Social Cognition, Vol. 29, No. 1, 2011, pp.

1–14
IF THEY MOVE IN SYNC, THEY MUST FEEL IN SYNC
LAKENS AND STEL

If They Move in Sync, They Must Feel in Sync:

Movement Synchrony Leads to Attributions
of Rapport and Entitativity
Daniël Lakens
Eindhoven University of Technology

Mariëlle Stel
Utrecht University

Coordinated behavior patterns are one of the pillars of social interaction.

Researchers have recently shown that movement synchrony influences rat-
ings of rapport, and the extent to which groups are judged to be a unit.
The current experiments investigated the hypothesis that observers infer a
shared psychological state from synchronized movement rhythms, influenc-
ing attributions of rapport and entitativity judgments. Movement rhythms
of observed individuals are manipulated between participants (Experiment
1) or kept constant while the source of the emerging movement synchrony
is manipulated (Experiment 2), and both rapport and perceived entitativity
are measured. The findings support the assumption that movement syn-
chrony increases attributed rapport and perceived entitativity. Furthermore,
mediational analyses reveal that the effects of movement synchrony on
perceived unity are not purely perceptual in nature, but caused by psycho-
logical inferences. Observers infer the degree to which individuals are a
social unit from their movement rhythms.

Coordinated behavior patterns are one of the pillars of social interaction. Peoples’
movement rhythms can synchronize unintentionally, for example when walking
side by side, or intentionally, as when military units march. The tendency to syn-
chronize movement rhythms has been theorized to play an important role in the
formation of a social unit (Condon, 1980; Davis, 1982; Fiske, 2004; Kendon, 1990;
LaFrance, 1985; Marsh, Richardson, Baron, & Schmidt, 2006; Newtson, Hairfield,
The authors would like to thank the Cratylus research group, the Utrecht NERDs, Luigi Castelli,
and two anonymous reviewers for helpful suggestions and comments on this research. Special thanks
go to Martijn van Zomeren, Henk Aarts, and Marina Kouzakova for helpful comments on an earlier
version of this manuscript and to Kaska Kubacka for her never-ending knowledge of pop culture.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Daniël Lakens, Human Technology
Interaction Group, IPO 1.24, PO Box 513, 5600 MB Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
E-mail: D.Lakens@tue.nl.
© Guilford Publications, Inc. 2011

1
2 LAKENS AND STEL

Bloomingdale, & Cutino, 1987; Wiltermuth & Heath, 2009). Movement synchrony
is argued to be an indication of shared feelings of rapport, an affective state of mu-
tual attention and positivity (Bernieri, 1988; Tickle-Degnen & Rosenthal, 1990). For
the last 40 years researchers have been interested in the relationship between syn-
chronous movement rhythms, feelings of rapport, and perceived or experienced
social unity (Bernieri, 1988; Cappella, 1996; Condon & Ogsten, 1966; Marsh, John-
ston, Richardson, & Schmidt, 2009; Tickle-Degnen & Rosenthal, 1990).
Moving in synchrony is argued to influence the degree to which individuals
are perceived as a social unit, or their entitativity (Campbell, 1958; Hamilton &
Sherman, 1996; Marsh, Richardson, & Schmidt, 2009; Yzerbyt, Corneille, Seron, &
Demoulin, 2004). A dynamic interpretation of entitativity (see Brewer, Hong, & Li,
2004) stresses that groups emerge, change, and disappear over time. Furthermore,
the extent to which groups are seen as a unit depends on both static and tempo-
rary properties of the group, as on chronic and temporary beliefs of the perceiver.
When people observe synchronized individuals, they are expected to activate cer-
tain beliefs about why these individuals move in synchrony. One of these beliefs
is that individuals who move in synchrony do so because they share a feeling of
rapport (Bernieri, 1988; Bernieri, Davis, Rosenthal, & Knee, 1994). LaFrance (1985,
1990) theorizes that movement synchrony is a social gauge by which observers
can assess the degree to which individuals are mutually involved with each other.
Observers use this “tie-sign” to judge the extent to which individuals are a social
unit.
The aim of the current studies is to provide empirical support for the theoreti-
cal assumption that observers draw psychological inferences from the movement
rhythm of synchronized individuals, and use these inferences when judging the
extent to which individuals are a social unit. For example, LaFrance (1985) sug-
gests that observers use movement synchrony to assess feelings of rapport be-
tween individuals, which subsequently influences entitativity judgments. To ex-
amine whether observed movement synchrony activates inferences about a shared
psychological state of the synchronized individuals, the current studies measure
both attributions of rapport and entitativity judgments. If psychological inferences
do not play a role, and movement synchrony influences attributions of rapport
and entitativity judgments purely due to the increased perceptual similarity of
synchronized movement rhythms, the effect of movement synchrony on entitativi-
ty should be independent of attributions of rapport. To test the alternative hypoth-
esis that movement synchrony influences attributions of rapport and entitativity
judgments through psychological inferences (Bernieri et al., 1994; LaFrance, 1985),
mediational analyses are performed to examine whether the effect of movement
synchrony on entitativity is driven by attributions of rapport.
Although synchrony researchers primarily seem to favor the pathway where
the effect of movement synchrony on entitativity is mediated by attributed rap-
port (e.g., Bernieri, 1988; Bernieri et al., 1994; Condon, 1980; LaFrance, 1985, 1990;
Marsh et al., 2006, Marsh, Johnston et al., 2009), theoretically a case could be made
that the effect of movement synchrony on rapport is driven by entitativity judg-
ments (cf., Yzerbyt, Corneille, & Estrada, 2001; Yzerbyt et al., 2004). Both these
pathways most likely account for the influence of movement synchrony on attribu-
tions of rapport and perceived entitativity depending on the situation, alternative
sources of information about the individuals, and existing beliefs concerning the
observed individuals. The goal of the current article is not to differentiate between
IF THEY MOVE IN SYNC, THEY MUST FEEL IN SYNC 3

