Verbal Synchrony and Action Dynamics in Large Groups

Abstract

While synchronized movement has been shown to increase liking and feelings of togetherness between people, we investigated whether collective speaking in time would change the way that larger groups played a video game together. Anthropologists have speculated that the function of interpersonal coordination in dance, chants, and singing is not just to produce warm, affiliative feelings, but also to improve group action. The group that chants and dances together hunts well together. Direct evidence for this is sparse, as research so far has mainly studied pairs, the effects of coordinated physical movement, and measured cooperation and affiliative decisions. In our experiment, large groups of people were given response handsets to play a computer game together, in which only joint coordinative efforts lead to success. Before playing, the synchrony of their verbal behavior was manipulated. After the game, we measured group members’ affiliation toward their group, their performance on a memory task, and the way in which they played the group action task. We found that verbal synchrony in large groups produced affiliation, enhanced memory performance, and increased group members’ coordinative efforts. Our evidence suggests that the effects of synchrony are stable across modalities, can be generalized to larger groups and have consequences for action coordination.

Synchrony and Physiological Arousal Increase Cohesion and Cooperation in Large Naturalistic Groups

“…In the context of large groups, then, behavioural synchrony might only translate to intergroup cohesion and cooperation when arousal has rendered identity concerns salient. The possibility is supported by recently published research, which has found that large chanting rituals—which entail both physiological arousal and synchrony—increased affiliation in groups of 20–30 students 53 . However, since that study did not independently manipulate synchrony and arousal, future research is needed to test the account directly.…”

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).…”

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).…”