A syncing feeling: reductions in physiological arousal in response to observed social synchrony
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Synchronized movements are often key elements in activities where social bonding and emotional connection are a shared goal, such as religious gatherings, sporting events, parties and weddings. Previous studies have shown that synchronous movements enhance prosocial attitudes and affiliative behaviors. Similarly, observers attribute more social closeness to people moving synchronously together than people moving asynchronously. The mechanisms by which synchrony modulates these attributions are not well understood. In the present study, we ask whether viewing synchronous activities influences physiological arousal as measured by skin conductance and whether group size impacts this effect. Undergraduates viewed a series of short videos depicting people moving either (1) in or out of synchrony with each other and (2) in a large or small group. Participants' skin conductance was measured. Change in skin conductance levels and response counts were attenuated while watching synchronous movement, but only in the large-group condition. Post-hoc analyses suggest that viewer enjoyment/interest in the large-group synchronous videos mediated this association for phasic skin conductance responses, but no evidence of mediation was found for tonic skin conductance levels. Results extend previous research on affiliative effects of first-person interpersonal synchrony and demonstrate that watching others moving synchronously has an attenuating effect on observers' physiological state.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".