these two pathways, but to test the underlying assumption they share: Movement
synchrony influences attributed rapport and entitativity judgments through psy-
chological inferences.
Several studies have shown that observed movement synchrony is significantly
correlated with rapport (Bernieri, 1988; Bernieri et al., 1994; LaFrance, 1985). To
counteract possible criticisms of correlational data collected in studies where real-
life interactions are used as stimulus material (see Cappella, 1990) researchers have
recently investigated the relationship between movement synchrony and rapport
by manipulating the amount of movement synchrony (Hove & Risen, 2009; Marsh,
Johnston et al., 2009; Miles, Nind, & Macrae, 2009). For example, Miles and col-
leagues (2009) presented their participants with 24 video animations of two stick
figures walking in different rhythms. After each animation was presented, partici-
pants were asked to indicate the amount of rapport between the two stick figures
on a 9-point scale. As expected, the more similar the movement rhythms of the two
stick figures were, the higher the stimuli were rated on rapport.
Although these results clearly show that people used the movement rhythms of
the stick figures to guide their answer on the rapport judgment, several questions
remain. First, it is unclear whether the effects of movement synchrony on rapport
judgments actually reflect psychological attributions. Since stick figures moving
in a similar rhythm are also perceptually more similar, the higher rapport ratings
could be the result of the increased perceptual similarity of moving in synchrony.
Second, the different movement rhythms in the study by Miles et al. (2009) were
manipulated within subjects. Because the 24 stick figures only differed in their
movement rhythm, it is less surprising that observers based their rapport judg-
ments on the only aspect the animations differed on, namely the amount of move-
ment synchrony. Manipulating movement synchrony between subjects would
provide stronger support for the assumption that synchrony is used as a cue to
determine feelings of rapport. Third, rapport is theorized to consist of not only
coordination, but also of positivity and mutual attention (Tickle-Degnen & Rosen-
thal, 1990), and should therefore ideally be assessed by a questionnaire address-
ing these separate factors. Finally, it might be difficult to attribute a psychological
state to stick figures, and using video clips of real individuals might be a better
approach to investigate whether observed movement synchrony leads to attribu-
tions of a shared psychological state.

Overview of the Current Research

The current studies were developed to examine whether the effects of perceived
movement synchrony on attributions of rapport and entitativity are caused purely
by the perceptual similarity of the stimuli, or reflect underlying psychological at-
tributions. In the first experiment, rapport and entitativity judgments were col-
lected for video clips of two rhythmically waving confederates, who waved either
in synchrony or in asynchrony. When individuals in the movie clips synchronized,
they coordinated their movement rhythms in-phase (by waving their arms or
swinging their legs at the same angle and frequency). Research has shown that
in-phase movement synchrony is the most stable form of spontaneous movement
synchronization and most likely to emerge unintentionally (Kelso, 1995; Neda,
4 LAKENS AND STEL

Ravasz, Brechet, Vicsek, & Barabasi, 2000; Richardson, Marsh, Isenhower, Good-
man, & Schmidt, 2007).
This method was based on earlier work by Lakens (2010) who showed that
movement synchrony influenced entitativity judgments. The first experiment
extends this work by investigating both entitativity and rapport, allowing us to
draw conclusions about the indirect nature of the relationship between movement
synchrony and entitativity. The effect of movement synchrony on entitativity and
rapport was predicted to be indirect, following either the pathway from synchrony
to attributed rapport to perceived entitativity, or the pathway from synchrony to
perceived entitativity to attributed rapport. Importantly, the direct effects of move-
ment synchrony on rapport and entitativity were predicted to disappear when
introducing entitativity or rapport in the mediation analysis, respectively.
In the second experiment, perceptual differences were controlled for by pre-
senting the same stimulus video to all participants. The critical manipulation in
this experiment was whether participants believed that observed individuals syn-
chronized spontaneously, or that observed individuals synchronized because they
were instructed to do so. We propose that when individuals synchronize without
an external reason to do so, their movement rhythm is a valid source of informa-
tion which observers can rely on to judge whether individuals feel rapport and
are a unit. If individuals synchronize because they are instructed to synchronize
their movement rhythms, their movement rhythm is not a useful indication of
any shared affective states or feelings of unity among the individuals. Thus, syn-
chronized movement rhythms will lead to attributed feelings of rapport and per-
ceived entitativity when the emerging movement synchrony can be attributed to
the group members, but not when movement synchrony emerges due to an exter-
nal instruction to synchronize. Moreover, as in Experiment 1, we expected media-
tional analyses to reveal that the effect of movement synchrony on rapport and
entitativity is indirect, indicating that movement synchrony leads to psychological
attributions which influence rapport and entitativity judgments.

Experiment 1

Method

Participants. A total of 104 volunteers (65 females, mean age 20.7) from a Dutch
university participated in the study, and were randomly assigned to the synchrony
versus asynchrony condition of the between subject design.
Procedure. All participants were told they would watch a movie clip, and would
be asked some questions about what they had seen. In the movie clip, two women
faced the camera and waved their left hand (cf. Lakens, 2010). Depending on the
condition, the waving movements were performed in perfect in-phase synchrony
(both individuals waved their hands once every 833 milliseconds, and reached the
most leftward point of the waving motion at the exact same frame in the movie
clip) or in asynchrony (one woman waved her hand once every 833 milliseconds,
while the other waved her hand once every 500 milliseconds). After watching
the movie, participants received a four item entitativity questionnaire (Postmes,
Brooke, & Jetten, 2008, see Appendix). In addition, they completed the rapport
questionnaire adapted from Puccinelli and Tickle-Degnen (2004), consisting of six
IF THEY MOVE IN SYNC, THEY MUST FEEL IN SYNC 5

items (see Appendix). All items were rated on a 7-point scale. Subsequently, sev-
eral control questions were asked. People were asked to indicate to what extent the
behavior of the individuals was spontaneous. In addition, general similarity ques-
tions were asked, concerning the extent to which the individuals had the same
habits and goals (cf. Ip, Chiu, & Wan, 2006) to make sure movement synchrony
did not influence overall similarity. Finally, participants answered a manipulation
check about how similar the movement rhythms of the individuals were, filled out
demographic questions, and were thanked and debriefed.

Results

A factor analysis (principle component analysis) with a varimax rotation was con-
ducted on the 10 items of the entitativity and rapport questionnaires. A Scree test
suggested the extraction of two factors. The first factor consisted of the four items
of the entitativity questionnaire (Cronbach’s α = .84). The second factor consisted
of the remaining items of the rapport scale (Cronbach’s α = .81). This factor analy-
sis supports the theoretical distinction made in the literature between the psycho-
logical constructs of rapport and entitativity (e.g., Bernieri, 1988; Campbell, 1958;
LaFrance, 1985; Tickle-Degnen & Rosenthal, 1990; Yzerbyt et al., 2004). A manipu-
lation check confirmed that the confederates waving in synchrony were judged to
move in a more similar rhythm (M = 6.19, SD = 1.21) than confederates waving in
asynchrony (M = 2.34, SD = 1.71), t(102) = 13.45, p < .001.
Rapport and Entitativity. The average of the six rapport items was calculated. A
univariate ANOVA revealed that individuals waving in synchrony were judged
higher on rapport (M = 4.99, SD = 1.01) than individuals waving in asynchrony (M
= 4.32, SD = 0.95), F(1, 102) = 8.51, p = .004, ηp2 = .08. The four items of the entitativ-
ity scale were averaged, and a univariate ANOVA confirmed the hypothesis that
confederates waving in synchrony were rated higher on entitativity (M = 4.05, SD
= 1.12) than confederates waving in asynchrony (M = 3.25, SD = 1.22), F(1, 102) =
12.01, p = .001, ηp2 = .08. Observers did not rate the two individuals differently as
a function of their movement synchrony on the control questions asked after the
entitativity and rapport scales, such as to what extent the individuals had similar
habits or goals (cf. Ip et al., 2006), or how spontaneous their behavior was (all p >
.10).
Mediational Analysis. We subsequently tested whether the effect of movement
synchrony on rapport and entitativity were two direct effects, or whether the re-
sults were best described by one of the two indirect pathways described in the
literature. In addition to the effects of movement synchrony on rapport and entita-
tivity described above, attributed rapport significantly predicted perceived entita-
tivity, β = .60, t = 7.50, p < .001. Adding rapport to the regression of synchrony on
perceived entitativity significantly reduced the effect of synchrony on entitativity,
β = .17, t = 2.12, p = .037, SOBEL test z = 2.72, p = .001. Similarly, adding entitativ-
ity to the regression of synchrony on rapport significantly reduced the effect of
synchrony on rapport, β = .09, t = 1.19, p = .266, SOBEL test z = 3.15, p < .001. These
two analyses suggest that the effect of movement synchrony on rapport and enti-
tativity is indirect in nature.
6 LAKENS AND STEL

Discussion

The results reveal that movement synchrony influences perceived entitativity

and attributed feelings of rapport. Confederates waving in the same rhythm were
seen as more entitative and were rated higher on rapport compared to confeder-
ates waving in asynchrony (Miles et al., 2009; Lakens, 2010). The two mediational
analyses supported the assumption that direct effects of movement synchrony on
rapport and entitativity were not independent of each other, providing a first indi-
cation that psychological attributions, and not purely perceptual similarity, played
a role. That these results speak against a purely perceptual effect of movement
synchrony on entitativity, is further corroborated by the fact that movement syn-
chrony did not influence general similarity questions regarding the habits or goals
of the participants.

Experiment 2

The first experiment revealed that the individuals who waved in synchrony were
rated higher on entitativity compared to individuals waving in asynchrony, and
that this increase in entitativity was related to higher attributions of rapport.
Although this study reveals that movement synchrony influences attributions
of rapport and entitativity, the two video clips used in Experiment 1 differed in
how perceptually similar the individuals were. After all, individuals who moved
in synchrony in the movie clip in Experiment 1 shared the same body posture
throughout their movements, whereas the individuals waving in asynchrony
adopted different body postures at different times throughout the movie clip. To
directly manipulate the inferences participants draw when observing individu-
als moving in synchrony, in the current experiment the same stimulus video was
presented to all participants, and we directly manipulated whether the emerging
movement synchrony could be attributed to an external source or not. When indi-
viduals are explicitly instructed to synchronize, movement synchrony should no
longer be an informative cue to judge the extent to which individuals are a social
unit, or to infer shared feelings of rapport. On the other hand, when individuals
synchronize without being instructed to do so, observers are assumed to interpret
the emergence of movement synchrony as a useful source of information regard-
ing the presence of shared feelings of rapport, and rate synchronized individuals
higher on entitativity.
The current experiment provided a more stringent test of our hypothesis by ma-
nipulating whether participants believed that individuals synchronized spontane-
ously, or that individuals were instructed to synchronize. Participants all watched
the same movie clip (taken from the movie Dead Poets Society) where three boys
walked around a courtyard and synchronized their walking rhythms. Importantly,
whereas participants received perceptually different movie clips in Experiment 1,
there were no perceptual differences in the movie clip the participants received in
the current experiment.
Before watching the movie clip, participants in the walk instruction condition
were told that the boys were instructed to walk, whereas participants in the syn-
chronize instruction condition were told that the boys were instructed to walk and
IF THEY MOVE IN SYNC, THEY MUST FEEL IN SYNC 7

synchronize their movement rhythm. When individuals are instructed to synchro-

nize, their movement rhythms should no longer be attributed to shared feelings
of rapport. Therefore, observers were expected to ignore the movement rhythms
of the individuals as an informative cue regarding the degree to which they were
a social unit. After the video, we measured participants’ attributions of rapport
between the three boys and entitativity judgments. Both judgments of rapport and
entitativity were expected to be higher when the individuals were instructed to
walk, compared to when the individuals were instructed to synchronize. In addi-
tion, we expected a similar indirect effect of movement synchrony on rapport and
entitativity as observed in Experiment 1.

Method

Participants. Thirty-eight students (24 female, mean age 20.3) at a Dutch univer-
sity participated in this study in return for monetary compensation. Participants
were randomly assigned to the walk versus synchronize instruction condition of
the between participants design.
Procedure. The experiment was introduced as a memory study. Instructions on
the computer screen explained to participants that they would watch a short mov-
ie clip and would be asked some questions about what they saw and how they felt.
Participants were told several movie clips were used in the experiment, and the
one they would watch was about a group of American boys attending a private
school (in reality, all participants watched the same movie clip). Three of the boys
walked around in a courtyard while their teacher and fellow students were pres-
ent. Participants were told the teacher had given the three boys an instruction. On
the next screen, participants in the walk instruction condition read: The teacher has
given the three boys the following instruction: Walk around the courtyard. In the synchro-
nize instruction condition, participants instead read: The teacher has given the three
boys the following instruction: Walk around the courtyard, and establish a shared walking
rhythm. After reading this instruction, participants watched the movie clip.
The movie clip was taken from the movie Dead Poets Society, starting from 63
minutes and 37 seconds in the movie, with an 11-second duration. In the actual
movie, the three boys did not receive any instruction from their teacher before they
started to walk. Because the movie clip lasted only 11 seconds, the participants
watched the movie clip three times. Before participants watched the movie clip
for the final time, they received the instruction to direct their attention to the three
walking boys in the movie clip, since the following questions would mainly con-
cern the three boys. This instruction was added to ensure all participants would
pay attention to the three boys, and would not focus on the background or other
people in the movie clip. The three boys in the movie clip walked around the
courtyard in counterclockwise direction. The last 4 seconds of the clip consisted
of a close-up, showing the three boys legs in perfect in-phase synchrony. Their
feet touched and left the ground at the same moment in time, such that when one
boy lifted his right foot, the other two boys lifted their right feet in the exact same
frame of the movie clip.
After watching the movie clip for the third time, participants received the same
rapport and entitativity questionnaires used in Experiment 1. Subsequently, the
participants indicated if they had seen the movie clip before and if so, if they could
8 LAKENS AND STEL

write down the name of the movie the clip was taken from. After answering ques-
tions regarding the obedience of the three boys, and the extent to which the three
boys started to walk in the same rhythm, participants filled out demographic ques-
tions, were thanked, and debriefed.

