CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 128Attachment and Relationship DynamicsEvolutionary Psychology and Human BehaviorAction Observation and Synchronization

Fast response times signal social connection in conversation

Open access
Templeton, Emma M., Chang, Luke J., Reynolds, Elizabeth A., Cone LeBeaumont, Marie D., Wheatley, Thalia·2022·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
DOI 10.1073/pnas.2116915119PMC PMC8794835
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

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."

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.2116915119

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In such contexts, swift responding appears to contribute to a feeling of social connection between the interlocutors.

    “In such contexts swift responding appears to contribute to a feeling of social connection between the interlocutors (e.g., Templeton et al., 2022).”

    From Timing in Conversation (2023) · cites this paper as Templeton et al., 2022

  • Swift responding has been linked to enjoyment and a feeling of social connection, i.e. of being heard and understood.

    “As mentioned earlier, swift responding has been linked to enjoyment and a feeling of social connection, i.e. of being heard and understood.”

    From Timing in Conversation (2023) · cites this paper as Templeton et al., 2022

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 26

  1. [1]C. de Vos, F. Torreira, S. C. Levinson, Turn-timing in signed conversations: Coordinating stroke-to-stroke turn boundaries. Front. Psychol. 6, 268 (2015). 25852593 PMC4371657
  2. [2]T. Stivers, Universals and cultural variation in turn-taking in conversation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 106, 10587– 10592 (2009). 19553212 PMC2705608
  3. [3]S. C. Levinson, On the human “interactional engine” in Roots of human sociality: Culture, cognition and human interaction, N. Enfield, S. C. Levinson, