The effect of different phases of interpersonal synchrony on cooperation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a paired or group activity people tend to synchronize their movements with others (Sullivan & Blacker, 2017; Tarr et al., 2016; van Ulzen et al., 2008). This unconscious synchronization has been found to influence endorphin activity, referred to as the synchrony effect (SE) (Cohen et al., 2010), which can be assessed with an indirect, non-invasive pain threshold test (Dunbar et al., 2012). This synchrony has also been linked to various prosocial outcomes such as increases to cooperation, attraction to group members and social activity (Wiltermuth & Heath, 2010; Sullivan et al., 2015). Synchronous movements have two main phases; in-phase and anti-phase (Sullivan & Blacker, 2017. To date, only two studies have assessed how synchronized anti-phase movement has influenced endorphin activity via pain threshold and no research has been done to assess the influences on prosocial outcomes. This study analyzed the effect of in-phase and anti-phase drumming on the performance of a novel cooperative task. Fifty-six Canadian university students completed the study with an age range 19-26 (Mage= 21.5). Participants were counterbalanced and randomly assigned to two three-minute synchronized drumming sessions, in-phase and antiphase, followed by a cooperative rollerball maze game. Cooperation was assessed by measuring time to complete the maze game. (Valdesolo et al., 2010). Results showed that there was no significant difference between the two conditions in cooperation (t (51) = -0.83, p>.05). These results suggest that with a task such as drumming, there is no difference between in-phase and anti-phase synchrony on subsequent cooperation.Acknowledgments: Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".