Results

Two students indicated they had seen the movie clip used in this experiment be-
fore and both could specify the name of the movie it came from (Dead Poets Socie-
ty). Since these participants most likely knew that the real context of the movie clip
was about peoples’ automatic tendency to conform, they were excluded from the
analysis.
A factor analysis (principle component analysis) with a varimax rotation was
conducted with the 10 dependent variables of the entitativity and rapport ques-
tionnaires. A Scree test suggested the extraction of three factors. The first factor
consisted of the four items of the entitativity questionnaire. The second and third
factors consisted of the remaining items of the rapport scale, and divided this scale
in a positivity component (mutual feelings of liking, comfortable feeling, and feel-
ing the same) and a mutual attention component (mutual agreement, mutual un-
derstanding, and being aware of each other). Given that the rapport questionnaire
consisted of a single factor in Experiment 1, and that the instruction manipulation
influenced the two components in the same way, we followed the same procedure
as in Experiment 1 and combined all six items into a rapport scale. Importantly, this
factor analysis again confirms that entitativity and rapport are two distinct psy-
chological constructs. To control for differences in perceived obedience between
the conditions, participants were asked to indicate how obedient they thought the
boys were, but no differences were observed (p > .10). In addition, when asked to
what extend the three boys in the movie clip started to walk in the same rhythm,
participants in the two conditions did not differ in their judgments (p > .10), indi-
cating that participants all agreed upon how similar the movement rhythm of the
two boys had been.
Rapport and Entitativity. The average of the six items of the rapport scale (Cron-
bach’s α = .65) were calculated, and subjected to a univariate ANOVA with the
instruction manipulation as between participants factor. Participants inferred the
three boys felt more rapport when synchronizing spontaneously (M = 5.37, SD =
0.50), than when instructed to synchronize (M = 4.89, SD = 0.87), F(1, 34) = 4.33, p
< .05, ηp2 = .11.
The average of the four items of the entitativity scale (Cronbach’s α = .88) were
calculated, and subjected to a univariate ANOVA with the instruction manipula-
tion as between participants factor. The predicted effect of instruction emerged:
Participants perceived the group of three boys to be more entitative if they were
instructed to walk (M = 5.34, SD = 0.90), compared to when the teacher instructed
them to synchronize (M = 4.38, SD = 1.44), F(1, 34) = 6.02, p = .02, ηp2 = .15.
Mediational Analysis. To test for the predicted mediation of the effect of the ma-
nipulated source of the movement rhythm on entitativity by attributed rapport, a
regression analysis with instruction and predictor was run on both perceived enti-
tativity, β = .39, t = 2.43, p < .05, as perceived rapport, β = .34, t = 2.08, p < .05. In ad-
IF THEY MOVE IN SYNC, THEY MUST FEEL IN SYNC 9

dition, attributed rapport significantly predicted perceived entitativity, β = .60, t =

4.42, p < .001. Finally, adding rapport to the regression of instruction on perceived
entitativity caused the effect of instruction on entitativity to disappear, β = .20, t =
1.44, p = .16, SOBEL test z = 2.13, p = .03. Similarly, adding perceived entitativity to
the regression of instruction on rapport, caused the effect of instruction on rapport
to disappear, β = .12, t = 0.81, p = .42, SOBEL test z = 1.88, p = .06. These mediational
analyses again support the two pathways described in the introduction, provid-
ing further support that the psychological effects of movement synchrony are not
purely perceptual in nature.
Additional analyses were performed to test the relationship between the subjec-
tively perceived similarity of movement rhythms of the boys in the movie clip and
judgments of rapport and entitativity. For participants who thought the three boys
were instructed to synchronize, mediational analyses revealed that perceived sim-
ilarity of the movement rhythms predicted entitativity judgments, β = .54, t = 2.40,
p = .03, but not perceived rapport, β = .32, t = 1.25, p = .23. On the other hand, for
participants who believed the boys synchronized their movement rhythms with-
out the explicit instruction to do so, perceived similarity of the movement rhythms
predicted entitativity judgments, β = .42, t = 1.98, p = .06, and judgments of per-
ceived rapport, β = .49, t = 2.35, p = .03. In addition, perceived rapport predicted
perceived entitativity, β = .59, t = 3.06, p = .007. Finally, after adding perceived
rapport to the equation, the effect of subjective similarity of movement rhythms
on perceived entitativity disappeared, β = .29, t = 1.41, p = .18, Sobel z = 1.89, p =
.03, one-sided.
A mediation model where the effect of perceived similarity of movement
rhythms on rapport was reduced by adding entitativity judgments to the model
also reached significance, β = .18, t = 0.82, p = .42, Sobel z = 1.86, p = .03. These two
pathways again support the indirect effect described in the introduction. These
analyses reveal that the perceived similarity of movement rhythms predicted enti-
tativity judgments (but not attributions of rapport) when participants believed the
boys in the movie clip were instructed to synchronize. However, when observers
believed the three boys synchronized spontaneously, the perceived similarity of
movement rhythms predicted both attributions of rapport as perceived entitativ-
ity, and the direct effect of movement similarity on entitativity (or rapport) was
mediated by attributions of rapport (or entitativity).

