Argument disrupts interpersonal synchrony

Abstract

Research on interpersonal convergence and synchrony characterizes the way in which interacting individuals come to have more similar affect, behaviour, and cognition over time. Although its dynamics have been explored in many settings, convergence during conflict has been almost entirely overlooked. We present a simple but ecologically valid study comparing how different situational contexts that highlight affiliation and argument impact interpersonal convergence of body movement and to what degree emotional states affect convergence in both conversational settings. Using linear mixed-effect models, we found that in-phase bodily synchrony decreases significantly during argument. However, affective changes did not significantly predict changes in levels of interpersonal synchrony, suggesting that differences in affect valences between affiliation and argument cannot solely explain our results.

Complexity matching in dyadic conversation.

“…As mentioned above, herein we found no evidence o f complexity matching in argumentative conversations, yet there was more behavioral matching compared with affiliative conversations, as measured by peak negative cross correlations. Consistent with this difference, analyses o f move ment dynamics also found no behavioral matching during argu mentative conversations (Paxton & Dale, 2013). In the future we plan to work on complexity matching analyses that may be applied to both movement and speech dynamics, in order to investigate whether multimodal coordination may further illuminate the cou pling of interlocutors during affiliative conversations, and lack thereof during argumentative conversations.…”

Rhythm in joint action: psychological and neurophysiological mechanisms for real-time interpersonal coordination

“…Social orientation and motivation are malleable and affect coordination. Relevant studies have found that interacting with a late-arriving partner reduced stepping synchronization, compared with interacting with a partner who arrived on time [119], and bodily synchrony decreased during arguments compared with affiliative conversations [120].…”

Phonetic convergence across multiple measures and model talkers

“…Table 1 presents an analysis of methods employed in nearly three dozen published studies that have used shadowing or exposure tasks to assess phonetic convergence. Due to dramatic differences in purposes and methodologies that warrant a separate analysis, the table does not include studies that have examined convergence during conversational interaction (e.g., Abney, Paxton, Dale, & Kello, 2014;Aguilar et al, 2016;Dias & Rosenblum, 2011;Fusaroli & Tylén, 2016;Heldner, Edlund, & Hirschberg, 2010;Kim, Horton, & Bradlow, 2011;Levitan, Benus, Gravano, & Hirschberg, 2015;Levitan & Hirschberg, 2011;Louwerse, Dale, Bard, & Jeuniaux, 2012;Pardo, 2006;Pardo, Cajori Jay, et al, 2013;Pardo, Cajori Jay, & Krauss, 2010;Paxton & Dale, 2013) and under conditions related to longer-term exposure to other talkers, to second language training, or to different linguistic environments (e.g., Chang, 2012;Evans & Iverson, 2007;Harrington, 2006;Harrington, Palethorpe, & Watson, 2000;Pardo, Gibbons, Suppes, & Krauss, 2012;Sancier & Fowler, 1997). Arguably, laboratory speech-shadowing tasks provide a favorable context to elicit phonetic convergence and assess its basic properties (i.e., without interference from conversational goals).…”