Horton & J. J. Jenkins (Eds.), Perception of language. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. ... Paul, & A. J. Smith (Eds.), Techniques for the analysis of human movement ...
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1978, Vol. 36, No. 9, 963-975
Interactional Synchrony: A Reappraisal Joseph J. McDowall University of Queensland St. Lucia, Australia The probabilities of observing interactional synchrony (i.e., the precise coordination of body movement boundaries between interactants) were determined for all combinations of two or more people in a single six-person discussion group (three males and three females) comprising friends and strangers. It was found, using the binomial test, that only one dyad out of 57 comparisons showed significantly more synchrony than expected by chance. The hypothesis predicting more synchrony between friends than between stranger pairings was not supported. Also, the expectation that at speaker-switching locations, synchrony would be greater between consecutive-speaker than between speakerlistener pairings was not confirmed. However, a latency effect was significant; more synchrony was observed at switching locations where the interval of silence between contributions by successive speakers was 0 to .5 sec than when overlapping speech occurred. Even this result was equivocal, since the observed probabilities of synchrony at all switching locations were not significantly different from chance occurrence. Previous studies emphasizing the dependence of human communication on interactional synchrony were questioned. When two or more events happen at precisely the same time, they are defined as being synchronous (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 1973). Recently, the word synchrony has been introduced into the literature to describe varying degrees of behavioral coordination. Some workers have studied the synchrony or co-occurrence of particular classes of activities between interactants (e.g., Bullowa, 1975; Stern, 1971; Thoman, 1975). However, the synchrony of interest here is that requiring the greatest degree of precision in coordination, that is, the coincidence not of movement types or categories but of the boundaries of movement waves. Condon and Ogston (1966) produced the original work in this area. They were concerned fundamentally with identifying units I wish to thank Jennifer McDowall and Julien Hawthorne for their assistance with the laborious task of film microanalysis. Also, I am indebted to Glen McBride and John Bain for their comments on an earlier draft of this article. Requests for reprints should be sent to Joseph J. McDowall, Department of Psychology, University of Queensland, St. Lucia, 4067, Australia.
of behavior, but noted from microanalysis of their sound film records that "as a person talks . . . his body moves in a series of configurations of change which are precisely correlated with that serial transformation of 'phone into syllable into word' of speech" (p. 339). They termed this intraspeaker "harmony" self-synchrony. Furthermore, they discovered from similar analyses of interactive behavior that "the speaker and the listener also display body motion organizations of change which are isomorphic with the articulated organization of speech" (p. 339). This precise speech-movement and movement-movement coordination between speaker and listener was labeled interactional synchrony. To avoid including here the added complexitites of speech segmentation, I chose to investigate only the body-movement coordination between interactants. This alone is still an accepted indicator of interactional synchrony. Indeed, Condon and Ogston (1967b) state that "it is ... the synchronous change of direction of movement on the part of the interactants which defines interactional synchrony" (p. 230), a claim with which Kendon (1970) agreed.
Copyright 1978 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 0022-3514/78/3609-0963$00.75
963
964
JOSEPH J. MCDOWALL
Communicative Relevance of Interactional Synchrony Since the initial finding of synchrony, Condon and his co-workers have elaborated on the basic theme in several publications (Condon, 1970, 1975; Condon & Brosin, 1969; Condon & Ogston, 1967a, 1967b, 1971; Condon & Sander, 1974a, 1974b). In all these papers, Condon and his colleagues have been intent on describing the organization of behavior rather than speculating on its function, although they have made clear their thoughts on the importance of synchrony. For example, it has been claimed that "interactional-synchrony, like self-synchrony, seems to occur constantly during normal interaction" (italics mine; Condon & Ogston, 1971, p. 159). It was believed to be a fundamental, universal characteristic of human communication "evident from the day of birth (if not earlier)" (Condon, 1975, p. 45). "No random movements, no nonshared changes, were found to occur during interactional synchrony" (Condon & Ogston, 1967b, p. 229). Davis (1973), reporting on an interview with Condon, stated that he indicated to her that moving in synchrony with another person may have a similar effect to that which has been suggested for postural sharing (Scheflen, 1964, 1973), namely, it promotes a feeling of closeness, involvement, or rapport. Condon (1975) hypothesized that interactional synchrony provided constant feedback from listener to speaker regarding the former's level of attention and interest. Kendon (1970, 1973), the only other independent worker to investigate synchrony specifically, supported this interpretation. "To move with another is to show that one is 'with' him in one's attentions and expectancies" (Kendon, 1970, p. 124). This, then, is the posited attentionsignaling or rapport-producing aspect of interactional synchrony. With regard to the patterning of synchrony, Kendon (1970) found that this shared rhythmicity in movement seemed most obvious at the beginning and end of interchanges. Especially conspicuous at these times were periods of heightened synchrony, possibly involving mirror-image movements by participants. De Long (1974), from his analysis of kinesic termination signals in children,
