We all know the awkward feeling when a conversation is suddenly disrupted by a brief silence. These moments can be pretty unsettling. Because people are generally so well-trained in having smooth conversations, any disruption of this flow indicates that something is wrong, either on an interpersonal level or on the level of consensus in a group. The question we aim to answer in this paper is: Why do we feel comfortable in conversations that have flow, and why do we get nervous and distressed when a conversation is interrupted by unexpected silences?

You may have experienced talking to a friend or partner in a video conference or on the phone, when being confronted with a delayed connection. Most people experience such delays as annoying, as they often result in simultaneous talk and unpreventable silences. The lack of flow in such conversations may interfere with the ease of talking freely about personal issues or other topics, and may lead to the experience of unease or even distress. Although this distress can be clearly identified as being caused by the delayed auditory and visual feedback, you may still feel bad about the conversation afterwards. But what would happen if you were not be able to attribute the disruptions of flow to a machine? Would you doubt whether you and your friend or partner have enough in common? Would you question your relationships?

We spend a large part of our daily life talking with other people and consequently we are very well-versed in the art of conversing. A smoothly flowing conversation constitutes of a series of closely coordinated and predictable actions in which two or more speakers take turns, often within milliseconds (Chapple, 1970). This creates the outward experience of a harmonious exchange of information. Subjectively, one could say that a good conversation has conversational flow: An experience that is associated with a pleasant state of contentment (Burgoon, Stern, & Dillman, 1995). Even when talking to strangers, people generally feel good and supported when the conversation consists of a smooth interplay between interaction partners. Research shows that conversational flow provides people with a feeling of belonging and social validation, independently from the content of the conversation (Koudenburg, Postmes, & Gordijn, 2011a; Koudenburg, Postmes, & Gordijn, 2012). The question we aim to answer in this paper is: Why do we feel comfortable in conversations that have flow, and why do we get nervous and distressed when a conversation is interrupted by unexpected silences? To answer this question we will first look at the processes that underlie the effects of conversational flow. Then we will explain how flow can serve different social needs, like the need to belong and the need for social validation.

Processes

Fluency

The positive consequences of conversational flow show some surface similarities with the effects of processing fluency. Research has shown that processing fluency – the subjective experience of ease with which people process information – influences people’s judgments across a broad range of social dimensions. For instance, people feel that when something is easily processed it is more true or accurate. Moreover, they have more confidence in their judgments regarding information that came to them fluently, and they like things that are easy to process more than things that are difficult to process (for a review, see Alter & Oppenheimer, 2009).

This idea can be illustrated by the Oscar-winning movie ‘The King’s Speech’, in which the stuttering King George VI is unable to deliver a single public address without awkward strains and uncomfortable silences. His inability to speak fluently hampers his ability to be convincing. You could say that in his speeches, the disruption of flow prevents the public from seeing him as a strong and reliable leader. In the movie’s dramatic conclusion, the King is finally able to speak to his people in fluent King’s English, inspiring his people in a time of great national peril. As displayed in the movie, the British public is not unsympathetic towards the King, but appears to be acting on some automatic tendency to judge the quality of ideas, and people, not just by their content but also by the fluency of expression. Research indeed shows that a speaker is judged to be more knowledgeable when they answer questions instantly; responding with disfluent speech markers such as “uh” or “um” or simply remaining silent for a moment too long can destroy that positive image (Brennan and Williams, 1995).

Fluency plays a role in dialogue as well. In conversations, the presence of flow suggests that the conversation progresses in an easy and comfortable manner (Burgoon et al., 1995; Koudenburg et al., 2011a; 2012). A conversation in which flow is lacking requires more hard work for the ones involved. This suggests that they would probably like each other less, feel that others are less genuinely involved in the conversation, and may feel less confident about their relationship with each other. The interplay between two conversation partners is often considered informative for the quality of their relationship or even for the extent to which they agree with one another (Koudenburg et al., 2012). Think back to the example of having a bad video-conversation with your partner. The uncomfortable silences in the conversation may cause you to doubt not only the connection of the Internet, but also the quality of the relationship of you and your partner.

In sum, disruptions of flow in a monologue can raise doubts about the trustworthiness and likability of a single person, whereas in a dialogue it may have the additional consequence of eroding the quality of relationships between those who interact. In general, research suggests that the fluency with which stimuli can be processed signals a positive state of affairs and is thereby related to positive affect (Winkielman, Schwarz, Fazendeiro, & Reber, 2003). That a fluent conversation arouses a variety of positive emotions could thus be explained by the ease with which fluent conversations are processed.

