Actors conform, observers react: The effects of behavioral synchrony on conformity.

Dong, Peng; Dai, Xianchi; Wyer, Robert S.

doi:10.1037/pspi0000001

Cited by 42 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 62 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The finding that increases in group cohesion do not mediate these effects supports the work of Dong et al (2015), Lumsden et al (2014), and Reddish et al (2014). However, it did not support the work of Reddish et al (2013), Wiltermuth and Heath (2009), and Wiltermuth (2012), which found that cohesion partially mediates the relationship between CRM and its social consequences.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

“…Group cohesion is the feeling of being on the same team and being emotionally connected with other group members. Wiltermuth and Heath (2009), Wiltermuth (2012) found that levels of post-task group cohesion were related to the social effects of coordination, though others (e.g., Reddish et al, 2013; Lumsden et al, 2014; Dong et al, 2015) found no such relationship. The discrepancy in results may be, at least, partially explained by differences in how group cohesion was conceptualized and measured.…”

Section: Direct Vs Indirect Effect (D+ Vs D−)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Reddish et al (2013) grouped emotional connection, trust and self/other overlap (the extent of self-rated overlap between oneself and others) into a single construct, which was termed group cohesion, after factor analysis suggested they all tap a similar construct. Wiltermuth (2012), on the other hand, measured group integrators only (i.e., perceived closeness, connectedness and similarity to the group) and labeled the construct emotional connection (see also Wiltermuth and Heath, 2009; Lumsden et al, 2014; Dong et al, 2015). …”

Section: Direct Vs Indirect Effect (D+ Vs D−)mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

How Moving Together Brings Us Together: When Coordinated Rhythmic Movement Affects Cooperation

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although it is well established that rhythmically coordinating with a social partner can increase cooperation, it is as yet unclear when and why intentional coordination has such effects. We distinguish three dimensions along which explanations might vary. First, pro-social effects might require in-phase synchrony or simply coordination. Second, the effects of rhythmic movements on cooperation might be direct or mediated by an intervening variable. Third, the pro-social effects might occur in proportion to the quality of the coordination, or occur once some threshold amount of coordination has occurred. We report an experiment and two follow-ups which sought to identify which classes of models are required to account for the positive effects of coordinated rhythmic movement on cooperation. Across the studies, we found evidence (1) that coordination, and not just synchrony, can have pro-social consequences (so long as the social nature of the task is perceived), (2) that the effects of intentional coordination are direct, not mediated, and (3) that the degree of the coordination did not predict the degree of cooperation. The fact of inter-personal coordination (moving together in time and in a social context) is all that's required for pro-social effects. We suggest that future research should use the kind of carefully controllable experimental task used here to continue to develop explanations for when and why coordination affects pro-social behaviors.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

Section: Direct Vs Indirect Effect (D+ Vs D−)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Direct Vs Indirect Effect (D+ Vs D−)mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

How Moving Together Brings Us Together: When Coordinated Rhythmic Movement Affects Cooperation

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This tendency towards entraining to another person’s movements provides a form of ‘social glue’ that enables groups to work together more effectively. People who move together in time, are more likely to remember [25,26] and like each other [27,28], experience feelings of togetherness and similarity [29], cooperate more effectively [30] and are more likely to conform to each other's behavior [31]. …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Joint action aesthetics

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Synchronized movement is a ubiquitous feature of dance and music performance. Much research into the evolutionary origins of these cultural practices has focused on why humans perform rather than watch or listen to dance and music. In this study, we show that movement synchrony among a group of performers predicts the aesthetic appreciation of live dance performances. We developed a choreography that continuously manipulated group synchronization using a defined movement vocabulary based on arm swinging, walking and running. The choreography was performed live to four audiences, as we continuously tracked the performers’ movements, and the spectators’ affective responses. We computed dynamic synchrony among performers using cross recurrence analysis of data from wrist accelerometers, and implicit measures of arousal from spectators’ heart rates. Additionally, a subset of spectators provided continuous ratings of enjoyment and perceived synchrony using tablet computers. Granger causality analyses demonstrate predictive relationships between synchrony, enjoyment ratings and spectator arousal, if audiences form a collectively consistent positive or negative aesthetic evaluation. Controlling for the influence of overall movement acceleration and visual change, we show that dance communicates group coordination via coupled movement dynamics among a group of performers. Our findings are in line with an evolutionary function of dance–and perhaps all performing arts–in transmitting social signals between groups of people. Human movement is the common denominator of dance, music and theatre. Acknowledging the time-sensitive and immediate nature of the performer-spectator relationship, our study makes a significant step towards an aesthetics of joint actions in the performing arts.

show abstract

“…However, this is not the only starting point for such theorizing. Coming at the problem of cooperation from the perspective of prior work on postural mirroring (LaFrance, 1985), LaFrance (1990) offered a brief theoretical sketch that, while lacking ultimate explanations or phylogenetic accounts, nevertheless directly parallels Hagen et al's perspective on the informational value of synchrony in communicating cohesiveness to both in-group and out-group individuals.Although Hagen and Bryant's signaling paper has been highly cited in work exploring the psychology of synchrony, consonant with McNeill's initial focus, to date, much of this literature has focused not on outwardly signaling coalitional quality in the service of intimidating rivals and attracting allies, but rather on the subjective and behavioral consequences of participation in synchrony, particularly as they pertain to issues of conformity, cohesion, bonding, solidarity, prosociality, and cooperation (see, for example, Wiltermuth & Heath, 2009;Hove & Risen, 2009;Cohen et al, 2010;Kirschner & Tomasello, 2010;Valdesolo et al, 2010;Kokal et al, 2011;Valdesolo & DeSteno, 2011;Wiltermuth, 2012b;Wiltermuth, 2012a;Fischer et al, 2013;Launay et al, 2013;Reddish et al, 2013a;Reddish et al, 2013b; Kirschner & Ilari, 4 2014;Cirelli et al, 2014a;Cirelli et al, 2014b;Fessler & Holbrook, 2014;Lumsden et al, 2014;Sullivan et al, 2014;Dong et al, 2015;Rabinowitch & Knafo-Noam, 2015;Sullivan et al, 2015;Tarr et al, 2015;Zimmermann & Richardson, 2015; Tarr et al, in press; see also Weinstein et al, 2016). In contrast, the question of the interpretation of signals by non-participants has received less attention in this body of work (see Dong et al, 2015, as well as Lumsden et al, 2012, for exceptions).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Synchronized behavior increases assessments of the formidability and cohesion of coalitions

Fessler

Holbrook

2016

Evolution and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Synchronized behavior is a common feature of martial drills and military parades in many societies. Hagen and colleagues Hagen & Hammerstein, 2009) hypothesized that the intentional enactment of synchronized behavior evolved as a means of signaling coalitional strength, as individuals who can synchronize are able to act in concert in agonistic contexts. Previous research has explored either the subjective consequences of synchrony for participants in synchronized behaviors or the effect of synchrony on observers' impressions of rapport among the synchronized actors. Critically, left untested is the central tenet that, by communicating that the individuals constitute a coordinated unit, synchronized behaviors signal elevated fighting capacity. We tested this prediction in two studies by asking large U.S. samples to judge the envisioned physical formidability -previously demonstrated to summarize assessments of diverse determinants of fighting capacity -of U.S. soldiers or terrorists on the basis of audio tracks of either synchronous or asynchronous footsteps.Consonant with the agonistic signaling hypothesis, participants judged the synchronized target individuals to be larger and more muscular than the unsynchronized individuals, an effect mediated by their assessment that the former collectively constitute a single unified entity.Although synchronized footsteps also enhanced listeners' perceptions of social bonding among the target individuals, this assessment did not mediate their judgments of elevated formidability, suggesting that synchrony primarily signals fighting capacity via revealed entitativity rather than inferred motivation.Keywords: synchrony; signaling; fighting capacity; entitativity; perceived coalitional quality 2 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Synchronized behavior: theory and prior research. Across widely diverse cultures, and among societies of very different scales, synchronized behavior is a prominent feature of rituals and collective displays. Over the last two decades a growing literature has explored the psychological effects of synchronized movement and synchronized sound production (reviewed in Keller et al., 2014). At an elementary level, the effects of synchrony can be dichotomized into two classes, namely the impact that synchrony has on participants in such activities, and the impact that it has on observers. In a seminal book, McNeill (1995) proposed that synchronized movement enhances social bonding among participants, and that, over the course of human history, this process has played a pivotal role in the rise of cooperation.Pushing the roots of synchrony even farther back in time, Hagen and colleagues Hagen & Hammerstein, 2009) argued that music and dance derive from phylogenetically ancient coordinated territorial defense signals; in humans, these signals were refined to communicate the size, cohesiveness, and capabilities of coalitions, as intentionally enacted synchronized behavior inherently requires both the ability and the motivation to effectively coordinate actions. In b...

show abstract

Actors conform, observers react: The effects of behavioral synchrony on conformity.

Cited by 42 publications

References 62 publications

How Moving Together Brings Us Together: When Coordinated Rhythmic Movement Affects Cooperation

How Moving Together Brings Us Together: When Coordinated Rhythmic Movement Affects Cooperation

Joint action aesthetics

Synchronized behavior increases assessments of the formidability and cohesion of coalitions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About