suggested that the periods of heightened synchrony could indicate a listener's willingness to speak. That is, interactional synchrony could serve as part of the kinesic system involved in "speaker switching" (Jaffe & Feldstein, 1970), its being the listener's accompaniment to a speaker's termination or turn-yielding signal (Duncan, 1975), facilitating the smooth change in speaking role. This is the second, regulatory function attributed to interactional synchrony. Methodological Issues However, before synchrony can be accepted as an established phenomenon, several methodological issues relevant to the technique of microanalysis must be addressed. All are related to the problem of segmentation (i.e., the locating of boundaries in the stream of behavior). Only kinesic boundary determination is of interest in this study; the comparable analysis of speech has other unique problems (McDowall, Note 1). Each boundary can be classified as one of three types: (a) an initiation, that is, the first frame of a wave of movement; (b) a termination—the last frame on which movement can be detected in a sequence; or (c) a change of direction— the frame on which a sustained movement pattern begins to alter course. Because of the way a motion picture record is created in the camera (i.e., by a series of discrete exposures), there exists the possibility of a one-frame discrepancy even if it is assumed that observers analyzing the film perform that task perfectly. For example, a boundary located on one frame actually could have been produced at the end of the exposure period for the previous frame. This means that whenever single-frame synchrony is identified, one of the boundaries in question could have occurred approximately 20 to 40 msec before the place where it was detected in a film taken at 24 frames per sec (fps), the standard sound filming rate. The tendency for researchers (see Condon & Ogston, 1971) to increase filming speed to 48, 64, and 96 fps to reduce boundary smearing (the image blur due to movement during exposure) also reduces the duration of this possible temporal error; however, the dif-
INTERACTIONAL SYNCHRONY: A REAPPRAISAL
ference in position would still correspond to one frame. Furthermore, I have demonstrated (McDowall, Note 2) that the assumption of perfect performance by microanalyzers may not be valid. I found that observers made errors in judgment when fast movements (20-100 cm/ sec) filmed at 24 fps were analyzed; and these errors increased significantly when movement was slow (5 cm/sec) and filming fast (100 fps). In another study (McDowall, in press), I recorded inter- and intraobserver reliabilities, expressed as probabilities of agreement, on the task of boundary detection using film shot at 24 fps. When precise agreement was measured (i.e., at the singleframe level), reliability was low. But, as the criterion for agreement was relaxed by increasing the number of frames permissible between boundaries that were still considered coincident, reliability improved. Evidence available led me to suggest that a three-frame block or "unit of agreement" might produce the optimal balance between reliability magnitude and the significance of the observed results (when compared with chance expectancy). Table 1 provides a summary of the reliabilities obtained in this earlier work by observers participating in the present analysis. Findings from these studies raise doubts as to the ability of observers to respond with the consistent accuracy demanded in the frame-by-frame analysis of synchrony. Given these problems of boundary definition, observer accuracy and reliability, and the limited data provided so far in the literature, it is difficult to fully appreciate the importance or communicative relevance of synchrony as portrayed by Condon and his co-workers. Research needs to be conducted to determine if synchrony is actually a viable phenomenon. As Deese (1971) said, "They [Condon & Ogston] need to show us that the synchrony is actually there" (p. 251). Aims Consequently, I decided to look more systematically at the overall incidence of synchrony than had been done previously. When two individuals are moving while interacting, it would be expected, statistically, that some
965
Table 1 Inter- and Intraobserver Reliabilities (Probabilities of Agreement) for Three-Frame Units Reliability Intraobserver
Interobserver Body part Head Upper right arm Lower right arm Right hand Upper left arm Lower left arm Left hand Right foot Left foot
1& 2
1& 3
1
2
3
.54
.63
.67
.67
.89**
.75**
.60
.40
.22
.44
.57* .78**
.71** .60
.83** .67* .50 .67* .75** .33
.36
1.00**
.67*
.15
.83**
.67 .58 .63* .50
.38 .73* .50 .50
.55 .70* .75** .33
.33 .57 .27 .50
.18 .75 .80** 0
Note. Observer 1 is the author. Each value is based on data from 16 units. * p < .05. ** p< .01.
of their boundaries of movement would coincide by chance alone. Can synchrony be demonstrated to be more than just a series of random occurrences? In addition, three specific hypotheses relating to the proposed functions of synchrony were tested in this research. 1. If the presence of interactional synchrony indicates good rapport between interactants, as discussed previously, it could be expected that when individuals likely to demonstrate rapport (e.g., long-term friends) interact, more synchrony would be apparent than would be between strangers under similar conditions. 2. Following from the observations of Kendon (1970) and De Long (1974), if interactional synchrony is involved with regulating the changeover between speakers, more synchrony would be expected at speaker-switching locations between consecutive speakers than between pairings of the speaker with other participants. 3. Again, since interactional synchrony supposedly facilitates smooth interchange between speakers, more of this synchrony would be
966
JOSEPH J. MCDOWALL
expected at switching locations where the latency (period of silence between the speech of successive contributors) is short than at switchings where overlapping speech or a delayed response occurs.
