Interaction Coordination and Adaptation

doi:10.1017/9781316676202.008

8 - Interaction Coordination and Adaptation

from Part I - Conceptual Models of Social Signals

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 July 2017

Judee K. Burgoon ,

Norah E. Dunbar and

Howard Giles

Edited by

Judee K. Burgoon ,

Nadia Magnenat-Thalmann ,

Maja Pantic and

Alessandro Vinciarelli

Show author details

Judee K. Burgoon: Affiliation:
University of Arizona
Norah E. Dunbar: Affiliation:
University of California Santa Barbara
Howard Giles: Affiliation:
University of California Santa Barbara
Judee K. Burgoon: Affiliation:
University of Arizona
Nadia Magnenat-Thalmann: Affiliation:
Université de Genève
Maja Pantic: Affiliation:
Imperial College London
Alessandro Vinciarelli: Affiliation:
University of Glasgow

Book contents

HTML view is not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

Summary

A Biological and Social Imperative

Adaptation is a biological and social imperative – biologically, for the survival of a species; socially, for the survival of a society. Vertebrates and invertebrates alike come equipped with reflexes that produce involuntary survival-related forms of adaptation in the form of fight or flight responses. In the face of a threat, a frightened organism may sound an alarm call, emit an odor, or display a visual signal that is recognized by species mates as fear. The fear triggers behavioral mimicry that leads the entire flock, herd, swarm, or school to take flight en masse. Or, rage by a single individual may fuel a contagion of aggression that turns into mob violence. These reciprocal actions may not be easily suppressed or controlled.

Other forms of adaptation are volitional, intentional, and socially oriented. Humans may copy the speech patterns of their social “superiors” in hopes of being viewed as belonging to the same ingroup. Or one person's antagonistic demeanor toward a target may elicit a docile, calming response by the victim.

Both forms of adaptation – involuntary and voluntary – undergird social organization. As Martin Luther King Jr. observed in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail (1963), “we are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality.” By means of verbal and nonverbal communication, civilized societies negotiate access to scarce resources, work out their interpersonal relationships, and create their social organizations. Thus, communication is fundamentally an adaptive enterprise that reflects and channels these biological and social imperatives. How, when, and why such adaptation takes place is the topic of this chapter.

Forms of Coordination and Adaptation

It is perhaps unsurprising that given its fundamental role in social interaction, terms describing various forms of adaptation have proliferated, leading to conceptual and operational disarray. The same terms have been applied to different phenomena and different terms have been applied to the same phenomenon. Here we introduce the most common usage from scholars of communication, psychology and linguistics who over the course of forty years have largely converged on these definitions. These conceptual and operational definitions are summarized in Table 8.1.

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: Social Signal Processing , pp. 78 - 96

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316676202.008 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2017

References

Andersen, P. A. (1998). The cognitive valence theory of intimate communication. In M. T., Palmer & G. A., Barnett (Eds), Mutual Influence in Interpersonal Communication: Theory and Research in Cognition, Affect, and Behavior (pp. 39–72). Stamford, CT: Greenwood.

Andersen, P. A. (1999). Building and sustaining personal relationships: A cognitive valence explanation. In L. K., Guerrero, J. A., DeVito, & M. L., Hecht (Eds), The Nonverbal Communication Reader (pp. 511–520). Lone Grove, IL: Waveland Press.

Andersen, P. A. & Andersen, J. F. (1984). The exchange of nonverbal intimacy: A critical review of dyadic models. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 8(4), 327–349.Google Scholar

Andersen, P. A., Guerrero, L. K., Buller, D. B., & Jorgensen, P. F. (1998). An empirical comparison of three theories of nonverbal immediacy exchange. Human Communication Research, 24(4), 501–535.Google Scholar

Argyle, M. & Dean, J. (1965). Eye-contact, distance and affiliation. Sociometry, 289–304.

Bartholomew, K. & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(2), 226–244.Google Scholar

Bavelas, J. B., Black, A., Chovil, N., Lemery, C. R., & Mullett, J. (1988). Form and function in motor mimicry: Topographic evidence that the primary function is communicative. Human Communication Research, 14, 275–299.Google Scholar

Bernieri, F. J. & Rosenthal, R. (1991). Interpersonal coordination: Behavior matching and interactional synchrony. In R. S., Feldman & B., Rimé (Eds), Fundamentals of Nonverbal Behavior (pp. 401–432). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and Loss. New York: Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Retrospect and prospect. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 52(4), 664–678.Google Scholar

Bullowa, M. (1975). When infant and adult communicate: How do they synchronize their behaviors? In A., Kendon, R. M., Harris, & M. R., Key (Eds), Organization of Behavior in Face-to- Face Interaction (pp. 95–129). The Hague: Mouton.

