Running head: CONVERSATIONAL FORM AND SOCIAL STRUCTURE Beyond Content of Conversation: The Role of Conversational Form in the Emergence and Regulation of Social Structure

Social interaction is pivotal to the formation of social relationships and groups. Much is known about the importance of interaction content (e.g., the transfer of information). The present review concentrates on the influence of the act of conversing on the emergence of a sense of solidarity, more or less independently of the content. Micro-characteristics of the conversation (e.g., brief silences, smooth turn-taking) can profoundly influence the emergence and the regulation of relationships and of solidarity. We suggest that this might be because the form of a conversation is experienced as an expression of the social structures within the group. Because of its dynamic nature, moreover, the form of conversation provides group members with a continuous gauge of the group’s structural features (e.g., its hierarchy, social norms, and shared reality). Therefore, minor changes in the form and flow of group conversation can have considerable consequences for the regulation of social structure. Keywords: conversational form, social structure, hierarchy, social norms Conversational Form and Social Structure 3 Beyond Content of Conversation: The Role of Conversational Form in the Emergence and Regulation of Social Structure A good conversation comprises more than the exchange of information. Imagine having a video call with a job applicant from overseas. The applicant has an excellent resume and during the interview, she answers all questions satisfactorily and seems friendly and respectful. But despite the high quality answers and her objective suitability for the job, you are unsure whether to hire her. During the interview, you do not have the feeling that you clicked: She seems a bit distant or aloof and does not seem very enthusiastic as it takes her some time to respond – or laugh about your jokes. There are some awkward silences. Altogether, the conversation leaves you with a vague sense that the applicant may not fit into the team very well. This could be because she is indeed difficult to work with, but it could also be simply because a lack of flow in the conversation has unconsciously created a barrier between you and the applicant. Rather than solely focusing on the content of the conversation, your judgment of whether the applicant fits your team may be influenced by the form of conversation: There may have been slight delays “on the line” obstructing the development of a close social connection. This role of conversational form in shaping solidarity is central to the current paper. Social interactions like these are central to the formation of social relations (Gaertner & Schopler, 1998; Lewin, 1948). Indeed, traditional research established that the frequency and content of social interactions play a crucial role in establishing good social relations as well as shared understandings of reality (Gaertner & Schopler, 1998; Hardin & Conley, 2001; Kashima, Klein, & Clark, 2007; Lewin, 1948; McPherson, Smith-Lovin, & Cook, 2001; Mead, 1934). Research on shared reality has for instance shown that people validate their viewpoints by exchanging information with others (Berger & Luckmann, 1971; Kashima et al., 2007). On the one hand, this process of grounding enables people to view the world as Conversational Form and Social Structure 4 stable and predictable. But grounding serves a second function: It includes the implicit notion that viewpoints are shared among a collective, and therefore signals the existence of a “we” (Kashima et al., 2007). Accordingly, social interaction plays a role in maintaining and developing a sense of we-ness: People can induce a sense of social unity and shared identity through the bottom-up process of exchanging particular individual viewpoints (Jans, Postmes, & Van der Zee, 2011; Postmes, Haslam, & Swaab, 2005). The present paper argues that in this process of developing a sense of we-ness, the concepts of social unity (or entitativity), belongingness, and shared reality, although distinct in some sense, become closely intertwined. We shall use the generic term solidarity in this paper to refer to this sense of emergent we-ness, because we what to avoid specific terms such as “entitativity” or “shared social identity” which come with particular theoretical baggage derived from interdependence and self-categorization theory. As we shall argue below, within natural conversations many of the processes described in these distinct theories operate in tandem and cannot be disentangled. The present paper also argues that solidarity emerges not just because of the content of social interaction (what is being said both verbally and nonverbally) but also because of a strong influence by the form of interaction. Going back to our example of the job interview, the content of the conversation should have caused you to hire the applicant, as her answers were of high quality and she behaved normally. But