Singing and social bonding: changes in connectivity and pain threshold as a function of group size

Abstract

Over our evolutionary history, humans have faced the problem of how to create and maintain social bonds in progressively larger groups compared to those of our primate ancestors. Evidence from historical and anthropological records suggests that group music-making might act as a mechanism by which this large-scale social bonding could occur. While previous research has shown effects of music making on social bonds in small group contexts, the question of whether this effect 'scales up' to larger groups is particularly important when considering the potential role of music for large-scale social bonding. The current study recruited individuals from a community choir that met in both small (n = 20 - 80) and large (a 'megachoir' combining individuals from the smaller subchoirs n = 232) group contexts. Participants gave self-report measures (via a survey) of social bonding and had pain threshold measurements taken (as a proxy for endorphin release) before and after 90 minutes of singing. Results showed that feelings of inclusion, connectivity, positive affect, and measures of endorphin release all increased across singing rehearsals and that the influence of group singing was comparable for pain thresholds in the large versus small group context. Levels of social closeness were found to be greater at pre- and post-levels for the small choir condition. However, the large choir condition experienced a greater change in social closeness as compared to the small condition. The finding that singing together fosters social closeness - even in large contexts where individuals are not known to each other - is consistent with evolutionary accounts that emphasize the role of music in social bonding, particularly in the context of creating larger cohesive groups than other primates are able to manage.

Social Brain Hypothesis: Vocal and Gesture Networks of Wild Chimpanzees

“…Synchronized low-intensity pant-hoots are an even more effective way than grooming or gestural communication of affiliating with a larger number of chimpanzees simultaneously and coordinating group movements and thus may be effective at maintaining social cohesion. Synchronized low intensity pant-hoots may have similar psychopharmacological underpinnings as those underlying grooming behavior (Tarr et al, 2015; Weinstein et al, 2016) and could therefore be effective at bonding with a larger number of bonded individuals over longer periods (Dezecache and Dunbar, 2012). …”

Interpersonal Touch Buffers Pain Sensitivity in Romantic Relationships but Heightens Sensitivity between Strangers and Friends

“…Pain sensitivity is often measured as a duration threshold, which represents the amount of time that elapses from the initiation of a stimulus (such as a pain induction) to the point at which the stimulus is perceived as painful [66]. However, sensitivity can also be operationalized as an intensity threshold, which represents the intensity of pain being experienced at the moment when the stimulus is perceived as painful [49].…”

Synchronized behavior increases assessments of the formidability and cohesion of coalitions

“…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).…”