Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

NONVERBAL > synchrony > Flashcards

synchrony Flashcards

1
Q

define mimicry

A

spatially matched behaviour
after percieve a beh
- may not be consciously aware

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

define synchrony

A

spatially and temporally matched
can emerge spontaneously but eventually aware
requires anticipation of anothers behaviour

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

what factors influence the emergence of synchrony

A
  1. spontaneous info exchange
    2 when we like the othr peron
  2. pro-self or pro-other orientation
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q
  1. spontaneous info exchange

oullier et al 2008

A

finger tapping
eyes open/closed
perfectly synchronise only when in eyes open condition
closed eyes no coord

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

relative phase

A

0 degrees freedom

perfect sycnh

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q
  1. when we like the other person

how might this impact synch?

A

preference for others may determine the degree to which we spontaneously fall in synch
physics not fully accountable for synchrony but mediates

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q
  1. when we like the other peron
    miles et al 2010
    aim/method
A

does liking affect spontaneous entrainment
high like - confed on time
low like - confed 10 mins late
pps walk on treadmill to white noise - confed in front
baseline no confed

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q
  1. when we like the other peron
    miles et al 2010
    results
A

ontime % entrainment sig increase than late or baseline

late still increase baseline - info exchange

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q
  1. pro-self vs pro-other orientation

how might this impact synch?

A

social value orientation thought to determine goals in interpersonal contexts

  • prosocial - max for both
  • individualist - max for self regrdless of other
  • competitive - max for self, relative to other
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q
  1. proself/proother orientation
    lumsden et al 2012
    METHOD 1
A

female undergrad social value orientation determined via Q
arm curls to met 60s
silence 3m
- video of confed at met freq - no synch instructions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q
  1. proself/proother orientation
    lumsden et al 2012
    DV 1
A

coordination vs baseline

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q
  1. proself/proother orientation
    lumsden et al 2012
    RESULTS 1
A

both coordinate at greater than chance level

prosocial sig > proself

natural avo influence propensity to synch

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q
  1. proself/proother orientation
    lumsden et al 2012
    METHOD 2
A 
instruct prosocial/self orientation 
points allocation game 
aim equal achievement with partner or maximise ownbenefit 
armcurls and vidlink 
- told play game after
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q
  1. proself/proother orientation
    lumsden et al 2012
    RESULTS 2
A

both coord > chance

prosocial > inphase than proself

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q
  1. proself/proother orientation
    lumsden et al 2012
    explanations
A

proself more actively resistant to synchrony?
BUT how prosocial were they prior to manipuation?
BUT gender?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

why might liking and social orientation alter synchrony

A

differences in attentional allocation

synch may function svo - increase?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

outcomes of synchrony

A 
affective: 
liking and rapport
trust
prosocial beh
self esteem
cognitive: 
resource availability
recog memory
negative: 
conformity
obedience
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

outcomes of synchrony

liking and rapport

A

hove and risen 2009

vacherkulkdernsuk 2012

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

outcomes of synchrony

prosocial beh

A

valdesolo and destono 2011

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

outcomes of synchrony

self esteem

A

lumsden et al 2014

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

outcomes of synchrony

resource availability

A

honisch et al

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

outcomes of synchrony

recognition memory

A

miles et al

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

outcomes of synchrony

conformity

A

wiltermuth and heath 2012

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

outcomes of synchrony

obedience

A

wiltermuth 2012

25
Q

vacherkulkdernsuk 2012
liking and rapport
METHOD

A

does synchrony mediate the effect of self disclosure on embodied rapport
interaction task videod over 20m
score vid for simultaneous movement, tempo similarity, coord and smoothness

26
Q

self disclosure

A

sharing peronal info thought to promote relations via liking and positive affect
aarons paradigm - progressive self disclosure between dyad “how close do you feel to x”

27
Q

embodied rapport

A

percieved shared motions, emotions and vitality with partner
feelings of vitality and aliveness theories to stem from shared movements

28
Q

vacherkulkdernsuk 2012
liking and rapport
RESULTS

A

self disclosure sig predict rapport
self disclosure sig predict synch
synch sig predict rapport

  • direct effect of self disclosure on rapport is non sig when synchrony is a mediator

self disclosing judged to move together more, thus predicting ^ pos, mutuality and vitality (emb. rapport)

BEH SYNCHRONY DRIVES EMBODIED RAPPORT INDEPENDENT OF SELF OTHER OVERLAP - NOT BECAUSE BLUR BOUNDARIES - COORD ‘ONENESS’ INCREASES LIKING

29
Q

hove and risen 2009
liking and rapport
aim

A

does synch increase affiliation with others?

30
Q

hove and risen 2009
liking and rapport
1 - measuring synch
METHOD

A

affiliation and objective synch vs subjective (self report) synch
synch between pps and exp when tap finger (oullier) on drum pad - hear
dv: mean synch and asynch

31
Q

hove and risen 2009
liking and rapport
1- measuring synch
RESULTS

A

degree of interpersonal synch predicts how much pp like the experimenter
more synch = more liking
BUT not causal - pps like before so synch more?
- asynchrony just inhibit liking?

32
Q

hove and risen 2009
liking and rapport
2 - manupulating synch
METHOD

A

baseline likeability measure and synch/asynch/solo tapping

33
Q

hove and risen 2009
liking and rapport
2 - manupulating synch
RESULTS

A

no diff in likeability at baseline
synch ^ liking of experimener
**not mimicry - regardless of awareness
- synchrony faciliatates liking, aysnch does NOT inhibit liking

BUT - liking ^ because of interpersonal synch or because experiencing synch?

