Title |
Imagined Steps: Mental Simulation of Coordinated Rhythmic Movements Effects on Pro-sociality
|
---|---|
Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, October 2017
|
DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01798 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Liam Cross, Gray Atherton, Andrew D. Wilson, Sabrina Golonka |
Abstract |
Rhythmically coordinating with a partner can increase pro-sociality, but pro-sociality does not appear to change in proportion to coordination success, or particular classes of coordination. Pro-social benefits may have more to do with simply coordinating in a social context than the details of the actual coordination (Cross et al., 2016). This begs the question, how stripped down can a coordination task be and still affect pro-sociality? Would it be sufficient simply to imagine coordinating with others? Imagining a social interaction can lead to many of the same effects as actual interaction (Crisp and Turner, 2009). We report the first experiments to explore whether imagined coordination affects pro-sociality similarly to actual coordination. Across two experiments and over 450 participants, mentally simulated coordination is shown to promote some, but not all, of the pro-social consequences of actual coordination. Imagined coordination significantly increased group cohesion and de-individuation, but did not consistently affect cooperation. |
X Demographics
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 1 | 14% |
United Kingdom | 1 | 14% |
Switzerland | 1 | 14% |
Germany | 1 | 14% |
Unknown | 3 | 43% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Scientists | 3 | 43% |
Members of the public | 3 | 43% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 43 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 16% |
Student > Master | 6 | 14% |
Student > Bachelor | 5 | 12% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 9% |
Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 7% |
Other | 8 | 19% |
Unknown | 10 | 23% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Psychology | 14 | 33% |
Neuroscience | 3 | 7% |
Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 7% |
Sports and Recreations | 2 | 5% |
Social Sciences | 2 | 5% |
Other | 2 | 5% |
Unknown | 17 | 40% |