Synchrony

However, fluency is not the only process that can explain why smoothly flowing conversations are perceived more positively. The concept of conversational flow also relates to the human need to be “in sync” with one another (Marsh, Richardson, Baron, & Schmidt, 2006). Many studies have shown how people attempt to synchronize with their interaction partners, by coordinating their behaviors to each other. This interpersonal coordination underlies a wide array of human activities, ranging from more complicated activities like ballroom dancing to simply walking or talking with friends.

In conversations, interpersonal coordination is found when people adjust the duration of their utterances and their speech rate to one another so that they can switch speaking turns without talking over each other and experiencing awkward silences (Chapple, 1970). Since people are very well-trained in having conversations, they are often able to take turns within milliseconds resulting in a conversational flow of smoothly meshed behaviors. A conversation has flow to the extent that turn-taking breakdowns are less frequent and shorter in duration. A lack of flow is characterized by interruptions, simultaneous speech or mutual silences (Bernieri & Rosenthal, 1991). These adjustments of communicators to one another are important for defining and maintaining interpersonal relationships: Whereas some interaction patterns facilitate smooth and meaningful communication, others may create misunderstanding and discomfort, drifting people further and further apart (Cappella, 1991). A lack of synchronization can give rise to a host of misunderstandings, which can pose a threat to social human needs.

Social Needs

Belonging

The tendency to behave synchronously is generally explained as a consequence of the need to feel connected to others, or more generally, the need to belong. The need to belong has been identified as one of the most basic of human motivations (Baumeister & Leary, 1995), which plays a role in many human behaviors. It has been hypothesized that being in sync with one another should correspond with an individual’s rapport, liking, or wish to be a “team” with another person, and as such, serve the need to belong. Many studies have shown that individuals who act synchronously are perceived more as a unity and as sharing more rapport than those who behave asynchronously (Lakens, 2010). Moreover, research has demonstrated that numerous interactions with the same partner increase conversational flow as well as interpersonal bonding (Rabinowitz, 2008).

That conversational flow is related to belonging may be most easily illustrated by the consequences of flow disruptions. What happens when the positive experience of flow is disrupted by, for instance, a brief silence? We all know that silences can be pretty awkward, and research shows that even short disruptions in conversational flow can lead to a sharp rise in distress levels (Koudenburg et al., 2011a). In movies, silences are often used to signal non-compliance or confrontation (Piazza, 2006). Some researchers even argue that “silencing someone” is one of the most serious forms of exclusion (e.g. Williams, 2001). Because humans, due to the elementary importance of group membership for our wellbeing, are very sensitive to signals of exclusion, a silence is generally taken as a sign of rejection. In this way, a lack of flow in a conversation may signal that our relationship is not as solid as we thought it was, and that we do not really belong together. In these situations, disruptions of conversational flow can inform us about the status of our relationships and threaten our need to belong (Koudenburg et al., 2011a).

Social Validation

Another way to interpret the feeling of being out of sync with each other is as a signal of having little in common with your interaction partner. You could for instance think of a date in which no matter how hard you try, you do not succeed in keeping the conversation going. After having a dinner in which you put a lot of effort in preventing awkward silences from occurring, you probably decide that your date and you may not be such a good match. You may even assume that because the conversation is not progressing fluently, you and your date may have little in common and have different worldviews. You may literally “not be on the same wavelength”. On the other hand, when you and your date would have had a conversation characterized by smooth turn-taking and absence of awkward pauses, you might have perceived this as evidence that the two of you have a lot in common and see the world in similar terms.

As this situation describes, people often try to validate their opinions to those of others. That is, people like to see others as having similar ideas or worldviews as they have themselves, because this informs people that they are correct and their worldviews are justified (Cialdini, 2009; Koudenburg, Postmes, & Gordijn, 2011b; Ross, Greene, & House, 1977). One way in which people can justify their worldviews is by assuming that, as long as their conversations run smoothly, their interaction partners probably agree with them. We have tested this idea that conversational flow signals consensus (or agreement) in a video paradigm (Koudenburg et al., 2011a). Participants imagined being one out of three people in a video clip who had either a fluent conversation or a conversation in which flow was disrupted by a brief silence. Except for the silence, the videos were identical. After watching the video, participants were asked to what extent the people in the video agreed with each other. Participants who watched the fluent conversation rated consensus to be higher than participants watching the conversation that was disrupted by a silence. Moreover, participants who imagined being one of the people in the fluent conversation felt more socially validated than participants who imagined being in a conversation in which flow was disrupted. This study suggests that conversational flow serves as a proxy for acceptance and consensus: As long as the conversation proceeds smoothly, what we say is accepted and thus we probably agree. Interestingly, the effects occurred even though participants were not consciously aware of the disruption. It appears that the subjective feeling of being out of sync informs people of possible disagreements, regardless of the content of the conversation (Koudenburg et al., 2011a).