Burgoon, J. K. (1983). Nonverbal violations of expectations. In J., Wiemann & R., Harrison (Eds), Nonverbal Interaction. Volume 11: Sage Annual Reviews of Communication (pp. 11–77). Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.

Burgoon, J. K., Dillman, L., & Stern, L. A. (1993). Adaptation in dyadic interaction: Defining and operationalizing patterns of reciprocity and compensation. Communication Theory, 3, 196– 215.Google Scholar

Burgoon, J. K., Dunbar, N. E., & White, C. (2014). Interpersonal adaptation. In C. R., Berger (Ed.), Interpersonal Communication (pp. 225–248). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.

Burgoon, J. K., Ebesu, A., White, C., et al. (1998). The many faces of interaction adaptation. In M. T., Palmer & G. A., Barnett (Eds), Progress in Communication Sciences (vol. 14, pp. 191– 220). Stamford, CT: Ablex.

Burgoon, J. K. & Saine, T. J. (1978). The Unspoken Dialogue. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.

Burgoon, J. K., Stern, L. A., & Dillman, L. (1995). Interpersonal Adaptation: Dyadic Interaction Patterns. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Burgoon, J. K. & White, C. H. (1997). Researching nonverbal message production: A view from interaction adaptation theory. In J. O., Greene (Ed.), Message Production: Advances in Communication Theory (pp. 279–312). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Candiotti, A., Zuberbüler, K., & Lemasson, A. (2012). Convergence and divergence in Diana monkey vocalizations. Biology Letters, 8, 282–285.Google Scholar

Cappella, J. N. (1984). The relevance of microstructure of interaction to relationship change. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 1, 239–264.Google Scholar

Cappella, J. N. & Greene, J. O. (1982). A discrepancy-arousal explanation of mutual influence in expressive behavior for adult and infant–adult interaction. Communication Monographs, 49(2), 89–114.Google Scholar

Cappella, J. N. & Greene, J. O. (1984). The effects of distance and individual differences in arousability on nonverbal involvement: A test of discrepancy-arousal theory. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 8(4), 259–286.Google Scholar

Chapple, E. (1982). Movement and sound: The musical language of body rhythms in interaction. In M., Davis (Ed.), Interaction Rhythms: Periodicity in Communicative Behavior (pp. 31–51). New York: Human Sciences.

Chartrand, T. L. & Bargh, J. A. (1999). The chameleon effect: The perception–behavior link and social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 893–910.Google Scholar

Condon, W. S. & Ogston, W. D. (1971). Speech and body motion synchrony of the speaker-hearer. In D. L., Horton & J. J., Jenkins (Eds), Perception of Language (pp. 150–173). Columbus, OH: Merrell.

Conway, L. G., III & Schaller, M. (2007). How communication shapes culture. In K., Fielder (Ed.), Social Communication (pp. 104–127). New York: Psychology Press.

Coutts, L. M. & Schneider, F. W. (1976). Affiliative conflict theory: An investigation of the intimacy equilibrium and compensation hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34(6), 1135–1142.Google Scholar

Dragojevic, M. & Giles, H. (2014). Language and interpersonal communication: Their intergroup dynamics. In C. R., Berger (Ed.), Interpersonal Communication (pp. 29–51). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.

Dunbar, N. E., Altieri, N., Jensen, M. L., & Wenger, M. J. (2013). The viability of EEG as a method of deception detection. Paper presented at The 46th Hawaiian International Conference on System Sciences, Maui, HI.

Dunbar, N. E., Jensen, M. L., Tower, D. C., & Burgoon, J. K. (2014). Synchronization of nonverbal behaviors in detecting mediated and non-mediated deception. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 38(3), 355–376.

Edinger, J. A. & Patterson, M. L. (1983). Nonverbal involvement and social control. Psychological Bulletin, 93(1), 30–56.Google Scholar

Fiske, S. T. (2012). Journey to the edges: Social structures and neural maps of inter-group processes. British Journal of Social Psychology, 51, 1–12.Google Scholar

Gallois, C., Giles, H., Jones, E., Cargile, A., & Ota, H. (1995). Accommodating intercultural encounters: Elaborations and extensions. In R. L., Wiseman (Ed.), Intercultural Communication Theory (vol. 19, pp. 115–147). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Giles, H. (Ed.) (2012). The Handbook of Intergroup Communication. New York: Routledge.

Giles, H. (Ed.) (2016). Communication Accommodation Theory: Negotiating Personal Relationships and Social Identities across Contexts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Giles, H., Giles Bourhis, R. Y., & Taylor, D. M. (1977). Towards a theory of language in ethnic group relations. In H., Giles (Ed.), Language, Ethnicity and Intergroup Relations (pp. 307– 348). London: Academic Press.