(Van Vlack, 1966) prepared from this film provided the data base for this study.
Film Analysis Observers. Two female observers, trained in microkinesic analysis for a previous study (McDowall, in press) and with extensive experience at film transcription, shared with me the initial task of locating boundaries in the first 1000 frames from the first recorded segment. Subsequent analyses of speakerswitching locations were done by me without assistance.
Method Film Sample The material analyzed in this study was obtained from a motion picture film, with synchronized sound, of a six-person discussion group. A request was made to first-year psychology students at the University of Queensland for groups of three close friends to participate in an experiment. Two of the volunteer triads (one consisting of two females and one male, the other of two males and one female) were combined to form a group that provided six dyads of friends and nine dyads of strangers. A questionnaire was administered before the filming session to document the degree of friendship between interactants; these data are presented in Table 2. As can be seen, the minimum period of acquaintance of any pair of friends was 8 months. The ages of the students ranged from 18 to 25 years. An Auricon Cine-Voice II Model CM 72A 16-mm movie camera and the operator were concealed in the ceiling, directly above the group members who were seated in a circular formation of approximately 2.5-m diameter (see Figure 1). The participants were asked to talk about topics they believed to be of social importance. They had given permission for their speech to be recorded and their behavior filmed, but they did not know when the filming occurred. The discussion continued for 12 min. From this total interaction, two segments were filmed at 24 fps on Kodak Tri-X reversal film rated at 200 ASA. The first of these sequences, lasting 1.2 min, was recorded 2.5 min after commencement of the encounter, while the second, of 1.5-min duration, was filmed 5.5 min after the first. Because of this time sampling and because the camera operator could not see the ongoing behavior, no bias was possible in selecting the particular segments. A work print with numbered frames
Apparatus. Film transcription was effected using a Bell and Howell Filmsound Model 655Q 16-mm projector with an/1.4 25-mm (wide angle) lens, which cast a 12 X 18 cm image of each participant onto a matt white screen 2 m distant. The basic projector was modified by the addition of a pulsing mechanism to allow flicker-free, frame-by-frame analysis (see McDowall, in press, for a more detailed description). This system is technically different from the manually operated projector used by Condon (1970); however, to date, no data are available to determine whether one method is superior. Procedure. Each observer analyzed blocks of 100 frames at a time, coding the three boundary types (initiations, terminations, and changes of direction) for each of the six participants from all 18 visible body parts (viz., head, shoulders, hips, and trunk; and the right and left upper and lower arms, hands, fingers, upper and lower legs, and feet). The parts were demarcated by the skeletal joints on which they moved. Instructions to observers regarding body-part and boundary criteria were as described elsewhere (McDowall, in press). Conservatism in judgments was emphasized to optimize transcription accuracy; if observers were not confident in their delimiting of a movement, they were asked to omit those boundaries from their codings rather than guess their position. Although this approach possibly reduced the instances of observed synchrony, it also produced smaller expected probabilities for comparison. Matrix-format record sheets containing 18 rows (body parts) and 100 columns (frames) were used
Table 2 Data Indicating Degree of Friendship Between Interactants
Contacts Dyad
Sexes
Time known (months)
AB AD BD CE CH EH
M-F M-F F-F M-M M-F M-F
8 8 30 9 24 10
per week (days)
5 7 7 7 2 5
Comments Both friends of D Engaged, later married Shared accommodation Friends through university studies a a
Note. Dyads not listed here (e.g., AC, BE, etc.) represent "stranger" combinations. M a Comments for CH and EH are the same as for CE.
male; F = female.
INTERACTIONAL SYNCHRONY: A REAPPRAISAL
967
Figure 1. Tracing from Film Frame 5932 showing the observed group's configuration. by observers. When analyzing their allocated sequences, the observers worked their way systematically through all body parts of one participant before concentrating on the next individual. The first viewing of a sequence was at 24 fps to detect motion in a part. Then if movement was found, the film was replayed slowly (one frame each .5 sec or 1 sec) until the boundaries of movement were located. Crosses were placed on the record sheets to indicate frames on which boundaries were seen to occur.
Statistical Analysis Observed probability of interactional synchrony. In calculating the overall incidence of interactional synchrony, the data from each person's 18 body parts were compressed into one record showing each of the 1000 frames on which at least one body-part boundary occurred. Although previous synchrony studies had considered single-frame coincidence of boundaries, I decided to adopt the three-frame unit of analysis
968
JOSEPH J. MCDOWALL
proposed earlier (McDowall, in press), on the basis of research questioning (a) the necessity for singleframe accuracy (Birdwhistell, 1970; Hutt & Hutt, 1970; Scheflen, 1973) and (b) the ability of observers to achieve this accuracy (Stern, 1971; McDowall, Note 2). The duration of this unit (approximately 125 msec) is below the range of reaction times cited by Woodworth and Schlosberg (19SS) from studies of American college students, especially for the hands and feet (144-179 msec). Furthermore, Clynes (1973) quantified the "present moment" (i.e., the period in which conscious feedback cannot affect a decision or action) as 200 msec, again well outside my critical duration for three-frame units. Consequently, it would be extremely unlikely for a movement boundary of one person to elicit a response from another within the same discrete three-frame block, thereby still allowing boundaries occurring in such close proximity to be defined as synchronous. All possible combinations of persons were studied—IS dyads, 20 triads, IS tetrads, 6 pentads, and 1 hexad. The observed probabilities in each case were calculated by summing the number of units showing synchrony and dividing by the total number of units (i.e., 333) in this sample. Expected probability of interactional synchrony. I used the binomial test (Siegel, 1956) to determine the likelihood of chance occurrence of frequencies as great as, or greater than, the observed numbers. The expected frequency of the random co-occurrence of two or more independent events is given by the product of their probabilities of occurring in their separate systems (Rodger, 1967a). Therefore, the probability of each participant's producing a movement boundary was calculated by dividing the number of three-frame units containing boundaries by the
total number of possible units (333). The respective products of these probabilities gave the expected values for the various combinations of interactants.
Results Frequency of Boundaries Although 18 body parts were analyzed for each of the six participants, only 16 of these showed movement; no boundaries were detected in the hips and right foot of any person. Table 3 presents the frequency of boundaries for each person on each part, with mean frequencies summarizing person and part data. Column means give an indication of the differences in boundary occurrence between interactants; row means reflect these differences between parts. Clearly, people vary greatly in the number of parts moved as well as in the frequency of boundaries within parts. These results support similar observations by Dittmann and Llewellyn (1969). Incidence of Interactional Synchrony Table 4 lists the observed and expected probabilities of interactional synchrony for all possible combinations of persons. Asterisks indicate which of these values were different
Table 3 Frequency of Boundaries of Movement for each Person on each Part Person D
Part Head Shoulders Upper right arm Lower right arm Right hand Right fingers Upper left arm Lower left arm Left hand Left fingers Upper right leg Lower right leg Upper left leg Lower left leg Left foot Trunk
M
42 6 — — — — — 45 41 5 10 8 10 — — 2 10.56
21 — 10 15 15 2 5 5 14 8 — — — — — — 5.94
Note. Total number of three-frame units = 333.
47 3 8 18 52 10 2 10 32 5 2 — — — — 4 12.06
31 12 4 15 23 — — 8 17 4 3 —. 6 — — 5 8.00
17 — 6 68 63 25 4 2 22 — 153 6 2 2 2 4 23.50
H
M
37 2 13 7 7 — 7 30 19 — 2 — 3 — — 10 8.56
32.50 3.83 6.83 20.50 26.67 6.17 3.00 16.67 24.17 3.67 28.33 2.33 3.50 0.33 0.33 4.17
Table 4 Probabilities of Interactional Synchrony Observed (O) and Expected (E) for all Combinations of Participants Synchrony
O E
Combination
AB .099*** .050
AC .084 .097
AD .036 .066
AH .084 .074
AE .213 .214
Dyads BD BE .051 .096 .036 .118
BC .039 .054
0 E
ABC .021 .016
ABD .024* .011
ABE .060* .035
ABH .030** .012
ACD .030 .021
ACE .060 .069
O E
ABCD .003 .004
ABCE .015 .011
ABCH 0 .004
ABDE .018* .008
ABDH .009 .003
ABEH .021* .009
ACH .039 .024
ADE .027 .047
BH .048 .041
CD -O87 .071
Triads ADH AEH .012 .063 .016 .053
CE .234 .231
CH .093 .080
DE .156 .156
DH .057 .054
EH .186 .175
BCD .009 .012
BCE .027 .038
BCH .009 .013
BDE .036 .026
BDH .018 .009
Tetrads ACDE ACDH ACEH ADEH BCDE BCDH BCEH BDEH CDEH .003 0 .027 .009 .009 .006 .015 MS .006 .017 .012 .008 .009 .015 .005 .003 .006 .012
0 E
Pentads ABCDE ABCDH ABCEH ABDEH ACDEH BCDEH 0 .006 .006 .003 0 0 .003 .002 .004 .003 .001 .002
O E
Hexad ABCDEH 0 .001
O i-3
I BEH .030 .029
CDE .072 .051
CDH .015 .018
CEH .072 .057
DEH .045 .038
t-1
3 I > M
en
f
Note. Total number of three-frame units = 333. * t < -05. ** t < .01. ** t < .004.
