10 Interpersonal adaptation
Abstract: Interpersonal adaptation is a fundamental and pervasive human behavior. Adaptation forms the basis of social and biological development; it enables relationship development, facilitates social influence, marks personality and cultural differences, and is critical to establishing and maintaining social organization. The term “adaptation” encompasses a variety of behaviors including mirroring, interactional synchrony, behavioral matching, convergence or divergence, accommodation, reciprocity, and compensation, all of which are distinguished and discussed in this chapter. A variety of theories and models of interpersonal adaptation are explored including biological and evolutionary models, cognitive neuroscience models, psychologically-based models, socially-based models, and three different communicative-based models including communication accommodation theory, expectancy violations theory, and interaction adaptation theory. The chapter’s goal is to illustrate the importance of interpersonal adaptation in interaction, to clarify the definitions employed to describe the various forms of adaptation, and to overview theories used to study adaptation from a variety of disciplinary perspectives. The chapter highlights the importance of examining the communicative nature of adaptation in interaction.
Key Words: Interpersonal interaction, interactional synchrony, reciprocity, compensation, biological and evolutionary models, matching, mimicry, discourse alignment, convergence
1 Introduction
The rhythmic and patterned interchanges of a babbling infant and its adult caregiver, a 911 operator trying to slow the speech of a distraught caller, an interrogator using an aggressive tone to ascertain the truth of a suspect’s claims, and irate drivers exchanging obscenities during a road rage incident illustrate the importance and range of behaviors that constitute interpersonal adaptation in interaction. They also highlight the complexity of what happens when communicators adapt to one another. In some cases, adaptation is diagnostic – it reveals the true nature of the relationship. In other cases, it can stabilize an interaction or escalate it out of control and, in the case of the interrogator and suspect, lead an interrogator to misjudge a suspect’s veracity.
Interpersonal adaptation refers to the processes that occur in interaction as communicators align their behavior to one another. It goes by a number of names – mirroring, interactional synchrony, behavioral matching, accommodation, reciprocity, and compensation, are but a few. Through a range of behaviors – such as tone of voice, loudness, proximity, gestures, posture changes, pauses between speaking turns, and utterance length – communicators adjust to one another and develop a pattern of interaction that both reflects and defines their relationship to one another (Cappella 1991). These processes of adaptation demonstrate that “the interaction behaviors of two individuals are non-random, patterned, or synchronized in both time and form” (Bernieri and Rosenthal 1991: 403).
2 The importance of interpersonal adaptation
Interpersonal adaptation is important to virtually all interpersonal encounters. Cappella (1997) presented evidence that (1) mutual adaptation is pervasive, (2) occurs in the earliest forms of interaction, (3) is associated with important relational outcomes, and (4) distinguishes individual differences in social skills and well-being. It should come as no surprise, then, that such a pervasive process has attracted multidisciplinary attention and wide-ranging applicability.
The importance of interpersonal adaptation is linked to its biological and ontological basis as well as its centrality to speech acquisition, communication ease, relationship status, and social organization. The inclination to coordinate, synchronize and mesh one’s behavior with others may derive from the benefits of doing so. Synchronization of interaction between parent and child forms the foundation for the infant’s biological and social development (Harrist and Waugh 2002). It helps infants regulate basic biological processes (such as sleeping and arousal) and manage information processing. Synchrony’s importance extends into toddlerhood and early childhood, shaping both social and cognitive development (Lindsey, Mize and Pettit 1997). Moreover, the tendency to “catch” the emotional states of those around us (emotional contagion as described by Hatfield, Caccioppo, and Rapson 1994), and the consistent evidence of entrainment in rates and rhythms of speech (Warner et al. 1987) and movement (Lumsden et al. 2012), suggest that adaptation has innate, biological origins that allow for complex and highly sophisticated coordination between communicators.
Not only is interpersonal adaptation key to a child’s acquisition of speech and language, it is foundational to the ability of communicators to transact interpersonal communication and to understand one another (Graumman 1995). The rhythm of speech sets a pace for rhythmic behaviors of participants (Kendon 1970) and rhythmic interactions help communicators make sense of the speech around them (Berghout-Austin and Peery 1983). Additionally, Menenti, Pickering and Garrod (2012: 1) argued for an interactive-alignment account of dialogue which suggests that the tendency of interlocutors to mimic one another’s syntactic and grammatical elements of speech creates a foundation for viewing a situation similarly and therefore for understanding one another.
The development of close relationships may depend on the degree of rapport afforded by interpersonal adaptation. When communicators’ behaviors are coordinated or “in sync,” they perceive that the interaction is more pleasant and engaging (Chartrand and Bargh 1999; Lakin and Chartrand 2003). Interaction adaptation also promotes empathy for others, prosocial attitudes and even perceptions of attractiveness (Fischer-Lokou et al. 2011; Gueguen 2009; Lumsden et al. 2011; Van Baaren et al. 2004). Verbal accommodation potentiates feelings of relational solidarity (Soliz and Giles 2012). And, just as nonconscious mimicry leads to rapport, rapport leads to mimicry.
Interpersonal adaptation can also facilitate social influence. Mimicry of another can result in higher tips for wait staff (Van Baaren et al. 2003), more favorable negotiation outcomes (Maddux, Mullin, and Galinsky 2008), and to changes in voting behavior such that people view pro-social causes more favorably (Stel and Harinck 2011). In fact, Bailensen and Yee (2005) demonstrated that this effect was even evident when individuals where mimicked by a nonhuman, artificial intelligent agent.
However, adaptation can also have adverse effects. When it takes the form of verbal aggressiveness, abuse or persistent patterns of negative behavior known as “negative reciprocity,” it has detrimental effects on relationships (Cordova et al. 1993; Sabourin, 1995). Dissatisfied marital couples display lower levels of synchrony such that their interactions appear as if they are “independent actors” rather than in a conversation (Julien et al. 2000). In research on affect displays shown by romantic couples during conflict, Coan and Gottman (2007) were able to distinguish between “empathy,” which is mimicking a partner’s affect to communicate affection, and “mockery,” which is imitating a partner’s speech or emotional state to make the person look stupid or ridiculous. Other studies have revealed that when confederates mimicked the behavior of strangers, even though the mimicry itself did not have a mocking tone, it raised suspicion and was judged to be negative, uncomfortable, and annoying because there was no basis for making a positive attribution about it (LaFrance and Ickes 1981; Leander, Chartrand, and Bargh 2012; Manusov 1992).
Adaptation patterns can also “mark” personality and cultural differences. Those with stronger pro-social motivations, for example, are more likely to synchronize their nonverbal behavior with an interaction partner (Lumsden, et al. 2012). Guerrero and Burgoon (1996) demonstrated that differences in attachment styles influence the extent to which communicators reciprocate or compensate for changes in interactional involvement by a romantic partner during interaction. Sanchez-Burks, Bartel and Blount (2000) found cultural differences in how managers responded to mirroring; Latino managers, as compared to Anglo managers, performed better and felt less anxiety when they interacted with an interviewee who engaged in high levels of mirroring during the interaction. Moreover, research on disorders such as autism indicates that difficulties in enacting adaptation can undermine interactional processes even when communicators seek to overcome them (Hutman, Siller, and Sigman 2009).
Finally, processes of interpersonal adaptation are critical to establishing and maintaining social organization. Gouldner (1960) argued that reciprocity is a “fundamental and universal principle underlying every social interaction that functions to preserve social order” (Burgoon et al. 1995: 61). The give-and-take that occurs routinely in interaction across a variety of behaviors reinforces the normative character of reciprocal actions and their value in preserving cooperative relations in society.
