Clicking is one of the most robust metaphors for social connection. But how do we know when two people "click"? We asked pairs of friends and strangers to talk with each other and rate their felt connection. For both friends and strangers, speed in response was a robust predictor of feeling connected. Conversations with faster response times felt more connected than conversations with slower response times, and within conversations, connected moments had faster response times than less-connected moments. This effect was determined primarily by partner responsivity: People felt more connected to the degree that their partner responded quickly to them rather than by how quickly they responded to their partner. The temporal scale of these effects (<250 ms) precludes conscious control, thus providing an honest signal of connection. Using a round-robin design in each of six closed networks, we show that faster responders evoked greater feelings of connection across partners. Finally, we demonstrate that this signal is used by third-party listeners as a heuristic of how well people are connected: Conversations with faster response times were perceived as more connected than the same conversations with slower response times. Together, these findings suggest that response times comprise a robust and sufficient signal of whether two minds “click.”

When people feel connected they tend to respond quickly in conversation, creating short gaps between turns. But are long gaps always a sign that things have gone awry? We analysed the frequency and impact of long gaps (greater than 2 s) in conversations between strangers and between friends. As predicted, long gaps signalled disconnection between strangers. However, long gaps between friends marked moments of increased connection and friends tended to have more of them. These differences in connection were also perceived by independent raters: only the long gaps between strangers were rated as awkward, and increasingly so the longer they lasted. Finally, we show that, compared to strangers, long gaps between friends include more genuine laughter and are less likely to precede a topic change. This suggests that the gaps of friends may not function as ‘gaps’ at all, but instead allow space for enjoyment and mutual reflection. Together, these findings suggest that the turn-taking dynamics of friends are meaningfully different from those of strangers and may be less bound by social conventions. More broadly, this work illustrates that samples of convenience—pairs of strangers being the modal paradigm for interaction research—may not capture the social dynamics of more familiar relationships. This article is part of a discussion meeting issue ‘Face2face: advancing the science of social interaction’.

Leaf material and seedlings of species representing all gymnosperm orders were tested for 1‐aminocyclopropane‐1‐carboxylate (ACC) oxidase activity. Seedlings of Pinus nigra, Pinus radiata, Pseudotsuga menziesii, Cupressocyparis leylandii, Ephedra major and E. nevadensis showed high level in vitro ACC oxidase activity. The enzyme from seedlings of Pinus nigra var. nigra (Arnold) was shown to resemble the angiosperm enzyme in a requirement for ascorbate, carbon dioxide and Fe(II). In contrast, seedlings of Ginkgo biloba, Dioon edule, Zamia furfuraceae and Cycas revoluta showed no detectable ACC oxidase activity. Leaf material from species representing all orders of gymnosperms was also tested for ACC oxidase activity in vitro, but none could be demonstrated. The results presented here support an origin of ACC oxidase in a common ancestor of the angiosperms, Gnetales and Coniferales.

No abstract

No abstract