lakens stel - 2011 - if they move in sync they must feel in sync - social cognition

8/8/2019 Lakens Stel - 2011 - If They Move in Sync They Must Feel in Sync - Social Cognition

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lakens-stel-2011-if-they-move-in-sync-they-must-feel-in-sync-social-cognition 1/14

Social Cognition, Vol. 29, No. 1, 2011, pp. 1–14

1

© Guil ord Publications, Inc. 2011

The authors would like to thank the Cratylus research group, the Utrecht NERDs, Luigi Castelli,and two anonymous reviewers or help ul suggestions and comments on this research. Special thanksgo to Martijn van Zomeren, Henk Aarts, and Marina Kouzakova or help ul comments on an earlierversion o this manuscript and to Kaska Kubacka or her never-ending knowledge o pop culture.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Daniël Lakens, Human TechnologyInteraction Group, IPO 1.24, PO Box 513, 5600 MB Eindhoven, The Netherlands.E-mail: [email protected].

IFTHEYMOVEIN SYNC, THEYMUSTFEELINSYNCLAKENSANDSTEL

If ThEy MOvE IN SyNC, ThEy MuST fEEl IN SyNC:MOvEMENT SyNChrONy lEadS TO aTTrIbuTIONSOf rappOrT aNd ENTITaTIvITy

Da ël Lake sEindhoven University of Technology

Mar ëlle StelUtrecht University

Coord ated be av or patter s are o e o t e p llars o soc al teract o .Researc ers ave rece tly s ow t at moveme t sy c ro y e ces rat-

gs o rapport, a d t e exte t to w c gro ps are j dged to be a t.T e c rre t exper me ts vest gated t e ypot es s t at observers er as ared psyc olog cal state rom sy c ro zed moveme t r yt ms, e c-

g attr b t o s o rapport a d e t tat v ty j dgme ts. Moveme t r yt mso observed d v d als are ma p lated betwee part c pa ts (Exper me t1) or kept co sta t w le t e so rce o t e emerg g moveme t sy c ro y

s ma p lated (Exper me t 2), a d bot rapport a d perce ved e t tat v tyare meas red. T e f d gs s pport t e ass mpt o t at moveme t sy -c ro y creases attr b ted rapport a d perce ved e t tat v ty. F rt ermore,med at o al a alyses reveal t at t e e ects o moveme t sy c ro y operce ved ty are ot p rely percept al at re, b t ca sed by psyc o-log cal ere ces. Observers er t e degree to w c d v d als are asoc al t rom t e r moveme t r yt ms.

Coordinated behavior patterns are one o the pillars o social interaction. Peoples’movement rhythms can synchronize unintentionally, or example when walkingside by side, or intentionally, as when military units march. The tendency to syn-chronize movement rhythms has been theorized to play an important role in the

ormation o a social unit (Condon, 1980; Davis, 1982; Fiske, 2004; Kendon, 1990;LaFrance, 1985; Marsh, Richardson, Baron, & Schmidt, 2006; Newtson, Hair eld,



2 laKENS aNd STEl

Bloomingdale, & Cutino, 1987; Wiltermuth & Heath, 2009). Movement synchronyis argued to be an indication o shared eelings o rapport, an a ective state o mu-tual attention and positivity (Bernieri, 1988; Tickle-Degnen & Rosenthal, 1990). Forthe last 40 years researchers have been interested in the relationship between syn-chronous movement rhythms, eelings o rapport, and perceived or experiencedsocial unity (Bernieri, 1988; Cappella, 1996; Condon & Ogsten, 1966; Marsh, John-ston, Richardson, & Schmidt, 2009; Tickle-Degnen & Rosenthal, 1990).

Moving in synchrony is argued to infuence the degree to which individualsare perceived as a social unit, or their entitativity (Campbell, 1958; Hamilton &Sherman, 1996; Marsh, Richardson, & Schmidt, 2009; Yzerbyt, Corneille, Seron, &Demoulin, 2004). A dynamic interpretation o entitativity (see Brewer, Hong, & Li,2004) stresses that groups emerge, change, and disappear over time. Furthermore,the extent to which groups are seen as a unit depends on both static and tempo-rary properties o the group, as on chronic and temporary belie s o the perceiver.When people observe synchronized individuals, they are expected to activate cer-tain belie s about why these individuals move in synchrony. One o these belie sis that individuals who move in synchrony do so because they share a eeling o rapport (Bernieri, 1988; Bernieri, Davis, Rosenthal, & Knee, 1994). LaFrance (1985,1990) theorizes that movement synchrony is a social gauge by which observerscan assess the degree to which individuals are mutually involved with each other.Observers use this “tie-sign” to judge the extent to which individuals are a socialunit.

The aim o the current studies is to provide empirical support or the theoreti-cal assumption that observers draw psychological in erences rom the movementrhythm o synchronized individuals, and use these in erences when judging theextent to which individuals are a social unit. For example, LaFrance (1985) sug-

gests that observers use movement synchrony to assess eelings o rapport be-tween individuals, which subsequently infuences entitativity judgments. To ex-amine whether observed movement synchrony activates in erences about a sharedpsychological state o the synchronized individuals, the current studies measure both attributions o rapport and entitativity judgments. I psychological in erencesdo not play a role, and movement synchrony infuences attributions o rapportand entitativity judgments purely due to the increased perceptual similarity o synchronized movement rhythms, the e ect o movement synchrony on entitativi-ty should be independent o attributions o rapport. To test the alternative hypoth-esis that movement synchrony infuences attributions o rapport and entitativity judgments through psychological in erences (Bernieri et al., 1994; LaFrance, 1985),mediational analyses are per ormed to examine whether the e ect o movementsynchrony on entitativity is driven by attributions o rapport.

