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

Abstract

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.

I’ll just watch: Do the pro-social effects of coordination really generalize to non-actors?

“…This explanation is supported by the fact that no differences in generalized pro-sociality were found between asynchronous and synchronous movement conditions in Reddish et al (2014). This further highlights the need to employ control tasks that carefully match experimental tasks in every element bar the actual coordination (as suggested by Cross et al, 2016;Tarr, Slater, & Cohen, 2018).…”

“…However, other work has failed to replicate these findings. Coordination showed no effect on cohesion despite positive changes in cooperation (Cross et al, 2016;Fessler & Holbrook, 2014Lang et al, 2017;Reddish et al, 2013), and while imagined coordination showed an effect on cohesion, this did not translate to greater cooperation (Cross, Atherton, Wilson, & Golonka, 2017). It is therefore unclear whether and how group cohesion is involved in mediating the effect of coordination on cooperation.…”

“…Hove (2008) initially suggested that it was involved in the pro-social effects of CRM. However, several studies using the IOS have not found any evidence supporting the mediating role of self-other overlap in CRM's effects on cooperation (Cross et al, 2016;Fessler & Holbrook, 2014;Lang et al, 2017;Reddish, Fischer, & Bulbulia, 2013;Tarr, Launay, & Dunbar, 2016). The only studies finding effects on self-other overlap are those that combine it with measures of group cohesion (i.e.…”

Beyond Dyadic Coordination: Multimodal Behavioral Irregularity in Triads Predicts Facets of Collaborative Problem Solving

“…Whether team members are aware of it or not, interpersonal coordinative patterns have a number of implications for collaboration facets and task performance. Interpersonal coordination provides the social glue that holds a team together (von Zimmermann & Richardson, 2016), facilitating greater perceived rapport, liking, feelings of interpersonal connectedness, prosocial behavior, and cooperation (Cross, Wilson, & Golonka, 2016;Lakens & Stel, 2011;Reddish, Fischer, & Bulbulia, 2013;Valdesolo & DeSteno, 2011;Valdesolo, Ouyang, & DeSteno, 2010). Interpersonal coordination is also associated with enhanced task performance, reflecting a process through which team members interact to share knowledge, reach a mutual understanding, and complete the task-at-hand (Gorman, Amazeen, & Cooke, 2010;Miles, Lumsden, Flannigan, Allsop, & Marie, 2017;Richardson & Dale, 2005;Wiltshire, Butner, & Fiore, 2018;Wiltshire, Steffensen, & Fiore, 2019).…”

Musik: Von der Koordination zur Kooperation

“…Mittlerweile liegt eine ganze Reihe von Studien zu den Auswirkungen von synchronem Handeln vor (2,8,10,14) Eine Metaanalyse von 60 Experimenten ergab einen Effekt von 49% mehr prosozialer Einstellung und 45% mehr prosozialem Handeln (12).…”