Social coordination dynamics: Measuring human bonding

Abstract

Spontaneous social coordination has been extensively described in natural settings but so far no controlled methodological approaches have been employed that systematically advance investigations into the possible self-organized nature of bond formation and dissolution between humans. We hypothesized that, under certain contexts, spontaneous synchrony -a well-described phenomenon in biological and physical settings-could emerge spontaneously between humans as a result of information exchange. Here, a new way to quantify interpersonal interactions in real time is proposed. In a simple experimental paradigm, pairs of participants facing each other were required to actively produce actions, while provided (or not) with the vision of similar actions being performed by someone else. New indices of interpersonal coordination, inspired by the theoretical framework of coordination dynamics (based on relative phase and frequency overlap between movements of individuals forming a pair) were developed and used. Results revealed that spontaneous phase synchrony (i.e., unintentional in-phase coordinated behavior) between two people emerges as soon as they exchange visual information, even if they are not explicitly instructed to coordinate with each other. Using the same tools, we also quantified the degree to which the behavior of each individual remained influenced by the social encounter even after information exchange had been removed, apparently a kind of social memory.

Challenges for the understanding of the dynamics of social coordination

“…We really have in this case to analyze and model how the coordination level “feeds back” to the components. Oullier et al (2008) found a sort of primitive social memory, the intrinsic preferred pace of the participants changed, at least transiently, after its spontaneous adjustment during the coordination stage with the partner thanks to mutual entrainment. This indicates a slow time scale dynamics operating at the level of the components.…”

“…How much akin to synchronize we are, or state differently: how little is required to get our movement coordinated? Oullier et al (2008) aimed at tracking in real time the onset of social coordination. To this end, the visual coupling between participants (i) was turned off, by keeping eyes closed, and then (ii) on, eyes open, while throughout the trial they were asked to oscillate their index finger “as if they had to do it the whole day.” Clearly, initially separated movements, in frequency and phase, rapidly converged after the visual exchange was on, to reach a synchronization state.…”

Timing together, acting together. Phenomenology of intersubjective temporality and social cognition

“…Another example of synchronisation comes from Oullier and Kelso (Oullier et al 2008) who conducted experiments with couples performing rhythmical movements. Two participants sitting in front of each other were asked to move their index fingers rhythmically at their own preferred pace.…”

“…Interestingly part of this discussion has focused on the temporal dimension of interpersonal cooperation and synchronisation of action, both intentional and unintentional (e.g. Hove et al 2009;Konvalinka et al 2010;Miles et al 2009;Oullier et al 2008;Richardson et al 2007). Following Pacherie, we can distinguish several conditions for joint action, including joint predictions and adjustments as well as triadic adjustments between the "me-other" pair and the shared goal (Pacherie 2013).…”

On the Self-Organizing Origins of Agency

“…The behavioral, cognitive and social processes studied in coordination dynamics include moving, perceiving, feeling, thinking, deciding, learning, remembering, developing, ageing, etc. [34][35][36][37][38] A main aspect of self-organizing dynamical systems [17] is that the emergence of pattern and pattern switching occur spontaneously, solely as a result of the dynamics of the system: no specific ordering influence from the outside and no homunculus-like agent or program inside is responsible for the behavior observed. Self-organizing systems are, it seems, selfless.…”