Although synchrony researchers primarily seem to avor the pathway wherethe e ect o movement synchrony on entitativity is mediated by attributed rap-port (e.g., Bernieri, 1988; Bernieri et al., 1994; Condon, 1980; LaFrance, 1985, 1990;Marsh et al., 2006, Marsh, Johnston et al., 2009), theoretically a case could be madethat the e ect o movement synchrony on rapport is driven by entitativity judg-ments (c ., Yzerbyt, Corneille, & Estrada, 2001; Yzerbyt et al., 2004). Both thesepathways most likely account or the infuence o movement synchrony on attribu-tions o rapport and perceived entitativity depending on the situation, alternativesources o in ormation about the individuals, and existing belie s concerning theobserved individuals. The goal o the current article is not to di erentiate between



If ThEy MOvE IN SyNC, ThEy MuST fEEl IN SyNC 3

these two pathways, but to test the underlying assumption they share: Movementsynchrony infuences attributed rapport and entitativity judgments through psy-chological in erences.

Several studies have shown that observed movement synchrony is signi cantlycorrelated with rapport (Bernieri, 1988; Bernieri et al., 1994; LaFrance, 1985). Tocounteract possible criticisms o correlational data collected in studies where real-li e interactions are used as stimulus material (see Cappella, 1990) researchers haverecently investigated the relationship between movement synchrony and rapport by manipulating the amount o movement synchrony (Hove & Risen, 2009; Marsh, Johnston et al., 2009; Miles, Nind, & Macrae, 2009). For example, Miles and col-leagues (2009) presented their participants with 24 video animations o two stick

gures walking in di erent rhythms. A ter each animation was presented, partici-pants were asked to indicate the amount o rapport between the two stick gureson a 9-point scale. As expected, the more similar the movement rhythms o the twostick gures were, the higher the stimuli were rated on rapport.

Although these results clearly show that people used the movement rhythms o the stick gures to guide their answer on the rapport judgment, several questionsremain. First, it is unclear whether the e ects o movement synchrony on rapport judgments actually refect psychological attributions. Since stick gures movingin a similar rhythm are also perceptually more similar, the higher rapport ratingscould be the result o the increased perceptual similarity o moving in synchrony.Second, the di erent movement rhythms in the study by Miles et al. (2009) weremanipulated within subjects. Because the 24 stick gures only di ered in theirmovement rhythm, it is less surprising that observers based their rapport judg-ments on the only aspect the animations di ered on, namely the amount o move-ment synchrony. Manipulating movement synchrony between subjects would

provide stronger support or the assumption that synchrony is used as a cue todetermine eelings o rapport. Third, rapport is theorized to consist o not onlycoordination, but also o positivity and mutual attention (Tickle-Degnen & Rosen-thal, 1990), and should there ore ideally be assessed by a questionnaire address-ing these separate actors. Finally, it might be di cult to attribute a psychologicalstate to stick gures, and using video clips o real individuals might be a betterapproach to investigate whether observed movement synchrony leads to attribu-tions o a shared psychological state.

OvErvIEw Of ThE CurrENT rESEarCh

The current studies were developed to examine whether the e ects o perceivedmovement synchrony on attributions o rapport and entitativity are caused purely by the perceptual similarity o the stimuli, or refect underlying psychological at-tributions. In the rst experiment, rapport and entitativity judgments were col-lected or video clips o two rhythmically waving con ederates, who waved eitherin synchrony or in asynchrony. When individuals in the movie clips synchronized,they coordinated their movement rhythms in-phase (by waving their arms orswinging their legs at the same angle and requency). Research has shown thatin-phase movement synchrony is the most stable orm o spontaneous movementsynchronization and most likely to emerge unintentionally (Kelso, 1995; Neda,



4 laKENS aNd STEl

Ravasz, Brechet, Vicsek, & Barabasi, 2000; Richardson, Marsh, Isenhower, Good-man, & Schmidt, 2007).

This method was based on earlier work by Lakens (2010) who showed thatmovement synchrony infuenced entitativity judgments. The rst experimentextends this work by investigating both entitativity and rapport, allowing us todraw conclusions about the indirect nature o the relationship between movementsynchrony and entitativity. The e ect o movement synchrony on entitativity andrapport was predicted to be indirect, ollowing either the pathway rom synchronyto attributed rapport to perceived entitativity, or the pathway rom synchrony toperceived entitativity to attributed rapport. Importantly, the direct e ects o move-ment synchrony on rapport and entitativity were predicted to disappear whenintroducing entitativity or rapport in the mediation analysis, respectively.

In the second experiment, perceptual di erences were controlled or by pre-senting the same stimulus video to all participants. The critical manipulation inthis experiment was whether participants believed that observed individuals syn-chronized spontaneously, or that observed individuals synchronized because theywere instructed to do so. We propose that when individuals synchronize withoutan external reason to do so, their movement rhythm is a valid source o in orma-tion which observers can rely on to judge whether individuals eel rapport andare a unit. I individuals synchronize because they are instructed to synchronizetheir movement rhythms, their movement rhythm is not a use ul indication o any shared a ective states or eelings o unity among the individuals. Thus, syn-chronized movement rhythms will lead to attributed eelings o rapport and per-ceived entitativity when the emerging movement synchrony can be attributed tothe group members, but not when movement synchrony emerges due to an exter-nal instruction to synchronize. Moreover, as in Experiment 1, we expected media-

tional analyses to reveal that the e ect o movement synchrony on rapport andentitativity is indirect, indicating that movement synchrony leads to psychologicalattributions which infuence rapport and entitativity judgments.

ExpErIMENT 1

METhOD

Participants. A total o 104 volunteers (65 emales, mean age 20.7) rom a Dutchuniversity participated in the study, and were randomly assigned to the synchronyversus asynchrony condition o the between subject design.

Procedure. All participants were told they would watch a movie clip, and would be asked some questions about what they had seen. In the movie clip, two women

aced the camera and waved their le t hand (c . Lakens, 2010). Depending on thecondition, the waving movements were per ormed in per ect in-phase synchrony(both individuals waved their hands once every 833 milliseconds, and reached themost le tward point o the waving motion at the exact same rame in the movieclip) or in asynchrony (one woman waved her hand once every 833 milliseconds,while the other waved her hand once every 500 milliseconds). A ter watchingthe movie, participants received a our item entitativity questionnaire (Postmes,Brooke, & Jetten, 2008, see Appendix). In addition, they completed the rapportquestionnaire adapted rom Puccinelli and Tickle-Degnen (2004), consisting o six




items (see Appendix). All items were rated on a 7-point scale. Subsequently, sev-eral control questions were asked. People were asked to indicate to what extent the behavior o the individuals was spontaneous. In addition, general similarity ques-tions were asked, concerning the extent to which the individuals had the samehabits and goals (c . Ip, Chiu, & Wan, 2006) to make sure movement synchronydid not infuence overall similarity. Finally, participants answered a manipulationcheck about how similar the movement rhythms o the individuals were, lled outdemographic questions, and were thanked and debrie ed.

RESuLTS

A actor analysis (principle component analysis) with a varimax rotation was con-ducted on the 10 items o the entitativity and rapport questionnaires. A Scree test

suggested the extraction o two actors. The rst actor consisted o the our itemso the entitativity questionnaire (Cronbach’s α = .84). The second actor consistedo the remaining items o the rapport scale (Cronbach’s α = .81). This actor analy-sis supports the theoretical distinction made in the literature between the psycho-logical constructs o rapport and entitativity (e.g., Bernieri, 1988; Campbell, 1958;LaFrance, 1985; Tickle-Degnen & Rosenthal, 1990; Yzerbyt et al., 2004). A manipu-lation check con rmed that the con ederates waving in synchrony were judged tomove in a more similar rhythm ( M = 6.19, SD = 1.21) than con ederates waving inasynchrony ( M = 2.34, SD = 1.71), t(102) = 13.45, p < .001.

Rapport and Entitativity. The average o the six rapport items was calculated. Aunivariate ANOVA revealed that individuals waving in synchrony were judgedhigher on rapport ( M = 4.99, SD = 1.01) than individuals waving in asynchrony ( M = 4.32, SD = 0.95), F(1, 102) = 8.51, p = .004, η p

2 = .08. The our items o the entitativ-ity scale were averaged, and a univariate ANOVA con rmed the hypothesis thatcon ederates waving in synchrony were rated higher on entitativity ( M = 4.05, SD = 1.12) than con ederates waving in asynchrony ( M = 3.25, SD = 1.22), F(1, 102) =12.01, p = .001, η p

2 = .08. Observers did not rate the two individuals di erently asa unction o their movement synchrony on the control questions asked a ter theentitativity and rapport scales, such as to what extent the individuals had similarhabits or goals (c . Ip et al., 2006), or how spontaneous their behavior was (all p >.10).

Mediational Analysis. We subsequently tested whether the e ect o movementsynchrony on rapport and entitativity were two direct e ects, or whether the re-sults were best described by one o the two indirect pathways described in theliterature. In addition to the e ects o movement synchrony on rapport and entita-tivity described above, attributed rapport signi cantly predicted perceived entita-tivity, β = .60, t = 7.50, p < .001. Adding rapport to the regression o synchrony onperceived entitativity signi cantly reduced the e ect o synchrony on entitativity,β = .17, t = 2.12, p = .037, SOBEL test z = 2.72, p = .001. Similarly, adding entitativ-ity to the regression o synchrony on rapport signi cantly reduced the e ect o synchrony on rapport, β = .09, t = 1.19, p = .266, SOBEL test z = 3.15, p < .001. Thesetwo analyses suggest that the e ect o movement synchrony on rapport and enti-tativity is indirect in nature.