General Discussion

When individuals wave in synchrony, observers attribute feelings of rapport to the

individuals, and rate them higher on entitativity, compared to when they wave in
asynchrony. Furthermore, individuals walking in synchrony were rated higher on
rapport and entitativity by observers who believed the individuals simply syn-
chronized their walking rhythm, compared to observers who believed the indi-
viduals synchronized because they were instructed to do so. These results show
that when the emergence of movement synchrony can be attributed to an external
source (i.e., the explicit instruction to synchronize), it is used as a source of infor-
mation regarding shared feelings of rapport among group members to a lesser ex-
tent. Individuals who are thought to move in synchrony without being instructed
to do so are judged to share a feeling of positivity and mutual attention, and are
10 LAKENS AND STEL

rated higher on entitativity. Furthermore, both experiments reveal that the effect of
movement synchrony on entitativity (or rapport) is driven by psychological attri-
butions of rapport (or entitativity). These results speak against a perceptual simi-
larity explanation of the effect of movement synchrony on perceived entitativity.
The analyses in Experiment 2 seem to indicate that in addition to the absolute
increase in perceived rapport and entitativity when individuals synchronize spon-
taneously (compared to when they synchronize because they are instructed to do
so), the indirect effect of subjective movement similarity on perceived social unity
through psychological attributions is only present when synchrony occurs spon-
taneously. When individuals are explicitly instructed to synchronize, movement
rhythms are no longer predictive of attributions of rapport, but show a direct re-
lation to perceived entitativity. These results suggest that movement synchrony
can influence perceived entitativity directly, but that individuals will attribute a
shared psychological state to synchronized individuals, and rate them higher on
entitativity, when the situation allows for such attributions. The nature of relation
between movement synchrony and perceived entitativity when attributions of a
shared psychological state does not mediate the effect of movement synchrony
on entitativity awaits further research, but might be the result of a Gestalt-like
similarity-based perceptual organization.
These findings conceptually replicate and extend previous work on movement
synchrony and rapport (e.g., Miles et al., 2009) by showing movement synchrony
influences attributed rapport of real individuals, using a multiple-item rapport
questionnaire in a between-participants design. In addition, we provide empirical
support for the theorized interplay between movement synchrony, attributions of
rapport, and entitativity by manipulating movement rhythms in Experiment 1 and
by manipulating the attributions of the observer in Experiment 2, providing fur-
ther insights into the processes underlying the effect of movement synchrony on
rapport (Miles et al., 2009) and entitativity (Lakens, 2010). Together, these studies
provide converging evidence that movement synchrony is used as a cue to draw
psychological inferences about the extent to which individuals are a social unit.
Two regression models fitted the data. In the first model the effect of move-
ment synchrony (Experiment 1) or the instruction manipulation (Experiment 2)
on perceived entitativity is mediated by attributed rapport. In the second model
the effect of movement synchrony or the instruction manipulation on attributed
rapport is mediated by perceived entitativity. The rationale of both models and
a complete overview of studies supporting either the pathway in which inferred
shared characteristics influence entitativity judgments or the pathway in which
perceived entitativity influences the inferred shared characteristics has been re-
viewed elsewhere (Yzerbyt et al., 2001, 2004). Based on the current results, we
cannot differentiate between these two pathways. However, the model where the
effect of movement synchrony on entitativity is mediated by attributions of rap-
port is most in line with synchrony researchers’ theoretical assumptions about the
relationship between movement synchrony, rapport, and entitativity (e.g., Berni-
eri, 1988; LaFrance, 1990; Marsh, Richardson, & Schmidt, 2009; Tickle-Degnen &
Rosenthal, 1990; Yzerbyt et al., 2001).
Even though no univocal causal relation between rapport and entitativity could
be determined in the experiments, the most important finding of these studies is
that movement synchrony does not influence perceived entitativity purely due
to the increased perceptual similarity of synchronized movement rhythms, but is
IF THEY MOVE IN SYNC, THEY MUST FEEL IN SYNC 11

caused by psychological attributions. Support for this assumption is twofold. First,

mediation analyses revealed that in both studies the direct effect of movement syn-
chrony on entitativity (or rapport) disappeared when rapport (or entitativity) was
added to the regression model. Importantly, both pathways are in line with the
hypothesis under investigation that movement synchrony activates psychological
inferences about the social unity of the observed individuals. Second, even when
the perceptual information was the same for all participants in Experiment 2, en-
titativity judgments differed based on whether the movement synchrony simply
emerged, or was the result of an explicit instruction to synchronize. Furthermore,
the relation between perceived similarity of the movement rhythms and entitativ-
ity ratings were mediated by attributions of rapport, but only for participants who
believed movement synchrony emerged spontaneously. Together, these results re-
veal that when people see individuals move in synchrony, they draw inferences
about the shared psychological state of the synchronized individuals.
In addition to the theoretical contribution of the present research to our under-
standing of the relationship between movement synchrony, rapport and entita-
tivity, the attribution paradigm used on the second experiment might provide a
useful approach to investigate the psychological consequences of experienced
or observed movement synchrony. By manipulating whether the synchronized
movement rhythm can be attributed to an external source or not, researchers can
investigate the psychological consequences of movement synchrony, without ma-
nipulating movement rhythms. This could be one way to circumvent the problems
associated with the manipulation of movement rhythms (which some researchers
equate with manipulating the socialness of the interaction, e.g., Cappella, 1990)
while still enabling researchers to go beyond correlational support for the rela-
tionship between synchrony and rapport (e.g., Bernieri, 1988; Bernieri et al., 1994;
LaFrance, 1985).
Given that people synchronize their movement rhythms unintentionally (e.g.,
Richardson et al., 2007; Ulzen, Lamoth, Daffertshofer, Semin, & Beck, 2009), peo-
ple have to automatically process similarities or subtle differences in movement
rhythms. Attribution research suggests that people initially explain a person’s ac-
tions in terms of dispositional traits, and subsequently adjust for situational factors
(Gilbert & Malone, 1995). When observers listen to a speech by a fellow student
who was assigned a topic, observers under cognitive load make more disposi-
tional attributions (and fail to correct for the situation) than participants not under
cognitive load. Future research could provide support for the automaticity of the
inferences observers draw from movement synchrony by showing that the differ-
ence between spontaneous and instructed movement synchrony on attributions of
rapport and entitativity disappears under cognitive load.
An important question for the psychological consequences of movement syn-
chrony is whether the difference between spontaneous movement synchrony and
instructed movement synchrony observed in the second experiment will extend
to situations where people directly experience movement synchronization. Would
marching soldiers see themselves as a stronger unit if they create their own move-
ment rhythm, compared to when they march in the rhythm their superior dictates?
If being instructed to tap in synchrony with a metronome increases affiliation with
someone else who is tapping in the same rhythm (Hove & Risen, 2009), will spon-
taneous synchronization with an interaction partner create an even stronger bond?
Future research could focus on these questions to determine the circumstances
12 LAKENS AND STEL

