Listening fast and slow.

The pattern of response times in conversation can reveal a lot about how people listen to each other. Fast response times not only telegraph eagerness but provide evidence of attending in such a way as to almost finish the other's sentences. In other situations, slow response times are more appropriate, such as when listening prompts deeper reflection, or to leave space for the enjoyment of an inside joke. Here we argue that close relationships are not marked exclusively by one or the other pattern, but by the ability to toggle effortlessly between the two as the conversation demands.

Long gaps between turns are awkward for strangers but not for friends.

When people feel connected they tend to respond quickly in conversation, creating short gaps between turns. But are long gaps always a sign that things have gone awry? We analysed the frequency and impact of long gaps (greater than 2 s) in conversations between strangers and between friends. As predicted, long gaps signalled disconnection between strangers. However, long gaps between friends marked moments of increased connection and friends tended to have more of them. These differences in connection were also perceived by independent raters: only the long gaps between strangers were rated as awkward, and increasingly so the longer they lasted. Finally, we show that, compared to strangers, long gaps between friends include more genuine laughter and are less likely to precede a topic change. This suggests that the gaps of friends may not function as 'gaps' at all, but instead allow space for enjoyment and mutual reflection. Together, these findings suggest that the turn-taking dynamics of friends are meaningfully different from those of strangers and may be less bound by social conventions. More broadly, this work illustrates that samples of convenience-pairs of strangers being the modal paradigm for interaction research-may not capture the social dynamics of more familiar relationships. This article is part of a discussion meeting issue 'Face2face: advancing the science of social interaction'.

Fast response times signal social connection in conversation.

Clicking is one of the most robust metaphors for social connection. But how do we know when two people "click"? We asked pairs of friends and strangers to talk with each other and rate their felt connection. For both friends and strangers, speed in response was a robust predictor of feeling connected. Conversations with faster response times felt more connected than conversations with slower response times, and within conversations, connected moments had faster response times than less-connected moments. This effect was determined primarily by partner responsivity: People felt more connected to the degree that their partner responded quickly to them rather than by how quickly they responded to their partner. The temporal scale of these effects (<250 ms) precludes conscious control, thus providing an honest signal of connection. Using a round-robin design in each of six closed networks, we show that faster responders evoked greater feelings of connection across partners. Finally, we demonstrate that this signal is used by third-party listeners as a heuristic of how well people are connected: Conversations with faster response times were perceived as more connected than the same conversations with slower response times. Together, these findings suggest that response times comprise a robust and sufficient signal of whether two minds "click."

Social Norms Shift Preferences for Healthy and Unhealthy Foods.

This research investigated whether people change their food preferences and eating behavior in response to health-based social norms. One hundred twenty participants rated a series of healthy and unhealthy food images. After each rating, participants sometimes viewed a rating that ostensibly represented the average rating of previous participants. In fact, these average ratings were manipulated to convey a particular social norm. Participants either saw average ratings that favored healthy foods, favored unhealthy foods, or did not see any average ratings. Participants then re-rated those same food images after approximately ten minutes and again three days later. After the norm manipulation, participants were given the chance to take as many M&Ms as they wanted. Participants exposed to a healthy social norm consistently reported lower preferences for unhealthy foods as compared to participants in the other two conditions. This preference difference persisted three days after the social norm manipulation. However, health-based social norm manipulations did not influence the amount of M&Ms participants took. Although health-based social norm manipulations can influence stated food preferences, in this case they did not influence subsequent eating behavior.