6 laKENS aNd STEl

DiSCuSSiOn

The results reveal that movement synchrony infuences perceived entitativityand attributed eelings o rapport. Con ederates waving in the same rhythm wereseen as more entitative and were rated higher on rapport compared to con eder-ates waving in asynchrony (Miles et al., 2009; Lakens, 2010). The two mediationalanalyses supported the assumption that direct e ects o movement synchrony onrapport and entitativity were not independent o each other, providing a rst indi-cation that psychological attributions, and not purely perceptual similarity, playeda role. That these results speak against a purely perceptual e ect o movementsynchrony on entitativity, is urther corroborated by the act that movement syn-chrony did not infuence general similarity questions regarding the habits or goalso the participants.

ExpErIMENT 2

The rst experiment revealed that the individuals who waved in synchrony wererated higher on entitativity compared to individuals waving in asynchrony, andthat this increase in entitativity was related to higher attributions o rapport.Although this study reveals that movement synchrony infuences attributionso rapport and entitativity, the two video clips used in Experiment 1 di ered inhow perceptually similar the individuals were. A ter all, individuals who movedin synchrony in the movie clip in Experiment 1 shared the same body posturethroughout their movements, whereas the individuals waving in asynchronyadopted di erent body postures at di erent times throughout the movie clip. Todirectly manipulate the in erences participants draw when observing individu-als moving in synchrony, in the current experiment the same stimulus video waspresented to all participants, and we directly manipulated whether the emergingmovement synchrony could be attributed to an external source or not. When indi-viduals are explicitly instructed to synchronize, movement synchrony should nolonger be an in ormative cue to judge the extent to which individuals are a socialunit, or to in er shared eelings o rapport. On the other hand, when individualssynchronize without being instructed to do so, observers are assumed to interpretthe emergence o movement synchrony as a use ul source o in ormation regard-ing the presence o shared eelings o rapport, and rate synchronized individualshigher on entitativity.

The current experiment provided a more stringent test o our hypothesis by ma-nipulating whether participants believed that individuals synchronized spontane-ously, or that individuals were instructed to synchronize. Participants all watchedthe same movie clip (taken rom the movie Dead Poets Society) where three boyswalked around a courtyard and synchronized their walking rhythms. Importantly,whereas participants received perceptually di erent movie clips in Experiment 1,there were no perceptual di erences in the movie clip the participants received inthe current experiment.

Be ore watching the movie clip, participants in the walk instruction conditionwere told that the boys were instructed to walk, whereas participants in the syn-chronize instruction condition were told that the boys were instructed to walk and




synchronize their movement rhythm. When individuals are instructed to synchro-nize, their movement rhythms should no longer be attributed to shared eelingso rapport. There ore, observers were expected to ignore the movement rhythmso the individuals as an in ormative cue regarding the degree to which they werea social unit. A ter the video, we measured participants’ attributions o rapport between the three boys and entitativity judgments. Both judgments o rapport andentitativity were expected to be higher when the individuals were instructed towalk, compared to when the individuals were instructed to synchronize. In addi-tion, we expected a similar indirect e ect o movement synchrony on rapport andentitativity as observed in Experiment 1.

METhOD

Participants. Thirty-eight students (24 emale, mean age 20.3) at a Dutch univer-

sity participated in this study in return or monetary compensation. Participantswere randomly assigned to the walk versus synchronize instruction condition o the between participants design.

Procedure. The experiment was introduced as a memory study. Instructions onthe computer screen explained to participants that they would watch a short mov-ie clip and would be asked some questions about what they saw and how they elt.Participants were told several movie clips were used in the experiment, and theone they would watch was about a group o American boys attending a privateschool (in reality, all participants watched the same movie clip). Three o the boyswalked around in a courtyard while their teacher and ellow students were pres-ent. Participants were told the teacher had given the three boys an instruction. On

the next screen, participants in the walk instruction condition read: The teacher has given the three boys the following instruction: Walk around the courtyard. In the synchro-nize instruction condition, participants instead read: The teacher has given the threeboys the following instruction: Walk around the courtyard, and establish a shared walkingrhythm. A ter reading this instruction, participants watched the movie clip.

The movie clip was taken rom the movie Dead Poets Society, starting rom 63minutes and 37 seconds in the movie, with an 11-second duration. In the actualmovie, the three boys did not receive any instruction rom their teacher be ore theystarted to walk. Because the movie clip lasted only 11 seconds, the participantswatched the movie clip three times. Be ore participants watched the movie clip

or the nal time, they received the instruction to direct their attention to the threewalking boys in the movie clip, since the ollowing questions would mainly con-cern the three boys. This instruction was added to ensure all participants wouldpay attention to the three boys, and would not ocus on the background or otherpeople in the movie clip. The three boys in the movie clip walked around thecourtyard in counterclockwise direction. The last 4 seconds o the clip consistedo a close-up, showing the three boys legs in per ect in-phase synchrony. Their

eet touched and le t the ground at the same moment in time, such that when one boy li ted his right oot, the other two boys li ted their right eet in the exact same

rame o the movie clip.A ter watching the movie clip or the third time, participants received the same

rapport and entitativity questionnaires used in Experiment 1. Subsequently, theparticipants indicated i they had seen the movie clip be ore and i so, i they could



8 laKENS aNd STEl

write down the name o the movie the clip was taken rom. A ter answering ques-tions regarding the obedience o the three boys, and the extent to which the three boys started to walk in the same rhythm, participants lled out demographic ques-tions, were thanked, and debrie ed.