34
Q

hove and risen 2009
liking and rapport
3. Inanimate synch
METHOD

A

does synch increase liking because of its interpersonal nature?
tap to metronome when exp present or in time with exp

35
Q

hove and risen 2009
liking and rapport
3. Inanimate synch
RESULTS

A

inanimate tapping doesnt change likeability
linked to interpersonal connection

  • driven specifically by interpersonal synchrony
36
Q

why might synchrony increase liking?

A
  1. neural activation - temporal and spatial overlap bteween self and other blur ability to discriminate
  2. pos perceptions of self may extend to others
  3. synch assoc with communal relations - infer closeness when notice synch as cues of a shared relationship
37
Q

valdesolo and desteno 2011
prosocial behaviour - altruism
METHOD

A

synch theorised to induce compassion for others
pps synch/asynch w/victim
tap synch task with confed while listen to beats
confed synch/asynch to pps
Qs on similarity and liking of partner then told confed had long task - help or leave
measure how long help for

38
Q

valdesolo and desteno 2011
prosocial behaviour - altruism
RESULTS

A

synch ^ percieved similarity with victim
compassion ^ in synch condition
synch ^ chose to help and for sig longer time

synch sig ^ percieved similarity - similarity mediate link between synch and compassino

compassion directly predict altruism - not mediated by synch induced liking but similarity/self-otheroverlap

39
Q

miles et al 2012
recognition
aim

A

natur of synch is likely to have a sig impact on social cog
does interpersonal coord influence the processing of self relevant info
- is the magnitude of self memory mediated by synch stability

40
Q

self reference effect

A

preferential encoding and memory related info related to self>others
self memory effect attenuated when social connection with others

41
Q

miles et al 2012
recognition
METHOD

A

dual task
alternation of word repetition between self and confed via headphones
arm curl - confed inphase/antiphase
suprise mem test for words said by self, other or not said

42
Q

miles et al 2012
recognition
RESULTS

A

antiphase self mem advantage
eliminate when inphase

synch eliminate self reference
- measure with arons?

43
Q

honisch et al 2016
resource availability - perceptual motor fluency
hypothesis

A
  1. synch should increase motor fluency
    -less attention directed at co actor as movement predictable based on oneself
    - control relied on forward motor models where current movement predicts motor output
    - predicted and actual proprioceptive feedback paired with visual input of coactor
    -extent match = integration of proprioceptive cues
  2. synch promote perceptual fluency of coactor and motor of own beh
    - enhanced ability to process alt aspects of the environ/divert attention
    - fluency drive increase in pos eval
44
Q

define entrainment

A

pull towards movement of others - spontaneously

unconsiously match even when set at diff tempos

45
Q

resource availability hyp

A

visual and auditory inputs of self and other movement
the more self and other are temporally, spatially and topologically matched, the more sensory signals are likely to be integrated
process self and other as one

46
Q

honisch et al 2016
resource availability - perceptual motor fluency
METHOD

A

sych/asych/baseline
synch movement to met - bouncing
1. watch task partner on screen in front who bounce in or out of synch
2. report p’s/g’s in periphery whilst maintain fix on partner - probe detection

47
Q

honisch et al 2016
resource availability - perceptual motor fluency
RESULTS

A

interbalance interval - time diff for each target relative to preceding target event - motor fluency = decreased variability in IBI

pre - IBI in synch and asynch not sig differ, but sig higher valiability in asynch - make more errors when percieve asynch

with probe:
Significantly more errors in asycnc compared to sych
Much more cog resources available - driven by percieved fluency
motor fluency mediate synch and interpersonal rapport
synch not = interpersonal rapport

48
Q

prob with mediation analsis

A

approach should be cautious
essentially correlational
could have 3rd variable
or be reverse

49
Q

honisch et al 2016
resource availability - perceptual motor fluency
explanation

A

synch report drawn more to actor than non moving baseline despite greater probe detection
why? - not because less reported attention

  • partner in synch fosters ideology that sharing
  • beh outsourcing encourages perception that task less challenging and have more resources
50
Q

possible neg outcomes of synch

A

conformity

obedience

51
Q

wiltermuth 2012 conformity

A

synch action increase likelihood that comply with requests of task partner even if agg
more likely to agree to give noise blast to next group even though aversive
increse compliance with in group

52
Q

wiltermuth 2011 obedience

A

walk in step with authority fig increases likelihood that willing to kill sowbugs at leaders request

53
Q

bensimon and bodner 2011

agg

A

synch chanting prior football game increase agg levels than those who dont chat
in group vs outgroup

54
Q

possible mechanisms underlin socil cog benefits of synch

A

mooring effect - mrsh et al 2009
attentional union - macre et al 2008
reduced cog demands - shockley and tuvey 2006

55
Q

wheatley et al 2012

mech underlying social cog

A

mental connection feels “effortless”
humans are cog misers - try to conseerve energy by relying on heuristics and stereotypes
synch supports efficient communication btween brain regions

56
Q

rizzolatti 1980

mirror neuron system

A

when monkeys percieve other ctions - sme motor are activates

when copy - activtion heightened

57
Q

mechanism of synch
self other overlap
paladino 2010

A

brush cheek of participants while watched a stranger in video brushed in synch or asynch also

more self other merging of body sensations and face sensations
more overlap on IOS to synch stranger
- perception of closeness and conformity behaviour

self projection in inference task and anchoring in the other in the conformity task (give estimate of A’s with strangers estimates present)

58
Q

describe self other overlap

A

experiencing blurred boundaries of body representations may also blur boundaries of conceptual representations
- representation overlapping with that of another person could lead to conceptual rep (ie traits and states) of self and other as merging

NONVERBAL (7 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions