specific student was happier on Tuesday, when she talked to six classmates, than on Wednesday, when she talked to one, and now you have something.
She was. Students reported more happiness and more sense of belonging on the days they had more of these interactions than they typically did.
The same pattern showed up when the researchers widened the lens to all daily interactions, with both close ties and distant ones. More conversations with peripheral people, better day.
And there was a detail buried in the analysis that changes how you read the whole thing: the effect of these interactions was strongest on days when people had fewer conversations with their close ties than usual.
The acquaintances were not competing with the close relationships. They were covering for them.
Which tracks with how life actually goes. Your best friend is not available on a Tuesday afternoon in March. The barista is.
More Bolde Stories
When people were told to actually talk to their barista, they walked out feeling better
Everything above is correlational, and correlational findings have an obvious problem. Maybe happy people talk to more strangers. Maybe the arrow runs backward.
So the same two researchers ran an experiment. People about to buy coffee were randomly assigned to one of two instructions. One group was told to be as efficient as possible: have your money ready, avoid unnecessary conversation, get in and out. The other group was told to make it a real interaction. Smile. Make eye contact. Say something.
Same coffee. Same shop. Same amount of time, more or less.
The people assigned to the genuine interaction reported more positive emotion afterward than the people assigned to efficiency, and the analysis suggested the reason was a boost in feeling like they belonged somewhere.
That study ran in Social Psychological and Personality Science in 2014. It is a single experiment with a modest sample, and it should be read as one piece of evidence rather than proof of anything. But it points the arrow in a specific direction, which the diary studies alone could not do.
What is worth considering is the framing of the efficient condition. Money ready, no unnecessary conversation, get in and out. Read that back and notice how closely it describes your last twenty coffee orders. The control condition in this experiment is the way most people move through an entire day.
The benefit did not skip introverts, and on one measure it was strongest for them
This is where most people expect the finding to fall apart, and it does not.
The obvious objection is that this is extrovert research. That talking to a stranger costs an introvert something it does not cost anyone else, and any average benefit is just extroverts pulling the number up.
The analyses controlled for personality throughout. And when researchers reviewing this literature summarized the moderation results, they found something pointed in the opposite direction from the objection: the effect on belonging was particularly strong for people low in extraversion, which suggests that group may have the most to gain rather than the least.
There is a reasonable explanation for why. These interactions are cheap. They are short, they are bounded, they have a built-in ending, and they do not require you to be interesting. Nobody at the dry cleaner needs you to be vulnerable. The whole exchange is over in ninety seconds and no one is owed a follow-up text.
For a person who finds the emotional labor of deep socializing genuinely expensive, a form of connection with almost no overhead might be the only kind they can afford to repeat every single day.
Sandstrom did not grow up enjoying this, for what it is worth. She told NPR she does it constantly now, and that it gets easier with practice.
Commuters predicted the exact opposite of what actually happened to them
The strangest evidence here comes from a different lab, and it is about how badly people forecast their own experience.
Nicholas Epley and Juliana Schroeder at the University of Chicago recruited commuters boarding morning trains at the Homewood, Illinois, Metra station. Riders were randomly assigned to strike up a conversation with a stranger, to sit deliberately in solitude, or to commute normally. They filled out a survey at the end of the ride and mailed it back.
The people who talked reported the most positive commute of the three groups, and rated their commute no less productive than the people who sat quietly.
Then the researchers asked a separate batch of commuters from the same station to predict how each condition would feel. Those commuters predicted the reverse, and not by a little. They expected the conversation to be both the least pleasant and the least productive option available.
People usually mispredict how much they will enjoy something. These commuters mispredicted whether they would.
A follow-up survey explains part of why. Commuters guessed that fewer than half the people around them would be willing to talk at all. In practice, among everyone who returned a survey, not a single person reported being turned down. The people who could not complete the task could not do it because nobody sat next to them.
The perceived risk of rejection was close to 50 percent. The observed risk was zero.
And the personality question came up here too, with the same answer. The benefit held after controlling for the Big Five, and the researchers found no consistent evidence that personality type moderated the actual experience in any of their field experiments. Their own summary is blunt about it: existing personality looked like an unlikely moderator. Introverts and extroverts alike enjoyed the conversation more than the silence. What differed was who expected to.
More Bolde Stories
None of this means acquaintances can do what close relationships do
They do not, and the research does not claim they do.
Across these studies, interactions with close ties consistently predicted well-being at least as strongly as anything else measured, and often more. Nobody is suggesting the guy at the deli substitutes for a person who knows your history.
The findings also come with real limits. The samples are small: 242 undergraduates in one study, 53 adults and 58 first-year students in the clicker studies, roughly a hundred commuters per condition in the train experiments. And in the adult sample specifically, the pattern was uneven. More conversations with acquaintances predicted a stronger sense of belonging but only weakly predicted happiness, with the clearer happiness effect showing up among first-year students who were building a social world from scratch.
So the real version of the headline is narrower than the headline. The belonging effect is robust across groups. The happiness effect is real but softer, and appears to matter most for people who are new somewhere.
Still, the practical implication survives all of that shrinkage, because the cost of acting on it is close to nothing.
You are going to buy the coffee anyway. You are going to walk past the neighbor anyway. You are going to stand next to someone at the bus stop anyway. The interaction is happening either way. What changes is whether you treat the person as a person or as a vending machine that happens to have a face.
The research suggests you are systematically wrong about which of those you would prefer, and that you have been wrong for long enough that you stopped checking.
The woman at the hot dog stand never knew she was doing anything. She waved at somebody walking by.