RESuLTS

Two students indicated they had seen the movie clip used in this experiment be-ore and both could speci y the name o the movie it came rom ( Dead Poets Socie-

ty). Since these participants most likely knew that the real context o the movie clipwas about peoples’ automatic tendency to con orm, they were excluded rom theanalysis.

A actor analysis (principle component analysis) with a varimax rotation was

conducted with the 10 dependent variables o the entitativity and rapport ques-tionnaires. A Scree test suggested the extraction o three actors. The rst actorconsisted o the our items o the entitativity questionnaire. The second and third

actors consisted o the remaining items o the rapport scale, and divided this scalein a positivity component (mutual eelings o liking, com ortable eeling, and eel-ing the same) and a mutual attention component (mutual agreement, mutual un-derstanding, and being aware o each other). Given that the rapport questionnaireconsisted o a single actor in Experiment 1, and that the instruction manipulationinfuenced the two components in the same way, we ollowed the same procedureas in Experiment 1 and combined all six items into a rapport scale. Importantly, this

actor analysis again con rms that entitativity and rapport are two distinct psy-chological constructs. To control or di erences in perceived obedience between

the conditions, participants were asked to indicate how obedient they thought the boys were, but no di erences were observed ( p > .10). In addition, when asked towhat extend the three boys in the movie clip started to walk in the same rhythm,participants in the two conditions did not di er in their judgments ( p > .10), indi-cating that participants all agreed upon how similar the movement rhythm o thetwo boys had been.

Rapport and Entitativity. The average o the six items o the rapport scale (Cron- bach’s α = .65) were calculated, and subjected to a univariate ANOVA with theinstruction manipulation as between participants actor. Participants in erred thethree boys elt more rapport when synchronizing spontaneously ( M = 5.37, SD =0.50), than when instructed to synchronize ( M = 4.89, SD = 0.87), F(1, 34) = 4.33, p

< .05, η p2

= .11.The average o the our items o the entitativity scale (Cronbach’s α = .88) werecalculated, and subjected to a univariate ANOVA with the instruction manipula-tion as between participants actor. The predicted e ect o instruction emerged:Participants perceived the group o three boys to be more entitative i they wereinstructed to walk ( M = 5.34, SD = 0.90), compared to when the teacher instructedthem to synchronize ( M = 4.38, SD = 1.44), F(1, 34) = 6.02, p = .02, η p

2 = .15.

Mediational Analysis. To test or the predicted mediation o the e ect o the ma-nipulated source o the movement rhythm on entitativity by attributed rapport, aregression analysis with instruction and predictor was run on both perceived enti-tativity, β = .39, t = 2.43, p < .05, as perceived rapport, β = .34, t = 2.08, p < .05. In ad-




dition, attributed rapport signi cantly predicted perceived entitativity, β = .60, t =4.42, p < .001. Finally, adding rapport to the regression o instruction on perceivedentitativity caused the e ect o instruction on entitativity to disappear, β = .20, t =1.44, p = .16, SOBEL test z = 2.13, p = .03. Similarly, adding perceived entitativity tothe regression o instruction on rapport, caused the e ect o instruction on rapportto disappear, β = .12, t = 0.81, p = .42, SOBEL test z = 1.88, p = .06. These mediationalanalyses again support the two pathways described in the introduction, provid-ing urther support that the psychological e ects o movement synchrony are notpurely perceptual in nature.

Additional analyses were per ormed to test the relationship between the subjec-tively perceived similarity o movement rhythms o the boys in the movie clip and judgments o rapport and entitativity. For participants who thought the three boyswere instructed to synchronize, mediational analyses revealed that perceived sim-ilarity o the movement rhythms predicted entitativity judgments, β = .54, t = 2.40, p = .03, but not perceived rapport, β = .32, t = 1.25, p = .23. On the other hand, orparticipants who believed the boys synchronized their movement rhythms with-out the explicit instruction to do so, perceived similarity o the movement rhythmspredicted entitativity judgments, β = .42, t = 1.98, p = .06, and judgments o per-ceived rapport, β = .49, t = 2.35, p = .03. In addition, perceived rapport predictedperceived entitativity, β = .59, t = 3.06, p = .007. Finally, a ter adding perceivedrapport to the equation, the e ect o subjective similarity o movement rhythmson perceived entitativity disappeared, β = .29, t = 1.41, p = .18, Sobel z = 1.89, p =.03, one-sided.

A mediation model where the e ect o perceived similarity o movementrhythms on rapport was reduced by adding entitativity judgments to the modelalso reached signi cance, β = .18, t = 0.82, p = .42, Sobel z = 1.86, p = .03. These two

pathways again support the indirect e ect described in the introduction. Theseanalyses reveal that the perceived similarity o movement rhythms predicted enti-tativity judgments (but not attributions o rapport) when participants believed the boys in the movie clip were instructed to synchronize. However, when observers believed the three boys synchronized spontaneously, the perceived similarity o movement rhythms predicted both attributions o rapport as perceived entitativ-ity, and the direct e ect o movement similarity on entitativity (or rapport) wasmediated by attributions o rapport (or entitativity).