970
JOSEPH J. MCDOWALL
from chance at the three significance levels chosen. The two least conservative levels were based on per comparison (PC) error rates for each of the 57 tests of .05 and .01. Use of the third level represented an attempt to compensate for the direct increase in experiment-wise (EW) error rate resulting from an increase in the number of comparisons tested. This was achieved by adopting a smaller critical PC error rate (i.e., by reducing the size of the critical rejection region). When making multiple comparisons between treatment means, the relationship between PC and EW error rates is given by the equations: CKEW =
and
1 — (1 — 0!pc)c
(1)
«EW — cape, (2) where c represents the number of independent comparisons conducted (see Keppel, 1973, p. 88). Rodger (1967b) indicated that adjustments based on these equations are suitable for use with linear hypotheses that are not contrasts. That is, "the new procedure is not limited to simple ANOVA. , . . One of the many possible non-parametric applications can be found in Rodger (1969)" (Rodger, 1975, p. 78). I have applied these procedures to the binomial test, but since the comparisons performed here were numerous and not independent, only an approximate adjustment to the PC error rate could be made. For example, with the six participants, five orthogonal comparisons were possible. For these, with arc = .05, CHEW = .226 (Equation 1). If this value is adopted as an acceptable EW error rate, then when all 57 comparisons are of interest, ape — .004 (Equation 2). Although only an estimate, this criterion did provide a necessary, conservative alternative to put the less rigorous significance levels in perspective. It can be seen from Table 4, with ape = .004, that one dyad (AB) displayed interactional synchrony at greater than chance level. Even when the less conservative criteria were used, only 5 of the remaining 56 combinations reached significance.1 Furthermore, the actual probabilities were quite low, the value of greatest magnitude being .234 for Dyad CE. If observed synchrony
were calculated as a proportion of only those units containing boundaries, these probabilities would be greater. For example, the probabilities of Participants C and E producing boundaries in any three-frame unit were .324 and .712, respectively; consequently, the observed probability of synchrony from units with boundaries = .234/(.324 + .712 - .234) = .292 (see McDowall, in press, for a more detailed derivation of this formula). However, this result still represents a relatively small percentage of possible units showing interactional synchrony. It should also be noted that although .234 was the largest value recorded, it was not significant, because the proportions of boundary occurrence in both C and E combined to produce a comparatively high expected probability of random co-occurrence. Part Synchrony in the AB Dyad It should be emphasized that the synchrony analysis performed on the compressed data was not sensitive to which body parts were moved in synchrony. The synchronous boundaries could have occurred in a variety of parts, or they could all have been produced in the one part pairing. To investigate which parts were involved in the AB dyad, an analysis of pairings of all parts in the two participants was conducted. The 8 out of 120 pairings showing significantly more interactional synchrony than expected by chance (at apc = .05) are listed in Table 5. When the more conservative, compensatory significance level was employed (in this case, ape = .005), it can be seen that only the right-leg and left-hand combinations displayed significant boundary coincidence. Synchrony in Particular Part Pairings over Dyads Another limitation of the overall analysis introduced here was that significant syn1 While few of the individual comparisons reached significance, it is of interest to note that for dyads, triads, and tetrads, observed probabilities exceeded the expected in 64%, 65%, and 60% of cases, respectively, with the proportion over all 57 comparisons being 60%.
INTERACTIONAL SYNCHRONY: A REAPPRAISAL
chrony in one or more part combinations within a dyad could be countered by pairings of parts displaying numerous nonsynchronous boundaries. To investigate this possibility, all pairings of a sample of three parts (the head and each hand) over all dyads were analyzed for significant synchrony. Previous research (Dittmann & Llewellyn, 1969; Ekman & Friesen, 1972) had dealt with the use of these body regions in interactions; and it can be noted from Table 2 that most boundaries were concentrated in these parts (if the repetitive movements of E's upper right leg are excluded). Table 6 indicates those of the 153 combinations of head and hands over all dyads that reached significance at ape = .05. When the significance level was appropriately adjusted (i.e., «PC = .004), the pairing of left and right hands for CD and the pairing of left hands for CH remained showing significant synchrony. Interactional Synchrony Friendship
as a Function of
It has been shown that more synchrony than expected occurred in only one dyad (viz., AB), a pair of friends. This single instance, however, is not an adequate confirmation of the predicted relationship between friendship and synchrony (Hypothesis 1). To test this hypothesis, the 15 dyads were categorized as being composed of close friends or strangers. Table 5 Part Pairings in Dyad A B Showing Significantly More Synchrony Than Expected by Chance (ape = .05) Part Person A
Person B
Observed probability
Shoulders Left hand Left fingers Left fingers Upper right leg Upper right leg Lower right leg Upper left leg
Right fingers Right fingers Head Left fingers Head Left hand Left hand Upper left arm
.003 .006 .006 .006* .009 .012** .012** .006
Note. Total number of three-frame units *p < .01. ** p < .005.
