Argument disrupts interpersonal synchrony

Abstract

Research on interpersonal convergence and synchrony characterizes the way in which interacting individuals come to have more similar affect, behaviour, and cognition over time. Although its dynamics have been explored in many settings, convergence during conflict has been almost entirely overlooked. We present a simple but ecologically valid study comparing how different situational contexts that highlight affiliation and argument impact interpersonal convergence of body movement and to what degree emotional states affect convergence in both conversational settings. Using linear mixed-effect models, we found that in-phase bodily synchrony decreases significantly during argument. However, affective changes did not significantly predict changes in levels of interpersonal synchrony, suggesting that differences in affect valences between affiliation and argument cannot solely explain our results.

Keywords:

• Interpersonal convergence
• Conflict
• Interaction
• Body movement
• Synchrony

The authors would like to thank undergraduates Ronni Jupson (University of Memphis) and J. P. Gonzales (University of California, Merced) for their help in data collection and undergraduate Stephanie Frewen (University of California, Merced) for her help in data preparation.

This paper was supported by the National Science Foundation under grants [BCS-0826825 and BCS-0926670].

Notes

1 These introductory conversations were not included in any analyses.

2 For information on interpreting beta weights, see Keith (2005).

3 Of course, one would expect that some of the models of virtual pairs would reach significance by chance. Conversation type reached significance (p < .05) in one of the 20 virtual pair set analyses, and the interaction term reached significance (p < .05) in one other. Neither reached significance remotely close to the level reached in the models for our original data.

4 An anonymous reviewer suggested that there may be interesting differences at the level of specific behaviours (e.g., Chartrand & Bargh; Lakin et al., 2003; van Baaren et al., 2009). The connection between synchrony of overall body movement and specific behaviours may also be an interesting avenue of future research on this corpus.

5 We thank our anonymous reviewers for suggesting these analyses.

6 Results of model: conversation type, β = –.52 (p < .005); order, β = .31 (p < .27); interaction, β = .55 (p < .09).