GENEral dISCuSSION

When individuals wave in synchrony, observers attribute eelings o rapport to theindividuals, and rate them higher on entitativity, compared to when they wave inasynchrony. Furthermore, individuals walking in synchrony were rated higher onrapport and entitativity by observers who believed the individuals simply syn-chronized their walking rhythm, compared to observers who believed the indi-viduals synchronized because they were instructed to do so. These results showthat when the emergence o movement synchrony can be attributed to an externalsource (i.e., the explicit instruction to synchronize), it is used as a source o in or-mation regarding shared eelings o rapport among group members to a lesser ex-tent. Individuals who are thought to move in synchrony without being instructedto do so are judged to share a eeling o positivity and mutual attention, and are



10 laKENS aNd STEl

rated higher on entitativity. Furthermore, both experiments reveal that the e ect o movement synchrony on entitativity (or rapport) is driven by psychological attributions o rapport (or entitativity). These results speak against a perceptual simi-larity explanation o the e ect o movement synchrony on perceived entitativity.

The analyses in Experiment 2 seem to indicate that in addition to the absoluteincrease in perceived rapport and entitativity when individuals synchronize spon-taneously (compared to when they synchronize because they are instructed to doso), the indirect e ect o subjective movement similarity on perceived social unitythrough psychological attributions is only present when synchrony occurs spon-taneously. When individuals are explicitly instructed to synchronize, movementrhythms are no longer predictive o attributions o rapport, but show a direct re-lation to perceived entitativity. These results suggest that movement synchronycan infuence perceived entitativity directly, but that individuals will attribute ashared psychological state to synchronized individuals, and rate them higher onentitativity, when the situation allows or such attributions. The nature o relation between movement synchrony and perceived entitativity when attributions o ashared psychological state does not mediate the e ect o movement synchronyon entitativity awaits urther research, but might be the result o a Gestalt-likesimilarity-based perceptual organization.

These ndings conceptually replicate and extend previous work on movementsynchrony and rapport (e.g., Miles et al., 2009) by showing movement synchronyinfuences attributed rapport o real individuals, using a multiple-item rapportquestionnaire in a between-participants design. In addition, we provide empiricalsupport or the theorized interplay between movement synchrony, attributions o rapport, and entitativity by manipulating movement rhythms in Experiment 1 and by manipulating the attributions o the observer in Experiment 2, providing ur-

ther insights into the processes underlying the e ect o movement synchrony onrapport (Miles et al., 2009) and entitativity (Lakens, 2010). Together, these studiesprovide converging evidence that movement synchrony is used as a cue to drawpsychological in erences about the extent to which individuals are a social unit.

Two regression models tted the data. In the rst model the e ect o move-ment synchrony (Experiment 1) or the instruction manipulation (Experiment 2)on perceived entitativity is mediated by attributed rapport. In the second modelthe e ect o movement synchrony or the instruction manipulation on attributedrapport is mediated by perceived entitativity. The rationale o both models anda complete overview o studies supporting either the pathway in which in erredshared characteristics infuence entitativity judgments or the pathway in whichperceived entitativity infuences the in erred shared characteristics has been re-viewed elsewhere (Yzerbyt et al., 2001, 2004). Based on the current results, wecannot di erentiate between these two pathways. However, the model where thee ect o movement synchrony on entitativity is mediated by attributions o rap-port is most in line with synchrony researchers’ theoretical assumptions about therelationship between movement synchrony, rapport, and entitativity (e.g., Berni-eri, 1988; LaFrance, 1990; Marsh, Richardson, & Schmidt, 2009; Tickle-Degnen &Rosenthal, 1990; Yzerbyt et al., 2001).

Even though no univocal causal relation between rapport and entitativity could be determined in the experiments, the most important nding o these studies isthat movement synchrony does not infuence perceived entitativity purely dueto the increased perceptual similarity o synchronized movement rhythms, but is




caused by psychological attributions. Support or this assumption is two old. First,mediation analyses revealed that in both studies the direct e ect o movement syn-chrony on entitativity (or rapport) disappeared when rapport (or entitativity) wasadded to the regression model. Importantly, both pathways are in line with thehypothesis under investigation that movement synchrony activates psychologicalin erences about the social unity o the observed individuals. Second, even whenthe perceptual in ormation was the same or all participants in Experiment 2, en-titativity judgments di ered based on whether the movement synchrony simplyemerged, or was the result o an explicit instruction to synchronize. Furthermore,the relation between perceived similarity o the movement rhythms and entitativ-ity ratings were mediated by attributions o rapport, but only or participants who believed movement synchrony emerged spontaneously. Together, these results re-veal that when people see individuals move in synchrony, they draw in erencesabout the shared psychological state o the synchronized individuals.