under which movement synchrony functions best to facilitate the formation of a

group.
Another possible role for future research could be to investigate how sensitive
people are to synchronized movement rhythms. Previous studies that have re-
vealed effects of movement synchrony on cognition, such as enhanced memory for
interaction partners (Macrae, Duffy, Miles, & Lawrence, 2008) and interpersonal
cooperation (Valdesolo, Ouyang, & DeSteno, 2010), as well as Experiment 1, rely
on explicit manipulations of movement synchrony. Previous research has shown
that observers can reliably rate subtle amounts of naturally occurring movement
synchrony in real-life interactions (Bernieri et al., 1994). Given that people are sen-
sitive to different degrees of movement synchrony, and the pervasive tendency of
individuals to synchronize their movement rhythms in social interactions (e.g.,
Fiske, 2004; Haidt, Seder, & Kesebir, 2008), further investigation is warranted of
how salient movement synchrony needs to be in real-life interactions to influence
person perception and other cognitive processes.
From our results, we can conclude that the source of nonverbal movement syn-
chrony influences the extent to which perceivers attribute feelings of rapport to
synchronized individuals. When people synchronize spontaneously, their move-
ment rhythm is seen as a useful source of information to determine whether the
individuals feel rapport. Observers rate synchronized individuals higher on enti-
tativity, and this effect is not purely due to the perceptual similarity of synchro-
nized movement rhythms, but the result of psychological attributions. These re-
sults enhance our knowledge of the relationship between movement synchrony,
rapport, and entitativity, and underline that people intuitively draw inferences
from nonverbal behavior to determine whether individuals are a social unit.

Appendix

Entitativity items: I feel the people in this movie are a unit; I think the people in this movie
can act in unison; I experience a feeling of togetherness between the individuals in this
movie; I feel the people in this movie are as one.

