Prosocial Consequences of Interpersonal Synchrony

Abstract

The capacity to establish interpersonal synchrony is fundamental to human beings because it constitutes the basis for social connection and understanding. Interpersonal synchrony refers to instances when the movements or sensations of two or more people overlap in time and form. Recently, the causal influence of interpersonal synchrony on prosociality has been established through experiments. The current meta-analysis is the first to synthesize these isolated and sometimes contradictory experiments. We meta-analyzed 60 published and unpublished experiments that compared an interpersonal synchrony condition with at least one control condition. The results reveal a medium effect of interpersonal synchrony on prosociality with regard to both attitudes and behaviors. Furthermore, experimenter effects and intentionality moderate these effects. We discuss the strengths and limitations of our analysis, as well as its practical implications, and we suggest avenues for future research.

Editorial: The Evolution of Rhythm Cognition: Timing in Music and Speech

“…Common foci are the relationship between synchronization and prosociality (Gebauer et al, 2016; Reddish et al, 2016; Rennung and Göritz, 2016; Tunçgenç and Cohen, 2016; Cirelli et al, 2017), and different forms of rhythmic behaviors in interaction (Large and Gray, 2015; Ravignani, 2015; Yu and Tomonaga, 2015; Ellamil et al, 2016; Gebauer et al, 2016; Greenfield et al, 2016; Moore et al, 2016; Schirmer et al, 2016; Wallot et al, 2016; Murphy and Schul, 2017). …”

The virtues of collective gatherings: A study on the positive effects of a major scouting event

“…A recent meta‐analytical review of this literature revealed that inducing interpersonal synchronization (i.e., motor movements (active or passive) or synchronized sensory stimulation) among participants positively affects them with regard to cooperation, prosocial orientation, positive affects, or to their feeling of fusion in the group (for a review, see Rennung & Göritz, ). In addition, it was found that interpersonal synchronization also entails positive effects for participants, such as increased pain tolerance, (Cohen, Ejsmond‐Frey, Knight, & Dunbar, ; Sullivan & Rickers, ; Sullivan, Rickers, & Gammage, ), enhanced self‐esteem (Lumsden, Miles, & McCrae, ), or reduction in work stress (Rennung & Göritz, ). This therefore raised the question as to what could be shared between collective gatherings and interpersonal synchronization to produce the same outcomes.…”

“…In summary, studies on synchronization, be it during collective gatherings or using interpersonal experimental settings, point to the positive effect of synchronization on social integration (i.e., feeling of fusion with the group, ease of social interaction, mutual attraction, liking, closeness, collective identity), empowerment (i.e., self‐esteem, personal and collective effectiveness, openness to others and to experience), and adherence to shared beliefs (i.e., concerns evoked by the organization of a rally). Since the publication of Páez et al’s research (), there have been numerous other studies that have further shown the relevance of the neo‐Durkheimian model of collective processes in the study of collective gatherings (see e.g., Carnes & Lickel, ; Pelletier, ; Rennung & Görtiz, ; Van Kleef & Fischer, ; Wlodarczyk et al, ; Zumeta, Basabe, Wlodarczyk, Bobowik, & Páez, ; Zumeta, Oriol, Telletxea, Amutio, & Basabe, ). The body of knowledge about the effects of collective gatherings is rapidly growing and Durkheim's seminal ideas are gaining increasing empirical support.…”

The Evolution of Rhythm Cognition: Timing in Music and Speech

“…The relationship between rhythm and sociality has seen a steady increase in research and has probably been the most investigated topic over the last 2 years (Large and Gray, 2015;Yu and Tomonaga, 2015;Ellamil et al, 2016;Gebauer et al, 2016;Greenfield et al, 2016;Moore et al, 2016;Reddish et al, 2016;Rennung and Göritz, 2016;Schirmer et al, 2016;Tunçgenç and Cohen, 2016;Wallot et al, 2016;Bishop and Goebl, 2017;Chang et al, 2017;Cirelli et al, 2017;Hannon et al, 2017;Knight et al, 2017;Mogan et al, 2017;Murphy and Schul, 2017;Rorato et al, 2017;Myers et al). Common foci are the relationship between synchronization and prosociality (Gebauer et al, 2016;Reddish et al, 2016;Rennung and Göritz, 2016;Tunçgenç and Cohen, 2016;Cirelli et al, 2017), and different forms of rhythmic behaviors in interaction (Large and Gray, 2015;Ravignani, 2015;Yu and Tomonaga, 2015;Ellamil et al, 2016;Gebauer et al, 2016;Greenfield et al, 2016;Moore et al, 2016;Schirmer et al, 2016;Wallot et al, 2016;Murphy and Schul, 2017).…”

“…Common foci are the relationship between synchronization and prosociality (Gebauer et al, 2016;Reddish et al, 2016;Rennung and Göritz, 2016;Tunçgenç and Cohen, 2016;Cirelli et al, 2017), and different forms of rhythmic behaviors in interaction (Large and Gray, 2015;Ravignani, 2015;Yu and Tomonaga, 2015;Ellamil et al, 2016;Gebauer et al, 2016;Greenfield et al, 2016;Moore et al, 2016;Schirmer et al, 2016;Wallot et al, 2016;Murphy and Schul, 2017).…”