3 The forms of interpersonal adaptation
Interpersonal adaptation is expressed in a variety of forms and goes by many names, possibly because of its highly interdisciplinary interest. Scholars may be studying the same phenomenon (the coordination of two speakers) but call it different things (such as behavioral matching or interactional synchrony). Alternately, they may be studying different things (such as static mirroring of one’s partner’s posture or dynamic coordination of movements) but calling it the same thing (mirroring). Our purpose here is not to dictate what terms scholars should be using but to review common definitions for the different terms so that terminology can be used more consistently.
3.1 Mirroring
Mirroring is a covering term for a range of phenomena. Defined early on by LaFrance (1985) as the simultaneous adoption of mirror-imaged body positions, it has been defined more recently as the automatic simulation of the behavior of another (Kuhbandner, Pekrun, and Maier 2010) or the contingency of one’s behavior to another (Legerstee and Varghese 2001). Other labels applied to the phenomenon include “motor imitation” (Van Baaren et al. 2009) and “affect attunement” (Jonsson and Clinton 2006).2 Mirroring is also sometimes viewed as synonymous with mimicry (discussed next). For purposes of definitional clarity, it may be advisable to reserve the term “mirroring” for visually based, static behaviors (as the concept of a mirror implies) and to use the term “mimicry” to cover vocal and other nonverbal forms of identical behavior that have a temporal dimension associated with them.
A key issue is whether mirroring is an unconscious or conscious process. Freud (1900) originally distinguished between unconscious identification and conscious imitation. Sanchez-Burks, Bartel and Blount (2009: 216) define “behavioral mirroring” as a “specific type of nonverbal interpersonal dynamic where people unknowingly adjust the timing and content of the physical movements in a manner that mirrors the behaviors exhibited by their interaction partner.” They argue that mirroring is largely unconscious and “is distinct from more conscious and deliberate forms of mimicry” (Sanchez-Burks et al. 2009: 216). Unconscious mirroring tends to yield positive outcomes such as enhanced liking (Van Swol, 2003), group solidarity (Kendon 1970), and empathy (Van Baaren et al. 2009), whereas conscious mirroring may seem forced, awkward and inauthentic (LaFrance and Ickes 1981; Manusov 1992). Thus, the distinction between unconscious and conscious mirroring seems warranted. The former would constitute part of a phylogenetically adapted signaling system that is spontaneous and possibly derived neurologically from the human evolutionary need for empathy (Iacoboni 2007), whereas the latter would constitute part of a socially-based communication system that is culturally patterned and learned (see Buck et al. 1992). Put differently, when the phenomenon of mirroring is being researched or discussed, scholars should distinguish between the unconscious and the strategic, conscious forms.
3.2 Matching and mimicry
Both matching and mimicry are cases of “doing what others are doing” but they differ in terms of whether they imply interdependent action or not. Matching refers to behavioral patterns that are similar between two or more entities, without any assumption about the behaviors being causally related. For example, two competitors may both show nervousness while awaiting results and thus match one another’s behavior without one person’s actions being contingent on the other’s. Two unrelated party-goers may each speak loudly during a social event in an effort to overcome the surrounding noise without their vocal volume being connected to the other person.
By comparison, mimicry (also called the chameleon effect) is defined as a non-conscious tendency to imitate others’ verbal and nonverbal behaviors, including speech patterns, words, gestures, postures, and facial expressions (Chartrand and Bargh 1999; Stel, Van Baaren and Vonk 2008; Van Baaren et al. 2003). Just as birds taking flight in the face of danger can elicit automatic mimicry from others of the flock (and in so doing, improve the survival chances of the flock), so can humans engage in behavioral mimicry. The mimicked target need not even be human – people may mimic computer-generated faces or photographs (Bailenson and Yee 2005; Likowski et al. 2011). Like mirroring, mimicry may serve an empathic function. A special case called motor mimicry does not even require that others are present to occur – a person may wince at hearing a story of someone else’s injury or duck when hearing a recounting of a low-hanging limb that hit another in the face. These are instances of motor mimicry in which the exhibited behavior serves as a social signal to others of similarity and shared experience (Bavelas, Black, Chovil, Lemery, & Mullett 1988; Bavelas & Chovil 2000; Holler & Wilkin 2011). Nonconscious behavioral mimicry has been explained by the existence of a perception-behavior link because the ability to take the perspective of others increases behavioral mimicry (Sun et al. 2011). Thus, like mirroring, mimicry can range from the completely unconscious (and probably biological signal) to the conscious (and probably an intentional social signal).
3.3 Reciprocity and compensation
While behavioral matching can be viewed as an umbrella term encompassing a variety of behaviors, reciprocity and compensation imply particular forms of synchronized patterns. Burgoon, Dillman and Stern (1993: 304) define interpersonal reciprocity as “the process of behavioral adaptation in which one responds, in a similar fashion, to a partner’s behavior with behaviors of comparable functional value,” whereas compensation entails adaptations in the opposite direction. Among the key criteria for identifying an action as adaptation are that the behavior (1) is directed toward another, (2) is contingent on the other’s actions, (3) shows temporal change rather than maintenance, and (4) entails behaviors that have the same functional meaning. Influence can be unidirectional or bidirectional and need not be of equal magnitude, only of the same or opposite direction (i.e., both may increase, both may decrease, or one may increase and the other decrease). Reciprocity and compensation reflect interdependence between partners’ behaviors and therefore are clear forms of interpersonal adaptation. Initial research on reciprocity and compensation tended to imbue reciprocity with positive connotations and compensation with negative connotations (Ickes, Patterson, Rajecki, and Tanford 1982). However, more recent research does not assign the same valenced connotations to reciprocity and compensation, and indeed, the potential to reciprocate violent acts implies that reciprocity is not always the desired state. Thus, we advise against conflating the terms with a valence, even though reciprocity is often the default position in interaction (Burgoon et al. 1995) and conversational partners generally prefer reciprocity unless they have a reason not to reciprocate their partner’s behavior (Guerrero and Burgoon 1996).
3.4 Interactional synchrony
Interactional synchrony is the smooth meshing in time of the rhythmic, patterned activity of two interlocutors (Bernieri and Rosenthal 1991; Schmidt et al. 2012). Interactional synchrony is, by definition, a dyadic variable. Synchrony has traditionally been conceptualized with a temporal component: higher ratios of temporally aligned nonverbal or vocal cues are indicative of greater synchrony (Cappella 1997; Woodall and Burgoon 1981). In contrast, dissynchrony occurs when there is a noticeable lack of rhythmic coordination between two interactants’ communication patterns (Burgoon, Stern, and Dillman 1995). The rhythm can be determined jointly, or one interlocutor, known as the zeitgeber or time-giver, can set the pace.
Kendon (1970) identified synchronization of change points between interlocutors at the level of the phrase or sentence. Bernieri and Rosenthal (1991) further elaborated a conceptualization of synchrony that includes interaction rhythm and simultaneous movement. Although most conceptualizations of synchrony focus on the simultaneity dimension, synchrony can be either simultaneous or concatenous. When speaker and listener behaviors are coordinated such that they co-occur or their behavioral changes are instantaneous with one another (such as mutual gaze or simultaneous posture shifts), their synchrony is simultaneous. If their coordination happens in a series of speaker-listener patterns, such as using similar gesture forms in sequential speaking turns, then their synchrony would be said to be concatenous (Burgoon et al. 1995).
The variety of definitions for synchrony has sometimes resulted in disputes about the prevalence and importance of synchrony in interaction (McDowall 1978a; 1978b). However, numerous studies indicate that synchrony can be accurately assessed within interaction and is an important dimension of interpersonal adaptation (Bernieri and Rosenthal 1991; Harrist and Waugh 2002; Lindsey, Cremeens et al. 2008).