the form of the conversation produced the opposite outcome: The disruptions in conversational flow elicited the feeling that the relationship between you and the applicant was somehow flawed, making her less likely to fit the team. Indeed, the literature we review below suggests that the form of communication in itself shapes social outcomes to a considerable extent. For instance, speaking at a similar pace or in a similar accent not only facilitates smooth interaction, but also communicates that actors belong to the same group (Giles & Coupland, 1991; Giles, Mulac, Bradac, & Johnson, Conversational Form and Social Structure 5 1987). Similarly, mimicking the poses or emotions of one’s interaction partner increases liking, affiliation, and empathic responses (Ashton-James, Van Baaren, Chartrand, Decety, & Karremans, 2007; Lakin & Chartrand, 2003; Stel, Van Baaren, & Vonk, 2008). Moreover, when speakers’ conversational contributions match what is expected of the on the basis of their status, this can bolster relationships (Koudenburg, Postmes, & Gordijn, 2014a; Ridgeway, Berger, & Smith, 1985). Although these findings come from different areas of social psychology, communication, and sociology, they all point to the pivotal role of the form of communication in social processes. Overview of the Paper In this literature review, our central research question is whether and how the form of conversations influences (a) the emergence and (b) the maintenance of solidarity. Our goal is to develop a coherent framework explaining how micro-characteristics of the form of dialogue (e.g. silences, interruptions, the experience of flow) influence processes at a more macro-level, such as the emergence and regulation of social structures. We will focus mainly on the social psychological literature, but we integrate this with findings and theoretical perspectives from the sociological, anthropological, and communication literature, which also devoted attention to the form of communication in relation to solidarity. We start with some definitions and demarcations: what is conversational form, what is flow, and what is solidarity? Then we discuss existing theories on the emergence of solidarity. Next, we introduce a new theoretical framework posing that conversational form both represents and regulates social structure. We then review empirical evidence for the two main propositions of this framework. First, we present studies that show the influence of conversational form in processes of emerging social structure. Second, we focus on the regulation of social structure and introduce three different structural factors that may be Conversational Form and Social Structure 6 regulated through conversational form: Social norms, hierarchy, and shared reality. Finally, we discuss the relevance and practical implications of our theoretical framework. The Form of Conversation This literature review is about the influence exerted by the form of conversations. We define conversational form quite broadly as the behaviors within a conversation that are not categorized as content. Different aspects of conversational form are described in literatures on nonverbal expressions (e.g., Argyle, 1967; 1969; Ridgeway, et al., 1985), posture (e.g., Goffman, 1964; Mehrabian, 1969), mimicry (e.g., LaFrance & Broadbent, 1976; Lakin & Chartrand, 2003), and sociolinguistics (e.g., Giles & Coupland, 1991). The present review is distinct from these literatures because it explores the straightforward notion that inferences about the structure of the social system as a whole are inferred from the form that conversations take. We are particularly interested in the influence of conversational form on the development of solidarity in small groups and dyads. In small groups and dyads communication between people is characterized not only by what is said, but also by the flow of conversations. Conversational flow is defined as the extent to which a conversation is experienced as smooth, efficient, and mutually engaging (see Koudenburg et al., 2014a). The subjective experience of flow can be produced by various aspects of conversational form such high-quality turn-taking, short response latencies, and few interruptions. Thus, conversational form refers to the objective characteristics of the conversation, whereas flow refers to the subjective experience of it. The experience of conversational flow is the result of the cooperative interplay of multiple actors taking finely tuned turns and is therefore by definition the outcome of a collaboration among multiple actors. We believe that conversational flow can be used, subjectively, as an indicator of the quality of the relationship. The reason for this is that turnConversational Form and Social Structure 7 taking in conversation is more than just an informational exchange—the conversation is, for humans, one of the most important instruments by which we can “do” sociality (e.g., Dunbar, 2004). Accordingly, the analysis of the underlying social organization of a conversation is the key instrument for unde