In addition to the theoretical contribution o the present research to our under-standing o the relationship between movement synchrony, rapport and entita-tivity, the attribution paradigm used on the second experiment might provide ause ul approach to investigate the psychological consequences o experiencedor observed movement synchrony. By manipulating whether the synchronizedmovement rhythm can be attributed to an external source or not, researchers caninvestigate the psychological consequences o movement synchrony, without ma-nipulating movement rhythms. This could be one way to circumvent the problemsassociated with the manipulation o movement rhythms (which some researchersequate with manipulating the socialness o the interaction, e.g., Cappella, 1990)while still enabling researchers to go beyond correlational support or the rela-tionship between synchrony and rapport (e.g., Bernieri, 1988; Bernieri et al., 1994;

LaFrance, 1985).Given that people synchronize their movement rhythms unintentionally (e.g.,Richardson et al., 2007; Ulzen, Lamoth, Da ertsho er, Semin, & Beck, 2009), peo-ple have to automatically process similarities or subtle di erences in movementrhythms. Attribution research suggests that people initially explain a person’s ac-tions in terms o dispositional traits, and subsequently adjust or situational actors(Gilbert & Malone, 1995). When observers listen to a speech by a ellow studentwho was assigned a topic, observers under cognitive load make more disposi-tional attributions (and ail to correct or the situation) than participants not undercognitive load. Future research could provide support or the automaticity o thein erences observers draw rom movement synchrony by showing that the di er-ence between spontaneous and instructed movement synchrony on attributions o rapport and entitativity disappears under cognitive load.

An important question or the psychological consequences o movement syn-chrony is whether the di erence between spontaneous movement synchrony andinstructed movement synchrony observed in the second experiment will extendto situations where people directly experience movement synchronization. Wouldmarching soldiers see themselves as a stronger unit i they create their own move-ment rhythm, compared to when they march in the rhythm their superior dictates?I being instructed to tap in synchrony with a metronome increases a liation withsomeone else who is tapping in the same rhythm (Hove & Risen, 2009), will spon-taneous synchronization with an interaction partner create an even stronger bond?Future research could ocus on these questions to determine the circumstances



12 laKENS aNd STEl

under which movement synchrony unctions best to acilitate the ormation o agroup.

Another possible role or uture research could be to investigate how sensitivepeople are to synchronized movement rhythms. Previous studies that have re-vealed e ects o movement synchrony on cognition, such as enhanced memory orinteraction partners (Macrae, Du y, Miles, & Lawrence, 2008) and interpersonalcooperation (Valdesolo, Ouyang, & DeSteno, 2010), as well as Experiment 1, relyon explicit manipulations o movement synchrony. Previous research has shownthat observers can reliably rate subtle amounts o naturally occurring movementsynchrony in real-li e interactions (Bernieri et al., 1994). Given that people are sen-sitive to di erent degrees o movement synchrony, and the pervasive tendency o individuals to synchronize their movement rhythms in social interactions (e.g.,Fiske, 2004; Haidt, Seder, & Kesebir, 2008), urther investigation is warranted o how salient movement synchrony needs to be in real-li e interactions to infuenceperson perception and other cognitive processes.

From our results, we can conclude that the source o nonverbal movement syn-chrony infuences the extent to which perceivers attribute eelings o rapport tosynchronized individuals. When people synchronize spontaneously, their move-ment rhythm is seen as a use ul source o in ormation to determine whether theindividuals eel rapport. Observers rate synchronized individuals higher on enti-tativity, and this e ect is not purely due to the perceptual similarity o synchro-nized movement rhythms, but the result o psychological attributions. These re-sults enhance our knowledge o the relationship between movement synchrony,rapport, and entitativity, and underline that people intuitively draw in erences

rom nonverbal behavior to determine whether individuals are a social unit.

appENdIx

Entitativity items: I eel the people in this movie are a unit; I think the people in this moviecan act in unison; I experience a eeling o togetherness between the individuals in thismovie; I eel the people in this movie are as one.

Rapport items: To what extent do you think the individuals liked each other; To what extentdo you think the individuals were aware o each other; To what extent do you think theindividuals elt coordinated with each other; To what extent do you think the individuals

elt the same; To what extent do you think the individuals understood each other; To whatextent do you think the individuals had a eeling o mutual agreement.




rEfErENCES

Bernieri, F. J. (1988). Coordinated movementand rapport in teacher student interac-tions. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 12, 120-138.

Bernieri, F. J., Davis, J. M., Rosenthal, R., &Knee, C. R. (1994). Interactional synchro-ny and rapport: Measuring synchronyin displays devoid o sound and aciala ect.Personality and Social PsychologyBulletin, 20, 303-311.

Brewer, M. B., Hong, Y.-y., & Li, Q. (2004). Dy-namic entitativity: Perceiving groupsas actors. In V. Yzerbyt, C. Judd, & O.Corneille (Eds.), The psychology of group perception: Perceived variability, entitativi-ty, and essentialism (pp. 25-38). Philadel-phia: Psychology Press.

Campbell, D. T. (1958). Common ate, simi-larity, and other indices o the status o aggregates o persons as social entities.Behavioral Science, 3,14-24.

Cappella, J. N. (1990). On de ning conversa-tional coordination and rapport. Psycho-logical Inquiry, 1, 303-305.

Cappella, J. N. (1996). Dynamic coordinationo vocal and kinesic behavior in dyadicinteraction: Methods, problems, andinterpersonal outcomes. In J. Watt & C.Van Lear (Eds.), Dynamic patterns in com-munication processes(pp. 353-386). Thou-sand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Condon, W. S. (1980). The relation o interac-tional synchrony to cognitive and emo-tional processes. In M. R. Key (Ed.), Therelation of verbal and nonverbal behavior (pp. 49-65). The Hague: Mouton.

Condon, W. S., & Ogston, W. D. (1966). Soundlm analysis o normal and pathological

behavior patterns. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 143, 338–457.