3.5 Convergence, divergence and accommodation
Convergence is “the process of interaction adaptation whereby one adopts behavior that is increasingly similar to that of the partner” and divergence is “the process of interaction adaptation whereby one adopts behaviors that are increasing dissimilar from that of the partner (Burgoon et al. 1995: 128–129).” These two concepts are central to constructs of communication accommodation, which is an umbrella term for the various ways in which interlocutors produce increasingly similar or dissimilar verbal and nonverbal communication patterns. Nonaccommodation describes the lack of adaptation by one or both parties to interaction. These patterns are the core of communication accommodation theory (discussed below).
3.6 Discourse alignment
While the majority of research on interactional adaptation has focused on visual and vocalic nonverbal cues, verbal cues can also be employed in behavioral matching. “Language synchrony” or “language style matching” can be evident in the convergence of grammatical structures, types of referents, and the types of function words a dyad uses (Ireland and Pennebaker 2010). The linguistic forms of adaptation are more fully considered in various theories of adaptation. In the next section, we describe a number of theories and models of adaptation, organizing them based on their primary explanatory emphasis for understanding the nature or role of adaptation.
4 Theories and models of adaptation
The veins of theories and models that have been mined to account for adaptation patterns are among the richest of those related to interpersonal communication. Depending on how far one wants to expand the scope, one can include biological, neurophysiological, psychological, sociological and communicological models. We offer a cursory look at each here, highlighting some of the classic and contemporary empirical research supporting each.
4.1 Biological and evolutionary models
Adaptation patterns that occur automatically and are typically performed without awareness or volition – synchrony, mimicry, and mirroring – are thought to be phylogenetically adapted patterns that have been selected through evolution to enable social organization, preparing the organism to orient toward and coordinate with conspecifics. Included are reflexive behaviors that are relatively inflexible (e.g., fight-flight responses) as well as other, more malleable innate responses that can be conditioned upon environmental and social demands.
Ontogenetically, the pattern attracting the most empirical and theoretical attention is interactional synchrony. Early scholarship theorized that the ability of infants to synchronize with the cardiorespiratory systems of their caregivers is a reflexive response that activates and regulates the rhythmicity of the infant’s own systems. Evidence for its innateness included observations that both humans and chimpanzees synchronize rhythms to that of caregivers as soon as 20 minutes after birth (and possibly in utero), that 61% of infant-adult body movements are nonrandom and synchronous, and that coordination occurs with both micro-rhythms that last only a few seconds and macro-rhythms related to sleep, wake and feeding cycles (Als, Tronick and Brazelton 1979; Grader 2003; Kempton 1980). More recent work (e.g., Feldman 2007) has further linked the capacity to engage in temporally-matched interactions to physiological oscillator systems such as the biological clock and cardiac pacemaker.
The high degree of coordination and meshing in adult-adult speech and the staggering speed with which adult humans synchronize their speech, often within 1/20th of a second, suggest a highly reflexive and, presumably, innate process (Hatfield et al. 1994). However, the role of interactional synchrony in the acquisition of speech also points to a socially learned aspect (Condon 1980). Some have contended that interactional synchrony lays the foundation for acquiring higher-order language and communication skills that are essential to the human’s well-being (Kempton 1980). The close alignment of body movement with speech pauses and the greater likelihood of rhythmic speech when vocalizations are present suggest the intricate relationship of synchrony with speech and its preparatory role in acquiring social interaction skills (Berghout-Austin and Peery 1983; Dittmann 1974). Whether the absence of interactional synchrony impairs the ability to develop language skills or the lack of language, social and cognitive skills disrupts the ability to synchronize interaction has not been determined, but the link between synchrony and successful social interaction seems well accepted.
Although interactional synchrony generally is an unconscious and automatic pattern in infancy, it can be enlisted strategically to gain desired social responses. Even infants have been shown to use synchrony or dissynchrony strategically. Brazelton et al. (1975) found that if mothers stopped displaying rhythmic behavior with their infants, the infants initially increased it, perhaps as a way to draw the mother back into the interaction. Dissynchrony also elicited negative emotional states that presumably were motivating to restore the previous synchronous state (Bernieri et al. 1988). These findings presage the more complex nature of interactional synchrony as humans develop and enact it in ways to achieve a wide range of functions, from regulating one’s own emotional states, to regulating interaction with others, to signaling relational messages of interest, involvement, rapport, similarity and approval, to exerting social influence (Burgoon, Guerrero and Floyd 2010; Kendon 1970). Thus, synchrony is not exclusively governed by biological factors but can also be regulated to achieve communication goals.
Three other closely related forms of adaptation – mimicry, mirroring and matching – may be innate forms of imitation that promote a species’ survival (Hagen, Hammerstein and Hess 2010). Mimicry of alarm calls is an effective means of signaling the presence of danger and warning conspecifics, human or otherwise, to flee. Humans instinctively employ the same mimicry principle when screams by one person trigger screams by others. Mirroring and matching through replication of another’s postures, demeanor or language may signal identification with, and membership in, a given collective. Signaling one’s ingroup status affords an organism the protections and privileges of the group. In turn, the benefits associated with membership in a dyad or group may promote the use of matching verbal and nonverbal behaviors as tie signs, displays that tell outsiders that one “belongs” to the target person or group being mimicked. Such signs may even facilitate other ingroup members in recognizing who belongs to the group and who does not.
Matching and mirroring have also been examined for their role in human development. Gergely (2007; Gergely and Watson 1996) proposed a combination of parental mirroring of infant emotions and biofeedback as processes that facilitate infants learning how to display emotions. They contended that observed imitation need not be attributed to innate processes but instead to a cuing and reinforcement process. Sensitive caregivers are theorized to show slower, more exaggerated versions of affect and empathy displays that are perceptually distinguishable (“marked”) from other emotional expressions through the use of cues such as widened eyes, a head tilt or brow raises. These markers indicate that the caregiver is imitating the child and the expressions are to be taken “as if” rather than as true expressions of felt states. In this way, mirroring serves a pedagogical function, teaching the infant how to express emotional states without those expressions being referents for what is being experienced at the moment.
Although there is no unifying theory for this collection of adaptation processes, intraspecies displays of association are a universal part of each species’ signaling system and have been selected through evolution for their unique communicative function (Andrew 1972). It follows that the conjoint displays of such signals through synchrony, mimicry, mirroring and matching are key to this signaling process. Other theories that incorporate social forces consider these patterns in varying degrees.
4.2 Cognitive neuroscience models
Recent advances in cognitive neuroscience have enabled investigation of how adaptation processes are reflected in brain activation and related thought processes. This area’s literature is too voluminous and technical to be covered thoroughly in this chapter. However, some recent developments are illustrative. Menenti, Pickering and Garrod (2012: 1) have proposed the interactive-alignment account of dialogue, which suggests that interlocutors align their respective neurological processes associated with phonology, syntax, and semantics of speech. These neural processes prime corresponding shared mental representations between speaker and listener that affect their production and comprehension of dialogue. For example, when both hear the same speech sounds, those phonetic sounds trigger phonological representations in each person that in turn trigger lexical, syntactical and semantic representations that allow them to predict and respond rapidly to one another’s messages, thus synchronizing their communication exchanges. Some evidence for this alignment comes from a motor theory of speech perception in which perceiving another’s speech excites brain regions that control one’s own articulatory muscles to produce the same sounds (Watkins and Paus 2006) as well as evidence of an interbrain synchronizing network in the centroparietal region (Dumas, Nadel, Soussignan, Martinerie and Garnero 2010). The process is likely facilitated by the activation of mirror neurons (Galantucci, Fowler, and Turvey 2006; Pacherie and Dokic 2006; Rizzolatti and Arbib 1998; Rizzolatti and Craighero 2004), neurons in the premotor cortex that discharge not only when an animal engages in an action but also when it observes a conspecific engaging in the same behavior. Demonstrating that speaker and listener show overlapping neural correlates for each level of representation, and that representations become more aligned over the course of dialogue and across levels, will provide further evidence for this interactive-alignment account.
