Page 17 - Demo

15General Introduction1Inter-individual coordination and bond formationFeeling attracted to another person prompts us to approach them, and eventually likely attempt to form a romantic bond (Montoya et al., 2018). Oneimportant aspect of forming romantic bonds is inter-individual coordination(IIC), an umbrella term that includes mimicry, physiological synchrony, andcoordination (Mayo & Gordon, 2020). During human courtship, we canrecord multiple behavioural patterns, so much so that such displays havebeen termed “the human courtship dance” (Birdwhistell, 1970). Crucially,it is well-documented that such IIC facilitates the formation of social bonds(Lakin, Jefferis, Cheng, & Chartrand, 2003; Mogan, Fischer, & Bulbulia,2017; Hess & Fischer, 2014; Prochazkova et al., 2022).Previous researchers have posited the “pair-bonding hypothesis”, whichassumes that the strength of a given couple is crucial for bond maintenance,and successful offspring rearing (Rasmussen, 1981). In simple terms, coupleswith a greater IIC are more likely to form a bond, remain together, and bebetter at child-rearing. As mentioned above, this is not a new hypothesis;however, the mechanism underlying this has not been well defined. In arecent paper, we argued that IIC underlies and supports the formation ofinterpersonal bonds (Roth, Samara, Tan, Prochazkova, & Kret, 2021).A recent study (Prochazkova et al., 2022) examined the factors underlying attraction in a blind date setting, specifically physiological synchronyand behavioural mimicry. Participants were coupled to members of theopposite sex and went on a 4-minute speed date while their physiological responses and their eye movements (using eyetracking glasses) were recorded.The authors found that overt signals such as smiles, nods, and laughterand their mimicry did not predict attraction. However, attraction was predicted by physiological synchrony, the coupling of electrodermal and heartrate responses between individuals. The finding that mimicry of facial expressions was not associated with attraction contradicts previous researchshowing that mimicry of facial expressions facilitates liking and social bonding (Chartrand & Bargh, 1999; Cheng & Chartrand, 2003; Lakin et al.,2003) and couples are more likely to mimic their partner’s facial expressionsthan friends’ (Maister & Tsakiris, 2016; Kret & Akyüz, 2022, for a differentinterpretation). The discrepancy between the findings of Prochazkova etal. (2022) and previous research could be due to methodological differences,specifically regarding the coding schemes used. Specifically, the authors examined mimicking a more general type of affect (positive vs. non-positive),and specific emotional expressions were not coded. For example, all types ofsmiles (polite, genuine, or coy smile) were coded as simply a “smile”. A moredetailed look at specific emotional expressions might reveal more subtle differences in how these specific expressions (such as polite vs. genuine smiles)might communicate attraction and facilitate bonding. This is especially relevant in light of the fact that during a speed-date interaction, people displayIliana Samara 17x24.indd 15 08-04-2024 16:34