Davis, M. E. (Ed.). (1982). Interaction rhythms:Periodicity in communicative behavior.New York: Human Sciences Press.

Fiske, A. P. (2004). Four modes o constitutingrelationships: Consubstantial assimila-tion; space, magnitude, time, and orce;concrete procedures; abstract symbol-ism. In N. Haslam (Ed.), Relational mod-els theory. A contemporary overview (pp.61-146). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erl- baum Associates.

Gilbert, D. T., & Malone, P. S. (1995). The cor-respondence bias. Psychological Bulletin,117, 21-38.

Haidt, J., Seder, J., & Kesebir, S. (2008). Hivepsychology, happiness, and public poli-cy. Journal of Legal Studies, 37, 133-156.

Hamilton, D. L., & Sherman, S. J. (1996). Per-ceiving persons and groups. Psychologi-cal Review, 103,336-355.

Hove, M. J., & Risen, J. L. (2009). It’s all in thetiming: Interpersonal synchrony in-creases a liation. Social Cognition, 27,949-960.

Ip, G. W.-m., Chiu, C.-y., & Wan, C. (2006).Birds o a eather and birds focking to-gether: Physical versus behavioral cuesmay lead to trait- versus goal-basedgroup perception. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 90,368-381.

Kelso, J. A. S. (1995). Dynamic patterns . Cam- bridge, MA: MIT Press.

Kendon, A. (1990). Conducting interaction: Pat-terns of behavior in focused encounters.New York: Cambridge University Press.

LaFrance, M. (1985). Posture mirroring andintergroup orientation. Personality andSocial Psychology Bulletin, 11, 207-218.

LaFrance, M. (1990). The trouble with rapport. Psychological Inquiry, 1, 318-320.

Lakens, D. (2010). Movement synchrony andperceived entitativity . Journal of Experi-mental Social Psychology, 46,701-708.

Macrae, C. N., Du y, O. K., Miles, L. K., & Law-rence, J. (2008). A case o hand-waving:Action synchrony and person percep-tion. Cognition, 109, 152-156.

Marsh, K. L., Johnston, L., Richardson, M. J., &Schmidt, R. C. (2009). Toward a radical-ly embodied, embedded social psychol-ogy. European Journal of Social Psychology,39, 1217-1225.

Marsh, K. L., Richardson, M. J., Baron, R. M.,& Schmidt, R. C. (2006). Contrasting ap-proaches to perceiving and acting withothers. Ecological Psychology, 18, 1-38.

Marsh, K. L., Richardson, M. J., & Schmidt, R.C. (2009). Social connection through jointaction and interpersonal coordination.Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 320-339.

Miles, L. K., Nind, L. K., & Macrae, C. N.(2009). The rhythm o rapport: Interper-sonal synchrony and social perception.



14 laKENS aNd STEl

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,45, 585-589.

Neda, Z., Ravasz, E., Brechet, Y., Vicsek, T.,& Barabasi, A. L. (2000). The sound o many hands clapping: Tumultuous ap-plause can trans orm itsel into waveso synchronized clapping. Nature, 403, 849-850.

Newtson, D., Hair eld, J., Bloomingdale, J.,& Cutino, S. (1987). The structure o ac-tion and interaction. Social Cognition, 5,191-237.

Postmes, T., Brooke, D., & Jetten, J. (2008). Socialidentity formation and team performance. Unpublished manuscript, University o Groningen.

Puccinelli, N. M., & Tickle-Degnen, L. (2004).Knowing too much about others: Mod-erators o the relationship betweeneavesdropping and rapport in socialinteraction. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior,28, 223-243.

Richardson, M. J., Marsh, K. L., Isenhower, R.,Goodman, J., & Schmidt, R. C. (2007).Rocking together: Dynamics o inten-tional and unintentional interpersonalcoordination. Human Movement Science,26, 867-891.

Tickle-Degnen, L., & Rosenthal, R. (1990). Thenature o rapport and its nonverbal cor-relates. Psychological Inquiry, 1, 285-293.

Ulzen, N. R., Lamoth, C. J. C., Da ertsho er, A.,Semin, G. R., & Beek, P. J. (2008). Charac-teristics o instructed and uninstructed

interpersonal coordination while walk-ing side-by-side. Neuroscience Letters,432, 88-93.

Valdesolo, P., Ouyang, J., & DeSteno, D. A.(2010). The rhythm o joint action: Syn-chrony promotes cooperative ability. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,46, 693-695.

Wilmermuth, S. S., & Heath, C. (2009). Syn-chrony and cooperation. PsychologicalScience, 20, 1-5.

Yzerbyt, V., Corneille, O., & Estrada, C. (2001).The interplay o subjective essentialismand entitativity in the ormation o ste-reotypes. Personality and Social Psycholo- gy Review, 5,141-155.

Yzerbyt, V., Corneille, O., Seron, E., & De-moulin, S. (2004). Subjective essential-ism in action: Sel -anchoring and socialcontrol as consequences o undamentalsocial divides. In V. Yzerbyt, C. M. Judd,& O. Corneille (Eds.), The psychology of group perception: Perceived variability, en-titativity, and essentialism (pp. 101-124).New York: Psychology Press.

lakens stel - 2011 - if they move in sync they must feel in sync - social cognition

Documents