Sänger, Lindenberger and Muller (2011: 655) have also extended the forward model of action regulation to formulate a new model, interpersonal action coordination, to account for joint actions: “In a forward model, any intended action is stored together with a variety of sensory inputs and appropriate motor commands, which in turn are associated with the corresponding efference copy signals to predict the sensory effects of the intended action. When the action is performed, its actual sensory consequences and the predictions are compared.” The extension to two actors presumes that not only do individuals have forward predictions for the effects of their own actions but also the actions and effects for those of an interlocutor. This allows interlocutors to exhibit turn-taking behaviors that are closely aligned temporally, again probably with the assistance of the mirror neuron system.
These and other neuroscience models should advance our understanding of the brain and nervous system processes that accompany observable social interchanges in which adaptation is or is not present. In the remaining sections, we focus on the social and observable aspects of adaptation.
4.3 Psychologically based models
The earliest models grew out of efforts to explain how humans manage the arousal that arises when another gets too close, something that can either be distressing or appealing, depending on the perpetrator. Aiello (1987) explained that organisms seek a level of distancing that simultaneously prevents overstimulation and excessive arousal while also according them behavioral freedom. Argyle and Dean’s (1965) affiliative conflict theory (also known as equilibrium theory) proposed that people seek to achieve a homeostasis between conflicting needs or desires for intimacy and autonomy and that when this balance is disrupted, it prompts an approach-avoidance dance. Intimacy can be expressed through such nonverbal behaviors as close proximity, mutual gaze, direct body orientation and facing, forward lean, and touch. This constellation of behaviors is sometimes referred to as “nonverbal immediacy” because it connotes psychological closeness. Autonomy is expressed by the opposites of these. Moves in the direction of excessive immediacy or nonimmediacy prompt compensatory responses to restore equilibrium. The compensatory adjustments can be intrapersonal (e.g., a person can compensate for their own close sitting distance by reducing their own eye contact) or interpersonal (e.g., one person’s close proximity can be compensated by the other person’s reduction in eye contact).
Empirical tests of this simple compensation hypothesis yielded a fair amount of support but also quickly uncovered a number of moderators and nonsupportive findings. New theories emerged to account for these problems, most notably, arousal-labeling theory (ALT; Patterson 1976), discrepancy-arousal theory (DAT; Cappella and Greene 1982), the arousal-valence model (AVT; Andersen and Andersen 1994; later relabeled cognitive valence theory, CVT; Andersen 1998) and the sequential-functional model (SFM; Patterson 1982). These models all had in common a central role for arousal and an emphasis on relatively automatic response patterns in dyadic interaction. ALT proposed that the arousal that arises from excessive intimacy or proximity is undifferentiated and that, depending on the context, can be labeled either positively or negatively. A positive valence would prompt reciprocity, whereas a negative valence would prompt compensation. The DAT model attempted to incorporate distinctions between moderate and extreme forms of arousal that would produce differential responses. The AVT and CVT models expanded the possible factors affecting the valencing of arousal changes (e.g., culture, interaction purpose) but focused only on initiations of increased, not decreased intimacy. The SFM model added other pre-interaction moderators and also described conditions leading to stable versus adaptive patterns. Various tests of these models tended to produce mixed results, which posed challenges to the nature of arousal and even its necessity in accounting for adaptation patterns (e.g., Andersen et al. 1998; Le Poire and Burgoon, 1994; O’Connor and Gifford 1988).
Another relevant theory that combines elements of biology and psychology is attachment theory (see Cassidy and Shaver 2008) for comprehensive coverage of this theory). Originating as a theory of infant-caregiver bonding and the regulation of emotions, attachment theory proposes that humans develop working models of close relationships that govern human interaction throughout the lifespan. Attachment theory classifies individuals’ attachment styles as secure, insecure/preoccupied, insecure/dismissive and disorganized (other terminology applied to these styles includes anxious/ambivalent and anxious/resistant). These styles in turn predict and explain a host of psychological and behavioral outcomes associated with each. For example, affection-seeking by infants is usually reciprocated by affectionate behavior from the caregiver, which reassures the infant that it is safe and loved and reinforces the mental model of how affection is expressed in secure close relationships. Dysfunctional infant-caregiver relationships instead are thought to contribute to infants becoming insecure and either overly preoccupied with their significant others or dismissive of such relationships.
The extensive developmental and personal relationship research is most relevant to interpersonal adaptation where it considers how attachment styles moderate whether pairs reciprocate or compensate for the partner’s expressed emotional states. Among adults, securely attached couples are expected to reciprocate positive emotional expressions and compensate for negative emotions. Comparatively, insecurely attached, preoccupied partners are more likely to reciprocate negative emotions, even escalating into violence, whereas insecure dismissing partners may compensate by withdrawing in the face of negative emotions from the partner (see, e.g., Babcock et al. 2000).
4.4 Socially based models
The patterns of reciprocity discussed so far have been associated largely with biological or intrapsychic processes operating primarily at an unconscious or preconscious conscious. At the social level, however, the norm of reciprocity emerges as a central principle. As articulated by Gouldner (1960), reciprocity is a fundamental principle of civilized society, reminiscent of the Golden Rule, in which people are expected to help those who have helped them and not to harm those who have not harmed them. Because violations disrupt social functioning, they warrant implicit or explicit sanctioning. The norm therefore expresses both value judgments and expected (typical) conduct. Although Gouldner did not develop a full-fledged theory of reciprocity, his principles and description of reciprocity as a contingent and transactional exchange process coincide with contemporary understandings of reciprocity at the dyadic as well as the societal level, with one exception. Gouldner conceptualized reciprocity only as a positively valenced activity; he did not entertain the possibility of negative reciprocity, an “eye for an eye” exchange of hostilities, abuse and revenge. However, these negative aspects of reciprocity were recognized in other communication and psychological theories of social exchange (Foa and Foa 1974).
More directly related to adaptation during communication is Roloff’s (1987) reciprocal resource exchange model. Roloff outlined several principles of the exchange process that expand the conceptualization of reciprocity as well as the time scale during which it may occur. Exchanges can be based on similar or dissimilar resources, reciprocation can be delayed to a distant time, and the reciprocated resource need not be identical. Relationships that are communal in nature (e.g., the family) may allow more noncontingent giving than those in strictly exchange relationships (e.g., salesperson-customer). Other principles, less germane to adaptation processes, concern the appropriateness of the exchanges, the sanctions applied to inequitable exchanges, felt obligations, and the ability to transfer obligations to others. A more narrow perspective concerning reciprocity is Jourard’s (1971) dyadic effect. Jourard proposed that close relationships are built by people becoming more transparent and open to one another through self-disclosure and that one person’s self-disclosure would beget reciprocal disclosure by the other. Substantial evidence documenting the dyadic effect has been adduced for other forms of expressions of intimacy such as touch and immediacy behaviors as well as less intimate expressions such as vocal loudness and turn length during conversation. Burgoon et al. (1995) located the extensive program of research by Gottman (1979) on marital interactions within this same paradigm. Whereas Jourard had emphasized the beneficial effects of reciprocity and transparency, Gottman’s work on predictors of divorce exposed many of the negative effects of reciprocity, such as disclosure of negative feelings toward the partner in the form of contempt, anger, domineeringness and the like often prompting reciprocal negative affective responses by the partner that could easily escalate. Burggraf and Sillars (1987) found that during conflicts, the reciprocity of negative verbal and nonverbal expressions was particularly common among distressed and violent couples, producing a spiral of negativity. Longitudinal research similarly found strong reciprocity by wives of husbands’ previous positive and negative expressions of affect (Huston and Vangelisti 1991).