The idea that conversational flow could lead to social validation complements existing theories about social validation, which tend to focus on the way in which people make explicit social comparisons by consciously comparing the content of their opinions to those of similar others (e.g., Festinger, 1954). Our research suggests that a more implicit route to social validation might be an important one, too: People do not always compare their opinions with those of others, but they may oftentimes validate their opinions by deriving a general feeling of consensus from fluent conversations. On the other hand, in the case of disfluency – for instance instigated by a silent moment – people may attend more closely to what is actually being said by others.

Conclusion

The research described in this paper shows that people infer information from conversational flow that is not revealed by the content of the conversation. More specifically, people infer a sense of belonging and social validation from the fluency of their interactions with others. These inferences seem to be independent of what has actually been said. Because people are generally so well-trained in having smooth conversations, any disruption of this flow indicates that something is wrong, either interpersonally or within the group as a whole. Consequently, people who do not talk very easily may be incorrectly understood as being less agreeable than those who have no difficulty keeping up a conversation. On a societal level, one could even imagine that a lack of conversational flow may hamper the integration of immigrants who do not completely master the language of their new country yet. In a similar sense, the ever-increasing number of online conversations may be disrupted by misinterpretations and distress that are produced by insuperable delays in the Internet connection. Keeping in mind the effects of conversational flow for feelings of belonging and validation may help one to be prepared to avoid such misunderstandings in future conversations.

References

Alter, A. L., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2009). Uniting the tribes of fluency to form a metacognitive nation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13(3), 219-235.

Baumeister, R. & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529.

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

Brennan, S. E. & Williams, M. (1995). The feeling of another’s knowing: Prosody and filled pauses as cues to listeners about metacognitive states of speakers. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 383-398.

Burgoon, J. K., Stern, L. A., & Dillman, L. (1995). Interpersonal adaptation: Dyadic interaction patterns. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Cappella, J. N. (1991). Mutual adaptation and relativity of measurement. In B. M. Montgomery & S. Duck (Eds.), Studying interpersonal interaction (pp. 103-117). New York: Guilford.

Chapple, E. D. (1970). Culture and biological man: Explorations in behavioral anthropology. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Cialdini, R.B. (2009). Influence: Science and Practice (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117-140. doi: 10.1177/001872675400700202

Koudenburg, N., Postmes, T., & Gordijn, E. H. (2011a). Disrupting the flow: How brief silences in group conversations affect social needs. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(2), 512-515. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2010.12.006

Koudenburg, N., Postmes, T., & Gordijn, E. H. (2011b). If They Were to Vote, They Would Vote for Us. Psychological Science, 22(12), 1506-1510.

Koudenburg, N., Postmes, T, & Gordijn, E.H. (2012). The Threat of Delay: Disrupted conversational flow decreases levels of belonging and validation. Manuscript in preparation.

Lakens, D. (2010). Movement synchrony and perceived entitativity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology (2010). doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2010.03.015

Marsh, K. L., Richardson, M. J., Baron, R. M., & Schmidt, R. C. (2006). Contrasting approaches to perceiving and acting with others. Ecological Psychology, 18, 1–38. doi: 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2009.01022

Piazza, R. (2006). The representation of conflict in the discourse of italian melodrama. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 2087-2104. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.03.006

Rabinowitz, R. L. (2008). Adolescent dyadic talk around a young adult novel: Developing understandings and relationships.Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 69.

Ross, L., Greene, D., & House, P. (1977). The "false consensus effect": An egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 279-301. doi: 10.1016/0022-1031(77)90049-X

Winkielman, P., Schwarz, N., Fazendeiro, I., & Reber, R. (2003). The hedonic marking of processing fluency: Implications for evaluative judgment. In J. Musch & K. C. Klauer (Eds.), The Psychology of Evaluations: Affective Processes in Cognition and Emotion. (pp. 189-217). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.