American Scientist

This interview is part of episode 3 of  Wired for This, American Scientist‘s podcast series exploring human behavior and neuroscience. The episode features Emma Levine and Shereen Chaudhry, behavioral scientists at the University of Chicago, talking about difficult conversations. The discussion with host Celia Ford has been edited for length and clarity. Link to the full podcast series on the American Scientist website.

What makes conversations difficult?

Levine (EL): Conversations that could cause distress—like giving negative feedback, delivering bad news, or educating children about hard topics—all of these involve fear they could cause emotional discomfort to the listener.

Chaudhry (SC): I focus on interpersonal relationships—specifically, conversations about conflicts like disputes with a spouse, friend, or colleague. I study how to navigate those, especially when you’re navigating trade-offs to your reputation. For example, how can you share your achievements without being perceived as a braggart or a jerk?

How we can break bad news while balancing honesty with compassion?

EL: Some of my best advice comes from the health care setting. We found that a lot of communicators believe that omission is more acceptable than false hope or other tactics. But recipients think the opposite—that omission is really dangerous. Being benevolently honest can require a lot more work and planning, but can sometimes be as simple as clearly stating your intentions: “I’m letting you know this because I think you can handle the news, and because I want you to understand where I’m coming from.” Then, you can proceed and make room for support and conversation.

What is one way to reduce conflict during difficult conversations?

SC: When you’re going into a difficult discussion with someone about something you think they did wrong, ask yourself whether you could have contributed to this in any way, or at least whether they could think you contributed to it in any way. If you can at least acknowledge that, then the conversation will go more smoothly. They’ll be less defensive and feel less motivation to correct the narrative about who’s wrong.

How might the nature of difficult conversations change when we’re online?

SC: Now that we have ChatGPT, it’s very easy to use it to smooth out our emails and text messages. The problem is that there are all these hidden social signals in our communications that we may not even be aware of, and they’re going to get muted. For example, when someone gives you feedback on a paper, they’ll say small things like, “I thought this was really great,” or “You should improve here.” But if you know that ChatGPT contributed to that email, it completely takes the value out of those things. These small, nice, connective gestures become less powerful.

How can we adapt our expectations for authentic conversations to an AI-integrated world?

EL: I have some optimism about AI. I think it will degrade the meaning of our online communication, but it might force us to be more reliant on nononline communication. I also think AI can offer low-stakes practice. One thing that makes conversations difficult is that you’re inherently uncertain: You don’t know if someone will blame you back or get upset. You’re not prepared for all of the different turns a conversation could take, which leads you to avoid them. AI allows you to navigate some of this uncertainty in practice. I think that’s great, because often we don’t engage in any of this stuff. We don’t know how conversations will go, and we never get feedback to learn how they could have gone better.

SC: A lot of the assignments in my negotiation course involve writing. I’ve found myself preferring some of the essays that seem less polished, because they’re not AI-generated. Could it be that we start to prefer things that seem less polished, or are more individualized, because we’re looking for authenticity? I also wonder whether that will depend on the domain. Certainly you want to be clear when it comes to your professional life, but maybe we’ll look for more idiosyncrasies in personal communication.

What can we do if we think someone is manipulating or lying to us?

EL: It really depends on what your goals are. Are you willing to walk away from this interaction, or are you trying to salvage it? If you really think someone is lying and don’t want to have a relationship with them, you should feel free to confront them and be prepared to walk away. If you’re not prepared to walk away, but hope they get the message, you usually have to give them an out: a relatively non-damaging way that they can interpret what you’re saying. For example, you might want to attribute their actions to incompetence rather than immorality. This gives them the time to think, “Oh yes, I can say that this was my mistake.”