However, reciprocity is not the only pattern that has been identified. One particularly pervasive pattern exhibited by distressed couples is the demand/withdraw pattern, in which one partner’s demands for attention to conflict issues is met with withdrawal by the other (see, e.g., Caughlin and Vangelisti 1999). This pattern is compensatory rather than reciprocal inasmuch as one person’s (negative) approach is responded to with avoidance.
In sum, a significant amount of research has confirmed the prevalence of reciprocity, but this body of work has lacked an overarching theoretical framework unifying these findings as they relate to interpersonal adaptation. Instead, the findings have often emerged as part of investigations and theoretical models with different objectives, such as Gottman’s work concerning predictors of divorce, Sillars’ research on identifying conflict strategies and their effects, or studies examining the demand/withdraw pattern as it relates to attachment theory (Millwood and Waltz 2008). The models in the next section are centrally concerned with predicting and explaining adaptation during communication.
4.5 Communicative based models
4.5.1 Communication Accommodation Theory
Communication accommodation theory (CAT) originated as speech accommodation theory, developed by Giles (1973) to explain why people converge their accents during social interaction. Over time, the theory’s scope was expanded to cover a wider range of convergence or divergence of language, vocal and other nonverbal cues (e.g., smiling, linguistic formality, speech rate) to signal status, social identity, solidarity and/or social approval or the lack thereof (Giles and Edwards 2010). Drawing upon social identity theory, the theory predicts that communicators will converge toward another’s perceived communication patterns when attempting to communicate similarity and social approval but diverge from those patterns when communicating dissimilarity or emphasizing a contrasting group identity (Gallois, Ogay and Giles 2005). More specifically, CAT predicts that individuals will show “upward convergence” toward a more positively evaluated communication style when they wish to elicit or signal positive face, feelings, or a common social identity, and they will not accommodate when they wish to signal dissatisfaction and/ or disrespect for fellow interactants. Accommodating to another’s accent, voice, or kinesic behavior becomes a way to express common ground, facilitate smooth and clear communication, promote comprehension, and reinforce a group identity. However, when the costs of accommodating outweigh the perceived benefits or when power differentials and social norms dictate that a complementary style is warranted (as in subordinates using formal forms of address and superiors using informal ones), convergence is not expected to occur. Moreover, individual communication skills and behavioral repertoires will place limits on the degree of accommodation that takes place.
Modifications of the theory introduced several different kinds of strategies that predict not only what form adaptation patterns will take but also the motivations driving those strategies and the sociocultural norms influencing observed behavioral patterns (e.g., Coupland, Coupland, Giles and Henwood 1988; Gallois, Giles, Jones, Cargile and Ota 1995; Giles 1991. Approximation strategies refer to whether the pattern itself is convergent, divergent or nonaccommodating, whereas attuning strategies refer to whether the speaker is attending to the specific needs and abilities of interlocutors (e.g., taking into account one’s facility with the language being spoken) and interpretability strategies refer to adjustments that are meant to increase the comprehensibility of what is being spoken (e.g., speaking more slowly) rather than as a direct accommodation strategy. Other strategies such as discourse management strategies are also intended to help interlocutors save face or participate in the interaction rather than to signal group identity and social similarity or distance.
The theory also addresses the effects of accommodation and nonaccommodation. Those who converge toward the communication style of others are viewed as more cooperative, competent and satisfying as interaction partners than are diverging speakers (Soliz and Giles 2012). Nonaccommodation is evaluated and reacted to negatively by recipients (Gasiorek and Giles 2012). A recent meta-analysis of the effects of speech accents confirmed that standard accented speech was regarded more favorably on solidarity, status and dynamism than non-standard accented speech (Fuertes, Gottdiener, Martin, Gilbert and Giles 2012). Although CAT suggests convergence is a positive interaction strategy, some have suggested that convergence can also be a negative, even harmful communication strategy when individuals feel compelled to match their behavior and worldview to more dominant others and this continued submission results in depression and other negative health effects (Miller-Day 2004). In sum, CAT is one of the adaptation theories centrally concerned with communication processes, with patterns of both verbal and nonverbal behavior, and with the outcomes, intended or otherwise, that flow from interpersonal adaptation.
4.5.2 Expectancy Violations Theory
Expectancy violations theory (EVT; Burgoon 1973; 1983) seeks to explain how communicators assess behavior (particularly nonverbal behavior) that deviates from expectations and how they respond communicatively to such violations. Originally developed to explain the effects of proxemic violations, the theory has been expanded to create a framework for understanding expectancy violations across a variety of behaviors and contexts. EVT posits that when a communicator’s behavior violates expectations, the interaction partner is forced to make sense of what is happening. This sense-making creates a shift in focus, described in the theory as an orienting response, which involves “directing some attention away from the topic at hand and toward the violator and violation” (Burgoon 1993: 35). The evaluation that a communicator makes of the violation reflects the valence assigned to the behavior. This process is particularly important in situations where the meaning of the violation is ambiguous. For instance, casual touch in social conversations can be seen as an indicator of interpersonal warmth but it could also be assessed as overly-familiar. A violation can be positively valenced, in which case it would be interpreted as having a positive social meaning, or it may be negatively valenced, producing a negative assessment of the behavior. Positively valenced violations typically lead to better interaction outcomes than non-violations; however, negative violations lead to worse outcomes than non-violations. The valence of a violation may be determined by a number of factors, but a key element in assessing violations is the reward value of the communicator committing the violation. Individuals are more likely to positively valence a violation from a high reward communicator.
Much of the early work on EVT focused on evaluations of interaction partners. However, later work sought to determine how expectations influence communicative responses to expectancy violations. Overall, research on the impact of expectancies on interactions revealed that while expectancies matter, patterns of interaction are also impacted by the actual behavior of the partner within the interaction (Le Poire and Yoshimura 1999). EVT has been successful in highlighting the importance of expectancies in interaction, but it has been limited in its ability to predict interpersonal adaptation. As an extension of EVT, Burgoon, Stern and Dillman (1995) proposed interaction adaptation theory.
4.5.3 Interaction Adaptation Theory
Interaction adaptation theory (IAT; Burgoon, Stern and Dillman 1995) is designed to predict and explain the patterns of adaptation that emerge in interaction. The theory proposes that adaptation in interaction is communicative, signaling to both interactants and observers the nature of the relationship being enacted. In IAT, adaptation refers to “nonrandom patterns of behavior that occur in response to the interaction behavior of another” (White 2008: 193), with adaptation patterns often referred to in terms of reciprocity and compensation since these patterns provide information about one partner’s behavior in relation to the behavior of another. IAT presumes that biologically-based factors, related to approach-avoidance (referred to as requirements), social factors related to expectations, and individual differences or preferences related to desires for interaction influence initial behavior in interactions. Taken together, these requirements, expectations, and desires reflect the initial interaction position (referred to as the IP) of individuals entering interactions. Predictions about patterns of behavior emerge from conceptualizing how IP relates to the actual behavior of an interaction partner. If the actual behavior of the partner is more positively valenced than the IP of the individual, the individual will reciprocate or converge toward the behavior displayed by the partner. However, if the IP is more positively valenced than the actual behavior of the partner, the individual will compensate or maintain their own behavior in an attempt to influence the partner to follow suit. Consider an example where actual behavior is more positively valenced than IP: A therapist might assume that a new client will be reticent to talk about past problem behavior, and so she might start with a more formal and less involved communication style. However, if she finds that the patient is aware of and open to discussion of past problems – ready and willing to disclose – the therapist will quickly adjust and communicate in a responsive and involved way.