333.
971
Table 6
Head and Hand Combinations, Over All Dyads, Showing Significantly More Synchrony Than Expected by Chance (ape = .05) Dyad
Part
Observed probability
BE CD CD CE CH DH EH
Head:Head Right hand :Head Left hand:Right hand Right hand :Right hand Left hand: Left hand Left hand: Head Left hand : Left hand
.015* .030 .024** .051 .024** .015 .012
Note. Total number of three-frame units *p < .01. **p< .004.
333.
A one-way analysis of variance with unequal sample sizes (Keppel, 1973, p. 346) was performed on the observed probabilities of synchrony after these had been adjusted using the arc sine transformation (Winer, 1962) to reduce possible skewness of within-cell distributions. There was no significant difference in synchrony between the close friend and stranger combinations, F(\, 13) < 1, p > .05. Interactional Synchrony at Speaker-Switching Locations Inspection of the data regarding synchrony in the AB dyad indicated that 70% of the observed instances occurred around a switching location involving these participants, beginning with the start of B's utterance and continuing into a speech by A, a period of approximately 4 sec. The remaining 30% of cases were observed during an utterance by Participant D; these were not associated with speaker switching. Such descriptive data do not give a clear indication of the role synchrony plays at speaker-switching locations. To test the relevant predictions (Hypotheses 2 and 3), synchrony found in pairings of consecutive speakers was compared with that recorded between the speaker and listeners, at speaker-switching locations varying in latency of transition. Three types of switching locations were identified: (a) negative latency (overlapping), where the second speaker began before the first had finished; (b) short latency, where the latency was 0 to .5 sec; and (c)
972
JOSEPH J. MCDOWALL
Table 7 Means of Transformed Observed Probabilities of Interactional Synchrony at Speaker-Switching Locations as a Function of Participant Pairings and Latency
Discussion
Latency Pairing
Negative
tions; but a comparison of the mean probabilities of boundary production by participants during each switching type did not reveal significant differences, F(2, 69) = 1.55, p > .05.
How Important is Interactional Synchrony? Short
Long
Results from this data sample suggest that interactional synchrony is not a fundamental .3711 1.1267 .4846 characteristic of human behavior, occurring .4082 .7237 .4145 constantly during normal interaction, as claimed by Condon and Ogston (1971). long latency, where the latency was 1 to 2 sec. Synchronous boundaries were detected inThe portion of a switching location analyzed frequently, at greater than random occurrence included the last 2 sec (48 frames) of a speaker's in only one dyad (AB); and within this dyad, contribution plus the period up to the time only the pairings of A's upper and lower when the next speaker commenced, except right leg with B's left hand showed significant for overlapping changes, where the 2 sec coincidence. This is hardly the incidence exbefore the second speaker began were of pected for a phenomenon without which "communication might not be possible at all" interest. Observed probabilities of synchrony were (Davis, 1973, p. 115). Furthermore, if movecalculated, using discrete three-frame units, ment coordination was as precise as docufrom all switching locations in the total film mented by Condon and Ogston, the situation sample that did not involve short, incomplete of masking of overall synchrony (see Table 6) utterances. Four each of the three types of should not have eventuated, since all boundlocation satisfied this criterion. Arc sine trans- aries would appear to be synchronous from formations of the probabilities were subjected their data. Because of my more liberal conceptualizato a 3 X 2 analysis of variance (Latency X Pairings) with unequal sample sizes.2 The tion of synchrony, as many if not more cases latency effect was found to be significant, of this phenomenon than recorded previously F(2, 52) = 3.64, p < .05, 17 = .35, but the should have been apparent. However, this pairings effect and the interaction were not was not the present finding. There is no (F < 1 in each case). Table 7 lists the means reason to suppose that such results were due of the transformed probabilities. A comparison to peculiarities in either the participants of short-latency switching locations with over- involved here or the experimental conditions lapping and long-tendency locations revealed employed, especially by comparison with significantly more synchrony during the other synchrony studies. For example, Kendon former changeovers, F(l, 52) = 6.65, p < .05, (1970) used as his data base a film of a group discussion in a London pub, and Condon and TJ = .34. However, it should be noted that at each Ogston (1967b) found synchrony between of the three types of switching location, the people conversing while connected to electroobserved probabilities of synchrony in all encephalogram and electromyogram recorders. pairings tested did not exceed chance ex- The conditions of my study would seem at pectation, calculated as a product of the least as "normal" as either of these. individuals' probabilities of boundary produc2 tion over all three-frame units in the selected On one each of the short- and long-latency switching locations, not just one but two people took the sequences. As higher observed and expected probabilities of synchrony were recorded from floor from the former speaker within the critical period. In this analysis, only the interactant who the short- and long-latency conditions than replied first was considered; the second person's data from overlapping switchings, more boundaries were eliminated, thereby producing the unequal were expected to occur at the former loca- sample sizes. Speaker-Speaker Speaker-Listener
INTERACTIONAL SYNCHRONY: A'REAPPRAISAL
