Boring conversation

(Prostock-studio/Shutterstock)

In A Nutshell

  • People consistently underestimate how much they’ll enjoy conversations about topics they find boring, according to nine experiments with 1,800 participants.
  • Before a conversation, people fixate on the topic as a predictor of enjoyment, but the real driver is the mental engagement that comes from actually talking to someone.
  • The underestimation held up across Zoom and in-person settings, between friends and strangers, and even when both participants found the topic boring.
  • Researchers say this miscalibration may be causing people to avoid social interactions they would genuinely enjoy, with potential consequences for well-being.

We’ve all been trapped in a boring conversation at some point. A coworker at a holiday party rambling about their home composting system, or a neighbor monologuing about local parking regulations. The instinct is to find the nearest exit. But a recent research program finds that gut reaction is often wrong, and that those dreaded conversations about dull topics end up being far more enjoyable than anyone expects.

A series of nine experiments involving 1,800 participants found that people consistently underestimated how much they would enjoy conversations about topics they considered boring. The gap between what people predicted and what they actually experienced was large and persistent, showing up whether the conversations happened over Zoom or face-to-face, between close friends or total strangers, and even when both people thought the topic was a snooze.

The findings, published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, point to a predictable pattern of error in how people forecast social experiences. When people picture a future conversation, they fixate on the topic, the one thing they can evaluate ahead of time. What they fail to account for is the experience of actually talking to another human being, which turns out to be often more engaging than expected, even when the topic seems dull. That miscalculation, the researchers argue, may be causing people to dodge social interactions they would genuinely enjoy, which could have real consequences for connection and well-being.

Why We Misjudge Boring Conversations Before They Start

Before a conversation begins, the topic is the most obvious thing to evaluate. It’s concrete, it’s knowable, and people have strong opinions about whether something sounds interesting. In a preliminary study of 102 participants, roughly half cited the topic as the most important factor in whether a conversation would be interesting or boring.

But a topic is what the researchers call a “static” element. It’s fixed before anyone opens their mouth. What people miss are the “dynamic” elements: the back-and-forth of listening and responding, the need to pay attention, the spontaneous exchange of ideas and emotions. These only emerge once a conversation is underway, making them nearly impossible to predict in advance. And those dynamic elements are what actually drive enjoyment.

In the first experiment, 100 participants at a university lab in France rated their interest in 10 conversation topics. They were then paired so that one person found the assigned topic very interesting while the other found it not interesting at all. Before a five-minute Zoom conversation, each person predicted how interesting and enjoyable it would be. Afterward, they reported their actual experience. Participants who found the topic boring dramatically underestimated how much they would enjoy it. Those who found the topic interesting made predictions that closely matched reality.

A second experiment with 190 participants tested whether the effect depended on having an enthusiastic partner. Pairs were set up where both people found the topic boring, and the underestimation persisted. Even when neither person cared about the subject, the conversation was still more enjoyable than either had predicted.

Language, communication, or conversation concept
Dreading a dull conversation? Science says you’re probably wrong about how bad it’ll be, and why that matters for your well-being. (© sommart – stock.adobe.com)

Friends Are No Better at Predicting Boring Conversations

A third experiment recruited 326 participants from a large Midwestern university, pairing both friends and strangers for in-person conversations. Both groups underestimated their enjoyment of boring-topic conversations equally. Friends expected to enjoy their conversations more beforehand, but after talking, both groups reported similar satisfaction. Relationship closeness, like the topic itself, shaped expectations far more than it shaped actual experience.

The Real Reason Boring Conversations Surprise Us

A fourth experiment, conducted with 300 mostly working adults in Singapore, tested the mechanism the researchers believed was responsible: the mental engagement that comes from actively participating in a conversation. Participants were assigned to either have a live five-minute Zoom conversation, read a word-for-word transcript of one, or watch a video recording of one. All three groups saw identical content; only their level of active involvement differed.

The gap between predicted and actual enjoyment appeared only in the live conversation group. Before talking, predictions were driven by the topic. Actual experience appeared to be driven in part by engagement level. When people had to listen, think, and respond in real time, boring topics became far more absorbing than expected. Passive consumption of the same content produced no such gap.

A fifth experiment confirmed that the drift of topics during conversation wasn’t responsible either. Even when participants were instructed to stay strictly on the assigned boring topic, they still enjoyed it more than they’d anticipated. Engagement, not topic evolution, was the primary driver.

These results reach beyond awkward party chatter. If people consistently overestimate how painful a boring conversation will be, they’re likely avoiding interactions that would genuinely benefit them. Prior research has linked social disconnection to diminished mental health and unhappiness, making this miscalibration potentially consequential, though the study did not directly measure real-world avoidance.

Conversations about interesting topics still rated higher overall, but the core finding holds: people lean on the one thing they can assess beforehand, the subject matter, and miss the pull of actual human engagement. Talking with someone, it turns out, is its own reward, even when the subject is composting.


Paper Notes

Limitations

The study has several design considerations worth noting. Many of the experiments used short conversations of two to five minutes, which may not capture how people feel during longer exchanges. Several experiments were conducted via Zoom rather than in person, though the field study in Experiment 3 used face-to-face interactions and found consistent results. Participant pools drew from specific populations, including university students in France, working adults in Singapore, and students at a large Midwestern U.S. university, which may limit how broadly the findings apply across cultures and demographics. While the researchers tested engagement as a mechanism, conversations involve many interacting factors, and other unmeasured elements could also contribute to the prediction-experience gap.

Funding and Disclosures

The authors reported no known conflicts of interest. Nadav Klein played a lead role in funding acquisition, though specific funding sources or grant numbers were not detailed in the available content.

Publication Details

Title: Conversations About Boring Topics Are More Interesting Than We Think | Authors: Elizabeth N. Trinh (Ross School of Business, University of Michigan), Nicole Thio (School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell University), and Nadav Klein (INSEAD, Fontainebleau, France). Trinh and Thio contributed equally to the work. | Journal: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: Interpersonal Relations and Group Processes | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000521 | Publisher: American Psychological Association, ©2026 | Preregistrations: All nine experiments were preregistered. Data, analysis code (in R), and research materials are available at the Open Science Framework.

About StudyFinds Analysis

Called "brilliant," "fantastic," and "spot on" by scientists and researchers, our acclaimed StudyFinds Analysis articles are created using an exclusive AI-based model with complete human oversight by the StudyFinds Editorial Team. For these articles, we use an unparalleled LLM process across multiple systems to analyze entire journal papers, extract data, and create accurate, accessible content. Our writing and editing team proofreads and polishes each and every article before publishing. With recent studies showing that artificial intelligence can interpret scientific research as well as (or even better) than field experts and specialists, StudyFinds was among the earliest to adopt and test this technology before approving its widespread use on our site. We stand by our practice and continuously update our processes to ensure the very highest level of accuracy. Read our AI Policy (link below) for more information.

Our Editorial Process

StudyFinds publishes digestible, agenda-free, transparent research summaries that are intended to inform the reader as well as stir civil, educated debate. We do not agree nor disagree with any of the studies we post, rather, we encourage our readers to debate the veracity of the findings themselves. All articles published on StudyFinds are vetted by our editors prior to publication and include links back to the source or corresponding journal article, if possible.

Our Editorial Team

Steve Fink

Editor-in-Chief

John Anderer

Associate Editor

Leave a Comment