Rapport items: To what extent do you think the individuals liked each other; To what extent
do you think the individuals were aware of each other; To what extent do you think the
individuals felt coordinated with each other; To what extent do you think the individuals
felt the same; To what extent do you think the individuals understood each other; To what
extent do you think the individuals had a feeling of mutual agreement.
IF THEY MOVE IN SYNC, THEY MUST FEEL IN SYNC 13
References
Bernieri, F. J. (1988). Coordinated movement
and rapport in teacher student interac-
tions. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 12,
120-138.
Bernieri, F. J., Davis, J. M., Rosenthal, R., &
Knee, C. R. (1994). Interactional synchro-
ny and rapport: Measuring synchrony
in displays devoid of sound and facial
affect. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 20, 303-311.
Brewer, M. B., Hong, Y.-y., & Li, Q. (2004). Dy-
namic entitativity: Perceiving groups
as actors. In V. Yzerbyt, C. Judd, & O.
Corneille (Eds.), The psychology of group
perception: Perceived variability, entitativi-
ty, and essentialism (pp. 25-38). Philadel-
phia: Psychology Press.
Campbell, D. T. (1958). Common fate, simi-
larity, and other indices of the status of
aggregates of persons as social entities.
Behavioral Science, 3, 14-24.
Cappella, J. N. (1990). On defining conversa-
tional coordination and rapport. Psycho-
logical Inquiry, 1, 303-305.
Cappella, J. N. (1996). Dynamic coordination
of vocal and kinesic behavior in dyadic
interaction: Methods, problems, and
interpersonal outcomes. In J. Watt & C.
Van Lear (Eds.), Dynamic patterns in com-
munication processes (pp. 353-386). Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Condon, W. S. (1980). The relation of interac-
tional synchrony to cognitive and emo-
tional processes. In M. R. Key (Ed.), The
relation of verbal and nonverbal behavior
(pp. 49-65). The Hague: Mouton.
Condon, W. S., & Ogston, W. D. (1966). Sound
film analysis of normal and pathological
behavior patterns. Journal of Nervous and
Mental Disease, 143, 338–457.
Davis, M. E. (Ed.). (1982). Interaction rhythms:
Periodicity in communicative behavior.
New York: Human Sciences Press.
Fiske, A. P. (2004). Four modes of constituting
relationships: Consubstantial assimila-
tion; space, magnitude, time, and force;
concrete procedures; abstract symbol-
ism. In N. Haslam (Ed.), Relational mod-
els theory. A contemporary overview (pp.
61-146). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erl-
baum Associates.
Gilbert, D. T., & Malone, P. S. (1995). The cor-
respondence bias. Psychological Bulletin,
117, 21-38.
Haidt, J., Seder, J., & Kesebir, S. (2008). Hive
psychology, happiness, and public poli-
cy. Journal of Legal Studies, 37, 133-156.
Hamilton, D. L., & Sherman, S. J. (1996). Per-
ceiving persons and groups. Psychologi-
cal Review, 103, 336-355.
Hove, M. J., & Risen, J. L. (2009). It’s all in the
timing: Interpersonal synchrony in-
creases affiliation. Social Cognition, 27,
949-960.
Ip, G. W.-m., Chiu, C.-y., & Wan, C. (2006).
Birds of a feather and birds flocking to-
gether: Physical versus behavioral cues
may lead to trait- versus goal-based
group perception. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 90, 368-381.
Kelso, J. A. S. (1995). Dynamic patterns. Cam-
bridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kendon, A. (1990). Conducting interaction: Pat-
terns of behavior in focused encounters.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
LaFrance, M. (1985). Posture mirroring and
intergroup orientation. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 11, 207-218.
LaFrance, M. (1990). The trouble with rapport.
Psychological Inquiry, 1, 318-320.
Lakens, D. (2010). Movement synchrony and
perceived entitativity. Journal of Experi-
mental Social Psychology, 46, 701-708.
Macrae, C. N., Duffy, O. K., Miles, L. K., & Law-
rence, J. (2008). A case of hand-waving:
Action synchrony and person percep-
tion. Cognition, 109, 152-156.
Marsh, K. L., Johnston, L., Richardson, M. J., &
Schmidt, R. C. (2009). Toward a radical-
ly embodied, embedded social psychol-
ogy. European Journal of Social Psychology,
39, 1217-1225.
Marsh, K. L., Richardson, M. J., Baron, R. M.,
& Schmidt, R. C. (2006). Contrasting ap-
proaches to perceiving and acting with
others. Ecological Psychology, 18, 1-38.
Marsh, K. L., Richardson, M. J., & Schmidt, R.
C. (2009). Social connection through joint
action and interpersonal coordination.
Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 320-339.
Miles, L. K., Nind, L. K., & Macrae, C. N.
(2009). The rhythm of rapport: Interper-
sonal synchrony and social perception.
14 LAKENS AND STEL
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
45, 585-589.
Neda, Z., Ravasz, E., Brechet, Y., Vicsek, T.,
& Barabasi, A. L. (2000). The sound of
many hands clapping: Tumultuous ap-
plause can transform itself into waves
of synchronized clapping. Nature, 403,
849-850.
Newtson, D., Hairfield, J., Bloomingdale, J.,
& Cutino, S. (1987). The structure of ac-
tion and interaction. Social Cognition, 5,
191-237.
Postmes, T., Brooke, D., & Jetten, J. (2008). Social
identity formation and team performance.
Unpublished manuscript, University of
Groningen.
Puccinelli, N. M., & Tickle-Degnen, L. (2004).
Knowing too much about others: Mod-
erators of the relationship between
eavesdropping and rapport in social
interaction. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior,
28, 223-243.
Richardson, M. J., Marsh, K. L., Isenhower, R.,
Goodman, J., & Schmidt, R. C. (2007).
Rocking together: Dynamics of inten-
tional and unintentional interpersonal
coordination. Human Movement Science,
26, 867-891.
Tickle-Degnen, L., & Rosenthal, R. (1990). The
nature of rapport and its nonverbal cor-
relates. Psychological Inquiry, 1, 285-293.
Ulzen, N. R., Lamoth, C. J. C., Daffertshofer, A.,
Semin, G. R., & Beek, P. J. (2008). Charac-
teristics of instructed and uninstructed
interpersonal coordination while walk-
ing side-by-side. Neuroscience Letters,
432, 88-93.
Valdesolo, P., Ouyang, J., & DeSteno, D. A.
(2010). The rhythm of joint action: Syn-
chrony promotes cooperative ability.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
46, 693-695.
Wilmermuth, S. S., & Heath, C. (2009). Syn-
chrony and cooperation. Psychological
Science, 20, 1-5.
Yzerbyt, V., Corneille, O., & Estrada, C. (2001).
The interplay of subjective essentialism
and entitativity in the formation of ste-
reotypes. Personality and Social Psycholo-
gy Review, 5, 141-155.
Yzerbyt, V., Corneille, O., Seron, E., & De-
moulin, S. (2004). Subjective essential-
ism in action: Self-anchoring and social
control as consequences of fundamental
social divides. In V. Yzerbyt, C. M. Judd,
& O. Corneille (Eds.), The psychology of
group perception: Perceived variability, en-
titativity, and essentialism (pp. 101-124).
New York: Psychology Press.