Research has demonstrated that both IP and actual behavior are central to predicting patterns of interaction. Reciprocity appears to be the “default” pattern for many interactions. Small or even moderate changes may be met with reciprocity whereas larger changes, that disrupt the flow of a conversation, are more likely to be met with compensation (Andersen et al. 1998). In addition, the expectations set out at the start of an interaction may affect reciprocity and compensation patterns. Interactants who approach a conversation with positive expectations (“my partner will be friendly”) may be more likely to reciprocate their partners’ behavior than those with negative expectations (Ickes et al. 1982) although behaviors enacted during the interaction itself can override pre-interaction expectancies (Burgoon, Le Poire, and Rosenthal 1995).
Communication-based models of adaptation emphasize the meaning and importance of adaptation within interaction. They highlight the way that adaptation may be strategic, and they reveal the importance of adaptation for our experience and understanding of others within interaction.
5 Conclusions
Interpersonal adaptation is a fundamental part of human interaction and has both positive and negative consequences for communication in a variety of settings. It can affect the quality of our relationships and our own self-image as well as the impressions we make on others and their desire to engage with us in the future. This chapter was an effort to illustrate the importance of interpersonal adaptation as well as clarify the definitions used to describe the various forms of adaptation, the theories used to study adaptation from a variety of disciplinary perspectives, and the support or lack of support found for them. It is our hope that researchers will continue to study this important aspect of human communication well into the future and develop new techniques for understanding adaptation, synchrony, reciprocity, and the myriad other ways in which adaptation can be displayed behaviorally, vocally, and linguistically.
References
Aiello, John R. 1987. Human spatial behavior. In: Daniel Stokols and Irving Altman (eds.), Handbook of Environmental Psychology, Volume 1, 389–504. New York: Wiley.
Als, Heidelise, Edward Tronick, and T. Berry Brazelton. 1979. Analysis of face-to-face interaction in infant-adult dyads. In: Michael E. Lamb, Stephen J. Suomi, and Gordon Stephenson (eds.), Social Interaction Analysis 33–76. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Andersen, Peter A. 1998. The cognitive valence theory of intimate communication. In: Mark T. Palmer, George A. Barnett (eds.), Progress in Communication Sciences, Volume 14: Mutual Influence in Interpersonal Communication 39–72. Stamford, CT: Ablex.
Andersen, Peter A. and Janis F. Andersen. 1984. The exchange of nonverbal intimacy: A critical review of dyadic models. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 8: 327–349.
Andersen, Peter A., Laura K. Guerrero, David B. Buller and Peter F. Jorgensen. 1998. An empirical comparison of three theories of nonverbal immediacy exchange. Human Communication Research 24: 501–535.
Andrew, R. J. 1972. The information potentially available in mammal displays. In: Robert A. Hinde (ed.), Nonverbal Communication 179–204. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Argyle, Michael and Janet Dean. 1965. Eye contact, distance, and affiliations. Sociometry 28: 289–304.
Babcock, Julia C., Neil S. Jacobson, John M. Gottman and Timothy P. Yerington. 2000. Attachment, emotional regulation, and the function of marital violence: Differences between secure, preoccupied, and dismissing violent and nonviolent husbands. Journal of Family Violence 15: 391–409.
Bailenson, Jeremy. N., & and Nick Yee. 2005. Digital chameleons: Automatic assimilation of nonverbal gestures in immersive virtual environments. Psychological Science 16: 814–819. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01619.x
Bavelas, Janet B. and Nicole Chovil. 2000. Visible acts of meaning: An integrated message model of language in face-to-face dialogue. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 19: 163– 194.
Bavelas, Janet B., Alex Black, Nicole Chovil, Charles R. Lemery, and Jennifer Mullett. 1988. Form and function in motor mimicry topographic evidence that the primary function is communicative. Human Communication Research 14: 275–299.
Berghout-Austin, Ann and Craig Peery. 1983. Analysis of adult-neonate synchrony during speech and non-speech. Perceptual Motor Skills 57: 455–459.
Bernieri, Frank J. and Robert Rosenthal. 1991. Interpersonal coordination: Behavior matching and interactional synchrony. In: Robert S. Feldman & Bernard Rimé (eds.), Fundamentals of Nonverbal Behavior 401–432. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Bernieri, Frank J., J. Steven Reznick and Robert Rosenthal. 1988. Synchrony, pseudosynchrony, and dissynchrony: Measuring the entrainment process in mother-infant interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54: 243–253.
Bigelow, Ann E. and Laura M. Walden. 2009. Infants’ response to maternal mirroring in the still face and replay tasks. Infancy 14: 526–549. doi: 10.1080/15250000903144181.
Buck, Ross, Jeffrey I. Losow, Mark M. Murphy and Paul Costanzo. 1992. Social facilitation and inhibition of emotional expression and communication. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 63: 962–968.
Burggraf, Cynthia S. and Alan L. Sillars. 1987. A critical examination of sex differences in marital communication. Communication Monographs 54: 276–294.
Burgoon, Judee K. 1978. A communication model of personal space violations: Explication and an initial test. Human Communication Research 4: 129–142.
Burgoon, Judee K. 1983. Nonverbal violations of expectatation. In: John M. Wiemann and R. P. Harrison (eds.), Nonverbal Interaction 11–77. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Burgoon, Judee K. 1993. Interpersonal expectations, expectancy violations, and emotional communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 12: 30–48.
Burgoon, Judee K., Leesa Dillman and Lesa Stern. 1993. Adaptation in dyadic interaction: Defining and operationalizing patterns of reciprocity and compensation. Communication Theory 3: 196–215.
Burgoon, Judee K., Laura L. Guerrero and Kory Floyd. 2010. Nonverbal Communication. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Burgoon, Judee K., Beth A. Le Poire and Robert Rosenthal. 1995. Effects of preinteraction expectancies and target communication on perceiver reciprocity and compensation in dyadic interaction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 31: 287–321.
Burgoon, Judee K., Lesa A. Stern and Leesa Dillman. 1995. Interpersonal Adaptation: Dyadic Interaction Patterns. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cappella, Joseph N. 1991. The biological origins of automated patterns of human interaction. Communication Theory 1: 4–35.
Cappella, Joseph N. 1997. The development of theories about automated patterns of face-to-face human interaction. In: Terrance L. Albrecht and Gerry Philipsen (eds.), Developing Communication Theories 57–84. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Cappella, Joseph N. and John O. Greene. 1982. A discrepancy-arousal explanation of mutual influence in expressive behavior for adult-adult and infant-adult dyadic interaction. Communication Monographs 49: 89–114.
Cassidy, Jude and Phillip Shaver (eds.). 2008. Handbook of Attachment, Second Edition: Theory, Research, and Clinical Applications. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Caughlin, John P. and Anita L. Vangelisti. 1999. Desire for change in one’s partner as a predictor of the demand/withdraw pattern of marital communication. Communication Monographs 66: 66–89.
Chartrand, Tanya L. and Bargh, John A. 1999. The chameleon effect: The perception–behavior link and social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 76: 893–910.
Coan, James A. and John Mordechai Gottman. 2007. The Specific Affect Coding System (SPAFF). In: James A. Coan and John J. B. Allen (eds.), Handbook of Emotion Elicitation and Assessment, 267–285. New York: Oxford University Press.
Condon, William S. 1980. The relation of interactional synchrony to cognitive and emotional processes. In: Mary R. Key (ed.), The Relationship of Verbal and Nonverbal Communication, 49–65. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Condon, William S. and Louis W. Sander. 1974. Neonate movement is synchronized with adult speech: Interactional participation and language acquisition. Science 183: 99–101.