Giles, H., Coupland, N., & Coupland, J. (1991). Accommodation theory: Communication, context, and consequence. In H., Giles, J., Coupland & N., Coupland (Eds), The Contexts of Accommodation: Developments in Applied Sociolinguistics (pp. 1–68). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Giles, H. & Gasiorek, J. (2013). Parameters of non-accommodation: Refining and elaborating communication accommodation theory. In J., Forgas, J., László, & V. Orsolya, Vincze (Eds), Social Cognition and Communication (pp. 155–172). New York: Psychology Press.

Giles, H. & Giles, J. L. (2012). Ingroups and outgroups communicating. In A., Kuyulo (Ed.), Inter/Cultural Communication: Representation and Construction of Culture in Everyday Interaction (pp. 141–162). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Giles, H. & Soliz, J. (2015). Communication accommodation theory. In D., Braithewaite & P., Schrodt (Eds), Engaging Theories in Interpersonal Communication (2nd edn). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Giles, H. & Street, R. L., Jr. (1994). Communicator characteristics and behaviour: A review, generalizations, and model. In M., Knapp & G., Miller (Eds), The Handbook of Interpersonal Communication (2nd edn, pp. 103–161). Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.

Giles, H. & Watson, B. M. (2008). Intercultural and intergroup parameters of communication. In W., Donsbach (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of Communication (vol. VI, pp. 2337–2348). New York: Blackwell.

Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161–178.Google Scholar

Kendon, A. (1970).Movement coordination in social interaction: Some examples described. Acta Psychologica, 32, 101–125.Google Scholar

King, M. L., Jr. (1963). The Negro is your brother. The Atlantic Monthly, 212(August), 78–88.Google Scholar

McGlone, M. S. & Giles, H. (2011). Language and interpersonal communication. In M. L., Knapp & J. A., Daly (Eds), Handbook of Interpersonal Communication (4th edn, pp. 201–237). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., & Pereg, D. (2003). Attachment theory and affect regulation: The dynamics, development, and cognitive consequences of attachment-related strategies. Motivation and Emotion, 27(2), 77–102.Google Scholar

Nyklíček, I., Vingerhoets, A., & Zeelenberg, M. (2011). Emotion regulation and well-being: A view from different angles. In I., Nykliček, A., Vingerhoets & M., Zeelenberg (Eds), Emotion Regulation and Well-being (pp. 1–9). New York: Springer Science + Business Media.

Patterson, M. L. (1982). A sequential functional model of nonverbal exchange. Psychological Review, 89(3), 231–249.Google Scholar

Patterson, M. L. (1983). Nonverbal Behavior: A Functional Perspective. New York:Springer.

Reid, S. A., Zhang, J., Anderson, G. L., et al. (2012). Parasite primes make foreign-accented English sound more distant to people who are disgusted by pathogens (but not by sex or morality). Evolution and Human Behavior, 33, 471–478.Google Scholar

Richards, D. A. & Hackett, R. D. (2012). Attachment and emotion regulation: Compensatory interactions and leader–member exchange. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(4), 686–701.Google Scholar

Roth, S. & Cohen, L. J. (1986). Approach, avoidance, and coping with stress. American Psychologist, 41(7), 813–819.Google Scholar

Sokolov, E. N. (1963). Higher nervous functions: The orienting reflex. Annual Review of Physiology, 25, 545–580.Google Scholar

Soliz, J. & Giles, H. (2014). Relational and identity processes in communication: A contextual and meta-analytical review of communication accommodation theory. In E., Cohen (Ed.), Communication Yearbook, 38 (pp. 107–144). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Vrij, A., Mann, S., Kristen, S., & Fisher, R. P. (2007). Cues to deception and ability to detect lies as a function of police interview styles. Law and Human Behavior, 31(5), 499–518.Google Scholar

Wiseman, R. L. (2002). Intercultural communication competence. In W. B., Gudykunst & B., Mody (Eds), Handbook of International and Intercultural Communication (2nd edn, pp. 207–224). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Watson, B. M. (2012). Intercultural and cross-cultural communication. In A., Kurylo (Ed.), Inter/cultural Communication (pp. 25–46). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

Woody, E. Z. & Szechtman, H. (2011). Adaptation to potential threat: The evolution, neurobiology, and psychopathology of the security motivation system. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 35, 1019–1033.Google Scholar

Yu, X., Zhang, S., Yan, Z. et al. (2015). Is interactional dissynchrony a clue to deception? Insights from automated analysis of nonverbal visual cues. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 45, 506–520.Google Scholar

Zajonc, R. B. (1965). Social facilitation. Science, 149, 269–274.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this chapter is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.