Zooming out on bargaining tables: Exploring which conversation dynamics predict negotiation outcomes.

How much should you talk, pause, or interrupt your counterpart in negotiations? The present research zooms out on the macrostructure of negotiation conversations to examine how systematic differences in conversation dynamics-the structural and temporal patterns that arise from the presence or absence of speech between interlocutors-relate to objective and relational outcomes at the bargaining table. We examined 38,564 speech turns from 239 online negotiation recordings and derived, for each negotiator (N = 380), 16 measures pertaining to seven dimensions of conversation dynamics: speaking time, turn length, pauses, speech rate, interruptions, backchannels, and response time. Network analyses reveal that many of these measures are interconnected, with clusters of variables suggesting broad differences in negotiators' propensity to "talk vs. listen" and to mimic their counterparts. Regression and Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) analyses further show that several measures uniquely predict objective and relational outcomes in videoconference negotiations. At the objective level, negotiators who speak more, faster, and with fewer pauses tend to get better deals. At the relational level, negotiators who refrain from interrupting and display more dynamic turn length (i.e., low similarity over successive turns) are better liked. Taken together, the results suggest that conversation dynamics could make or break deals. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

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'.

Tendency to laugh is a stable trait: findings from a round-robin conversation study.

People often laugh during conversation. Who is more responsible for the laughter, the person laughing or their partner for eliciting it? We used a round-robin design where participants (N = 66) engaged in 10 different conversations with 10 same-gender strangers and counted the instances of laughter for each person in each conversation. After each conversation, participants rated their perceived similarity with their partner and how much they enjoyed the conversation. More than half the variability in the amount a person laughed was attributable to the person laughing-some people tend to laugh more than others. By contrast, less than 5% of the variability was attributable to the laugher's partner. We also found that the more a person laughed, the more their partners felt similar to them. Counterintuitively, laughter negatively predicted conversation enjoyment. These findings suggest that, in conversations between strangers, laughter may not be a straightforward signal of amusement, but rather a social tool. We did not find any personality predictors of how much a person laughs or elicits laughter. In summary, how much a person laughs in conversation appears to be a stable trait associated with being relatable, and is not necessarily reflective of enjoyment. This article is part of the theme issue 'Cracking the laugh code: laughter through the lens of biology, psychology and neuroscience'.

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.