Cordova, James V., Neil S. Jacobson, John Mordechai Gottman, Regina Rushe and Gary Cox. 1993. Negative reciprocity and communication in couples with a violent husband. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 102: 559–564. doi: 10.1037/0021-843x.102.4.559.
Dumas, Guillaume, Jacqueline Nadel, Robert Soussignan, Jacques Martinerie and Line Garnero. 2010. Inter-brain synchronization during social interaction. PLoS ONE 5(8): e12166. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0012166.
Dunbar, Norah E., Matthew L. Jensen, Judee K. Burgoon, Bradley Adame, Kylie J. Robertson, Lindsey Harvell and Abigail Allums. 2011. A dyadic approach to the detection of deception. Paper presented at the 44th annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences, Koloa, HI.
Feldman, Robert S. 2007. Parent–infant synchrony and the construction of shared timing: physiological precursors, developmental outcomes, and risk conditions. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 48: 329–354.
Fischer-Lokou, Jacques, Angélique Martin, Nicolas Guéguen, and Lubomir Lamy. 2011. Mimicry and propagation of prosocial behavior in a natural setting. Psychological Reports 108: 599– 605. doi: 10.2466/07.17.21.pr0.108.2.599-605.
Foa, Uriel G. and Edna B. Foa. 1974. Societal Structures of the Mind. Oxford, England: Charles C. Thomas.
Freud, Sigmund. 1900. The Interpretation of Dreams (Joyce Crick, Trans.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fuertes, Jairo N., William H. Gottdiener, Helena Martin, Tracey C. Gilbert and Howard Giles. 2012. A meta-analysis of the effects of speakers’ accents on interpersonal evaluations. European Journal of Social Psychology 42: 120–133.
Galantucci, Bruno, Carol A. Fowler and M. T. Turvey. 2006. The motor theory of speech perception reviewed. Psychonomic Bulletin Review 13: 361–377.
Gallois, Cindy, Tanya Ogay and Howard Giles. 2005. Communication accommodation theory: A look back and a look ahead. In William B. Gudykunst (ed.), Theorizing About Intercultural Communication 121–148. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gasiorek, Jessica and Howard Giles. 2012. Effects of inferred motive on evaluations of nonaccommodative communication. Human Communication Research 38: 309–331. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2012.01426.x.
Gergely, György. 2007. The social construction of the subjective self: The role of affect-mirroring, markedness, and ostensive communication in self-development. In: L. Mayes, P. Fonagy and M. Target (eds.), Developmental Science and Psychoanalysis: Integration and Innovation 45– 88. London, England: Karnac Books.
Gergely, György and John S. Watson. 1996. The social biofeedback theory of parental affect-mirroring: The development of emotional self-awareness and self-control in infancy. The International Journal of Psychoanalysis 77(6): 1181–1212.
Giles, Howard. 1973. Accent mobility: A model and some data. Anthropological Linguistics 15: 87–105.
Giles, Howard and Edwards, J. R. 2010. Attitudes to language: Past, present, and future. In K. Malmkjaer (ed.), The Routledge Linguistics Encyclopedia, 3rd edition 35–40. London: Routledge.
Gormley, Lane. 2008. Through the looking glass: The facilitation of mirroring in group process. Journal for Specialists in Group Work 33: 207–220. doi: 10.1080/01933920802205038.
Gottman, John M. 1994. What Predicts Divorce? The Relationship Between Marital Processes and Marital Outcomes. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gouldner, Alvin W. 1960. The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review 25: 161–178.
Grader, Maya. 2003. Expressive timing and interactional synchrony between mothers and infants: Cultural similarities, cultural differences, and the immigration experience. Cognitive Development 18: 533–554. doi: 10.1016/j.cogdev.2003.09.009.
Guéguen, Nicolas. 2009. Mimicry and seduction: An evaluation in a courtship context. Social Influence, 4: 249–255. doi: 10.1080/15534510802628173.
Guerrero, Laura K. 1997. Nonverbal involvement across interactions with same-sex friends, opposite-sex friends, and romantic partners: Consistency or change? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 14: 31–58.
Guerrero, Laura K. and Judee K. Burgoon. 1996. Attachment styles and reactions to nonverbal involvement change in romantic dyads: Patterns of reciprocity and compensation. Human Communication Research 22: 335–370.
Hagen, Edward, Peter Hammerstein and Nicole Hess. 2010. In: Stefano Nolfi and Marco Mirolli (eds.), Evolution of Communication and Language in Embodied Agents 55–66. Berline: Springer-Verlag.
Harrist, Amanda W. and Ralph M. Waugh. 2002. Dyadic synchrony: Its structure and function in children’s development. Developmental Review 22: 555–592.
Hatfield, Ellen, John T. Cacioppo and Richard L. Rapson. 1994. Emotional Contagion. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Holler, Judith and Katie Wilkin. 2011. Co-speech gesture mimicry in the process of collaborative referring during face-to-face dialogue. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 35: 133–153. doi: 10.1007/s10919-011-0105-6.
Huston, Theodore L., & Anita L. Vangelisti. 1991. Socioemotional behavior and satisfaction in marital relationships: A longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 61: 721–733.
Hutman, Ted, Michael Siller, and Marian Sigman. 2009. Mothers’ narratives regarding their child with autism predict maternal synchronous behavior during play. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry 50: 1255–1263.
Iacoboni, Marco. 2007. Face to face: The neural basis of social mirroring and empathy. Psychiatric Annals 37: 236–241.
Isabella, R. A. and Belsky, J. 1991. Interactional synchrony and the origins of Infant-mother Attachment: A replication study. Child Development 62: 373–384. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-624.1991.tb01538.
Ickes, William, Miles L. Patterson, D. W. Rajecki and Sarah Tanford. 1982. Behavioral and cognitive consequences of reciprocal versus compensatory responses to preinteraction expectancies. Social Cognition 1: 160–190. doi: 10.1521/soco.1982.1.2.160.
Ireland, Molly E. and James W. Pennebaker. 2010. Language style matching in writing: Synchrony in essays, correspondence, and poetry. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 99: 549–571. doi: 10.1037/a0020386.
Jonsson, Carl-Otto and David Clinton. 2006. What do mothers attune to during interactions with their infants? Infant and Child Development 15: 387–402. doi: 10.1002/icd.466.
Julien, Danielle. 2005. A procedure to measure interactional synchrony in the context of satisfied and dissatisfied couples’ communication. In: Valerie Manusov (Ed.), The sourcebook of nonverbal Measures: Going Beyond Words 199–208. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Julien, Danielle, Mathilde Brault, Elise Chartrand and Jean Begin. 2000. Immediacy behaviors and synchrony in satisfied and dissatisfied couples. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science 32: 84–90.
Jourard, Stanley M. 1971. The transparent self. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Kempton, Willett. 1980. The rhythmic basic of interactional micro-synchrony. In: Mary R. Key (ed.), The Relationship of Verbal and Nonverbal Communication 67–76. The Hague, The Netherlands: Mouton deGruyter.
Kendon, Adam. 1970. Movement coordination in social interaction: some examples described. Acta Psychologica, 32: 101–125.
Kuhbandner, Christof, Reinhard Pekrun and Markus A. Maier. 2010. The role of positive and negative affect in the “mirroring” of other persons’ actions. Cognition and Emotion 24: 1182–1190. doi: 10.1080/02699930903119196.
Lakin, Jessica L., & Tanya L. Chartrand. 2003. Using nonconscious behavioral mimicry to create affiliation and rapport. Psychological Science 14: 334–339.
LaFrance, Marianne. 1985. Postural mirroring and intergroup relations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 11: 207–217.
LaFrance, Marianne and William Ickes. 1981. Posture mirroring and interactional involvement: Sex and sex typing effects. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 5: 139–154.