In addition, the relevant literature characteristically contains simple descriptions of short sequences of selected data. If I had chosen only the 99 frames where A and B showed most of their synchrony, I could have presented a description similar to those reported elsewhere. Yet, within this limited frame set, the observed probability of synchrony (.637) was not significantly different from chance (.546) when the increased frequency of boundary production by both A and B was considered. Interactional Synchrony and Friendship Hypothesis 1 concerning synchrony and its relationship with friendship was not supported by the data. It is clear that rapport generated from long-term friendship between participants was not expressed through their synchronous movement. If synchrony does function as an indicator of closeness or involvement, it could be a particular type of immediate, short-term response, possibly associated with agreement during a conversation, which is not restricted to dyads of friends. Testing such a hypothesis would require a larger data sample than was available here to obtain sufficient instances of agreement and disagreement. Interactional Synchrony and Speaker Switching Since the participant who "took the floor" from a speaker was no more likely to share synchronous movements with that person than were any of the other interactants, Hypothesis 2 was also rejected. Coupled with the finding that all probabilities of synchrony recorded at switching locations between the speaker and other group members were no different from chance, this evidence raises questions concerning the proposed function of synchrony in facilitating smooth interchange between speakers. Do these data indicate, as Condon (1975) and Kendon (1973) would suggest, that the listeners were not giving their full attention to the speaker? Such an argument is difficult to assess even by asking the participants directly; but since the sample discussion was continuous and lively, I believe, albeit intuitively, that the
973
majority of the group members were actively involved and attentive. Perhaps the most intriguing result was the recording of significantly more interactional synchrony in all pairings tested at shortlatency speaker interchanges as contrasted with negative- and long-latency locations. That is, there was a tendency for synchrony to increase in frequency as the interaction flowed more smoothly. Unfortunately, as the observed probabilities of synchrony at speakerswitching locations were not found to be significantly different from chance, and no significant difference was recorded between the mean probability of boundary production by individuals at the short-latency locations and those means from the other speaker changeovers, the association between synchrony and the degree of disruption remains unclear. One interesting speculation is that it may not be boundary synchrony that is of primary importance when considering coordination, but rather the possibility of differential rates of movement exhibited by people at particular phases of an interaction. However, such a situation needs to be demonstrated; present data are equivocal on this point. Future Considerations From a methodological viewpoint, to enhance the accuracy and repeatability of microanalytic procedures, precise measuring techniques as outlined by Smith (1975), incorporating grid systems and calipers, should be employed. However, such alternatives would be more time consuming than present methods of microanalysis and therefore would probably not be popular for use in the muchneeded long-term studies of interactions. One solution would be to develop new technology, perhaps based on refined versions of Dittmann and Llewellyn's (1969) accelerometers or on elaborations of proposed computer-controlled scanning devices (see Haith, 1966; Trochim, 1976). Until such advances are achieved, it may be more enlightening not to be concerned unduly with the precise points in time where movements start or stop, but instead to focus on macro elements of behavior (e.g., categories of activities, their duration, their co-occurrence across interactants, etc.)
974
JOSEPH J. MCDOWALL
when investigating topics such as timing and coordination. Conclusions Although interactional synchrony was recorded at greater than chance occurrence, these instances were so infrequent and sporadic that any attempt at a functional interpretation would be extremely tenuous. This is a totally different picture from that presented by Condon and Ogston (1966, 1967b), where synchrony was seen as a fundamental characteristic of normal human communication. These contradictory findings indicate that in some circumstances, boundary synchrony may not be as important as previously claimed. It is essential that more research be directed toward the interactional determinants of synchrony before this phenomenon be accepted as, for example, a diagnostic tool in psychotherapy, a feature Condon (1975) has emphasized. Reference Notes 1. McDowall, J. J. Synchrony between body movement and speech rhythms. Manuscript in preparation, 1978. 2. McDowall, J. J. Accuracy of boundary detection by observers of filmed movement. Manuscript submitted for publication, 1978.
References Birdwhistell, R. L. Kinesics and context. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1970. Bullowa, M. When infant and adult communicate, how do they synchronize their behaviors? In A. Kendon, R. M. Harris, & M. R. Key (Eds.), Organization of behavior in face-to-face interaction. The Hague, The Netherlands: Mouton, 1975. Clynes, M. Sentics: Biocybernetics of emotion communication. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1973, 220, 55-131. Condon, W. S. Method of micro-analysis of sound films of behavior. Behavior Research Methods 6* Instrumentation, 1970, 2, 51-54. Condon, W. S. Multiple response to sound in dysfunctional children. Journal of Autism and Childhood Schizophrenia, 1975, 5, 37-56. Condon, W. S., & Brosin, H. W. Micro linguistickinesic events in schizophrenic behavior. In D. V. S. Sankar (Ed.), Schizophrenia: Current concepts and research. Hicksville, N.Y.: PJD Publications, 1969. Condon, W. S., & Ogston, W. D. Sound film analysis of normal and pathological behavior patterns.
Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 1966, 143, 338-347. Condon, W. S., & Ogston, W. D. A method of studying animal behavior. Journal of Auditory Research, 1967, 7, 359-365. (a) Condon, W. S., & Ogston, W. D. A segmentation of behavior. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 1967, 5, 221-235. (b) Condon, W. S., & Ogston, W. D. Speech and body motion synchrony of the speaker-hearer. In D. L. Horton & J. J. Jenkins (Eds.), Perception of language. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill, 1971. Condon, W. S., & Sander, L. W. Neonate movement is synchronized with adult speech: Interactional participation and language acquisition. Science, 1974, ;&?(4120), 99-101. (a) Condon, W. S., & Sander, L. W. Synchrony demonstrated between movements of the neonate and adult speech. Child Development, 1974, 45, 456462. (b) Davis, F. Inside intuition: What we know about nonverbal coimmmication. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1973. Deese, J. General discussion of the conference on the perception of language. In D. L. Horton & J. J. Jenkins (Eds.), Perception of language. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill, 1971. De Long, A. J. Kinesic signals at utterance boundaries in preschool children. Semiotica, 1974, 11, 43-73. Dittmann, A. T., & Llewellyn, L. G. Body movement and speech rhythm in social conversation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1969, //, 98-106. Duncan, S., Jr. Interaction units during speaking turns in dyadic, face-to-face conversations. In A. Kendon, R. M. Harris, & M. R. Key (Eds.), Organization of behavior in face-to-face interaction. The Hague, The Netherlands: Mouton, 1975. Ekman, P., & Friesen, W, V. Hand movements. Journal of Communication, 1972, 22, 353-374. Haith, M. M. A semiautomatic procedure for measuring changes in position. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1966, 3, 289-295. Hutt, S. J., & Hutt, C. Direct observation and measurement of behavior. Springfield, 111.: Charles C Thomas, 1970. Jaffe, J., & Feldstein, S. Rhythms of dialogue. New York: Academic Press, 1970. Kendon, A. Movement coordination in social interaction: Some examples described. Ada Psychologica, 1970, 32, 100-125. Kendon, A. The role of visible behavior in the organization of social interaction. In M. von Cranach & I. Vine (Eds.), Social communication and movement. London: Academic Press, 1973. Keppel, G. Design and analysis: A researcher's handbooh. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1973. McDowall, J. J. Microanalysis of filmed movement: The reliability of boundary detection by observers. Environmental Psychology and Nonverbal Behaviour, in press. Rodger, R. S. Statistical reasoning in psychology (2nd ed.). London: University Tutorial Press, 1967. (a)
INTERACTIONAL SYNCHRONY: A REAPPRAISAL Rodger, R. S. Type I errors and their decision basis. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 1967, 20, 51-62. (b) Rodger, R. S. Linear hypotheses in 2 X a frequency tables. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 1969, 22, 29-48. Rodger, R. S. The number of non-zero, post hoc contrasts from ANOVA and error-rate: I. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 1975, 28, 71-78. Scheflen, A. E. The significance of posture in communication systems. Psychiatry, 1964, 27, 316-331. Scheflen, A. E. Communicational structure: Analysis of a psychotherapy transaction. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1973. Siegel, S. Nonparametric statistics: For the behavioral sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1956. Smith, A. J. Photographic analysis of movement. In D. W. Grieve, D. I. Miller, D. Mitchelson, J. P. Paul, & A. J. Smith (Eds.), Techniques for the analysis of human movement. London: Lepus Books, 1975. Stern, D. N. A micro-analysis of mother-infant inter-
975
action. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 1971,10, 501-517, Thoman, E. B. How a rejecting baby affects motherinfant synchrony. In Ciba foundation symposium 33— Parent-infant interaction. Amsterdam: Associated Scientific Publishers, 1975. Trochim, W. M. K. The three-dimensional graphic method for quantifying body position. Behavior Research Methods and Instrumentation, 1976, 8, 1-4. Van Vlack, J. Filming psychotherapy from the viewpoint of a research cinematographer. In L. A. Gottschalk & A. H. Auerbach (Eds.), Methods of research in psychotherapy. New York: AppletonCentury-Crofts, 1966. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary. Springfield, Mass.: Merriam, 1973. Winer, B. J. Statistical principles in experimental design. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962. Woodworth, R. S., & Schlosberg, H. Experimental psychology (3rd ed.). London: Methuen, 1955. Received May 26, 1977 •
