What is this article about?

A goal of communication is to determine whether people are on the same wavelength. This can be determined objectively, by asking each other about their opinions. But, people may also share a shared reality subjectively, through micro-dynamics. This article describes the role of micro-dynamics in developing and regulating a shared reality. There are three different contexts: intergroup communication, computer mediated communication, and communication within intimate relationships.

For communication to be effective, there should be a shared subjective reality. This means that people share their inner states. People can determine whether this is the case, through for example explicit responses. However, when people are in the same group, they assume that the other shares the same views. Then, there is a third source, namely the micro-dynamics in the form of conversation.

What are conversational micro-dynamics?

People coordinate their speech in many ways, such as interactional synchrony, turn-taking, behavioral mimicry, nonverbal behavior, and communication accommodation. This coordination has a communicative function: people feel more satisfied with their conversations when it goes smoothly. When people have a smooth conversation, they feel as if they are on the same wavelength as their partner (the experience of shared reality). The researchers looked at what would happen if this flow was disturbed. They found that even subtle disruptions affect the experience of shared reality. In these conversations, people report higher feelings of rejection.

Other studies have looked at micro-dynamics such as alignment of speech, and completing other’s sentences and mimicry. These behaviors increase the rating of the conversational partners. When partners ask a lot of questions, this disrupts flow.

Thus, smooth flow of conversation is an important factor for the experience of shared reality between people.

How can we regulate shared reality through conversational micro dynamics?

Disruptions of conversational flow (brief silences) and a lack of spontaneous imitative behaviors, make people feel threatened. They might feel less understood. In order to restore this feeling, they might engage in reconciliatory behaviors such as conformity. Thus, when people are in a group and flow is disrupted, they might shift their opinions to be more in line with the group norms.

What is known about conversational micro-dynamics?

Studying micro-dynamics in the form of conversation should always happen according to the context. There are three contexts.

Computer-mediated communication

This type of conversation is more susceptible to disruptions of flow. Currently, technology is advanced. Therefore, it resembles face-to-face conversations. However, this may lead people to expect the conversations to take place in the same way as in real life. When this does not happen (minor response delays), people might like the conversation less.

Intergroup communication

In intergroup communication, there are more behaviors that can disrupt flow. When people engage in intergroup communication, they use less time interacting, use fewer words, and smile less frequently. Also, they show less immediacy and higher rater of speech errors. People rate communication with ingroup members higher than communication with outgroup members.

Intimate relationships

Partners in a relationship often assume a strong shared reality. Flow disruptions in these types of relationships are not always negative. Partners who feel very close to each other, feel more socially validated when the flow is disrupted, compared to when the conversation flows smoothly. The explanation for this is that the partners use their shared reality to fill in the disruptions.

What is the power of micro-dynamics?

So, micro-dynamics in conversations often occur unconsciously. However, they have a strong effect on our experience of shared reality with others. There are three factors that affect the power of micro-dynamics: implicitness, collectivity, and off-record nature.

Implicitness

It seems that attitudes that are implicitly referred from cultural practices, are better maintained. So, when in a conversation an expressed opinion does not elicit explicit discussion, but is followed by a smooth conversation, this likely happens because the opinion is accepted by both conversational partners.

The off-record nature means that a receiver may interpret a silence as a rejection. However, this can be difficult to address, because the behavior occurs off-record. For example, the interaction partners could deny the rejection. This is related to ostracism: in ostracism literature, others can ostracize other people without ever needing to admit it or apologizing for it. Accordingly, when rejection is implicit, it is more likely to promote behaviors aimed at social reengagement, and explicit rejection is likely to lead to social withdrawal.

The last factor is the collectivity of the event. A silence happens only when every partaker in a conversation remains silent. This suggests that someone’s expression before the silence is collectively disapproved.