Leander, N. Pontus, Tanya L. Chartrand and John A. Bargh. 2012. You give me the chills: Embodied reactions to inappropriate amounts of behavioral mimicry. Psychological Science 23: 772–779. doi: 10.1177/0956797611434535.
Legerstee, Maria and Jean Varghese. 2001. The role of maternal affect mirroring on social expectancies in three-month-old infants. Child Development 72: 1301–1313. doi: 10.1111/ 1467-8624.00349.
Le Poire, Beth A. and Judee K. Burgoon. 1994. Two contrasting explanations of involvement violations: Expectancy violations theory versus discrepancy arousal theory. Human Communication Research 20: 560–591.
Le Poire, Beth A. and Stephen Yoshimura. 1999. The effects of expectancies and actual communication on nonverbal adaptation and communication outcomes: A test of interaction adaptation theory. Communication Monographs 66: 1–30.
Likowski, Katja U., Peter Weyers, Beate Seibt, Christiane Stöhr, Paul Pauli and Andreas Mühlberger. 2011. Sad and lonely? Sad mood suppresses facial mimicry. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 35: 101–117. doi: 10.1007/s10919-011-0107-4.
Lindsey, Eric, Jacquelyn Mize and Gregory S. Pettit. 1997. Mutuality in parent-child play: Consequences for children’s peer competence. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 14: 523–538.
Lindsey, Eric, Penny Cremeens, Malinda Colwell, and Yvonne Caldera, Y. 2008. The structure of parent-child dyadic synchrony in toddlerhood and children’s communication competence and self-control. Social Development 18: 375–396.
Lumsden, Joanne, Lynden K. Miles, Michael J. Richardson, Carlene A Smith, and C. Neil Macrael. 2011. Who syncs? Social motives and interpersonal coordination. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48: 746–751. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2011.12.007.
Maddux, William, Elizabeth Mullen, and Adam Galinsky. 2008. Chameleons bake bigger pies and take bigger pieces: Strategic behavioral mimicry facilitates negotiation outcomes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 44: 461–468.
Manusov, Valerie. 1992. Mimicry or synchrony: The effects of intentionality attributions for nonverbal mirroring behavior. Communication Quarterly 40: 69–83.
Marshall, Robert J. 2006. Suppose there were no mirrors: Converging concepts of mirroring. Modern Psychoanalysis 31: 289–312.
McDowall, Joseph J. 1978a. Interactional synchrony: A reappraisal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36: 963–975.
McDowall, Joseph J. 1978b. Microanalysis of filmed movement: The reliability of boundary detection by observers. Environmental Psychology and Nonverbal Behavior 3: 77–88.
Menenti, Laura, Martin J. Pickering and Simon C. Garrod. 2012. Toward a neural basis of interactive alignment in conversation. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 6: 1–9.
Miller-Day, Michelle A. 2004. Communication among Grandmothers, Mothers, and Adult Daughters: A Qualitative Study of Maternal Relationships. Oxford: Routledge.
Millwood, Molly and Jennifer Waltz. 2008. Demand-withdraw communication in couples: An attachment perspective. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy: Innovations in Clinical and Educational Interventions 7: 297–320.
O’Connor, Brian P. and Robert Gifford. 1988. A test among models of nonverbal immediacy reactions: arousal-labeling, discrepancy-arousal, and social cognition. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 12: 6–33.
Pacherie, Elisabeth and Jérôme Dokic. 2006. From mirror neurons to joint actions. Cognitive Systems Research 7: 101–112. doi: 10.1016/j.cogsys.2005.11.012.
Patterson, Miles L. 1976. An arousal model of interpersonal intimacy. Psychological Review 83: 235–245.
Patterson, Miles L. 1982. A sequential functional model of nonverbal exchange. Psychological Review 89: 231–249.
Rizzolatti, Giacomo. and Michael A. Arbib. 1998. Language within our grasp. Trends in Neurosciences 21: 188–194.
Rizzolatti, Giacomo and Laila Craighero. 2004. The mirror-neuron system. Annual Review of Neuroscience 27: 169–92.
Rizzolatti, Giacomo., Leonardo Fogassi, L. and Vittorio Gallese, V. 2001. Neurophysiological mechanisms underlying the understanding and imitation of action. National Reviews of Neuroscience 2: 661–70. doi: 10.1038/35090060.
Roloff, Michael. 1987. Communication and conflict. In: Charles R. Berger & Stephen Chaffee (eds.), Handbook of Communication Science. SAGE: Newbury Park, CA.
Sabourin, Teresa Chandler. 1995. The role of negative reciprocity in spouse abuse: A relational control analysis. Journal of Applied Communication Research 23: 271–283. doi: 10.1080/ 00909889509365431.
Sanchez-Burks, Jeffrey, Caroline A. Bartel and Sally Blount. 2009. Performance in intercultural interactions at work: Cross-cultural differences in response to behavioral mirroring. Journal of Applied Psychology 94: 216–223. doi: 10.1037/a0012829.
Sänger, Johanna, Ulman Lindenberger and Viktor Müller. 2011. Interactive brains, social minds. Communicative & Integrative Biology 4: 655–663.
Schmidt, R. C., Samantha Morr, Paula Fitzpatrick and Michael J. Richardson. 2012. Measuring the Dynamics of Interactional Synchrony. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 36: 263–279. doi: 10.1007/s10919-012-0138-5.
Soliz, Jordan and Howard Giles. 2012. Communication accommodation theory: A contextual and meta-analytic review. Paper presented at the International Communication Association, Phoenix, AZ.
Sun, Xiofan, Jeroen Lichtenauer, Michel Valstar, Anton Nijholt, and Maja Pantic. 2011. A multimodal database for mimicry analysis. Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction 6974: 367–376. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-24600-5_40.
Van Baaren, Rick B., Jean Decety, Ap Dijksterhuis, Andries van der Leij and Matthijs L. van Leeuwen. 2009. Being imitated: Consequences of nonconsciously showing empathy. In: Jean Decety and William Ickes (eds.), The Social Neuroscience of Empathy, 31–42. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Van Baaren, Rick B., Rob W. Holland, Kerry Kawakami and Ad Van Knippenberg. 2004. Mimicry and prosocial behavior. Psychological Science 15: 71–74.
Van Baaren, Rick B., Rob W. Holland, Bregje Steenaert and Ad van Knippenberg. 2003. Mimicry for money: Behavioral consequences of imitation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 39: 393–398.
Van Swol, Lyn M. 2003. The effects of nonverbal mirroring on perceived persuasiveness, agreement with an imitator, and reciprocity in a group discussion. Communication Research 30: 461–480. doi: 10.1177/0093650203253318.
Walker, Amber M. 2008. Convergence Communication Scale: Instrument development and theory testing. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Communication, Pennsylvania State University.
Warner, Daniel J. 1996. Mirroring movement for increasing family cooperation. Journal of Family Psychotherapy 7: 85–88. doi: 10.1300/j085v07n04_08.
Warner, R. M., Malloy, D., Schneider, K., Knoth, R., & Wilder, B. 1987. Rhythmic organization of social interaction and observer ratings of positive affect involvement. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 11: 57–74.
Watkins, Kate and Tomáš Paus. 2006. Modulation of motor excitability during speech perception: The role of Broca’s area. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 16: 978–987.
White, Cindy H. 2008. Expectancy violations theory and interaction adaptation theory: From expectations to adaptation. In: Leslie A. Baxter and Dawn O. Braithwaite (eds.), Engaging Theories in interpersonal Communication: Multiple Perspectives 189–202. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Woodall, W. Gill and Judee K. Burgoon. 1981. The effects of nonverbal synchrony on message comprehension and persuasiveness. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 5: 207–223.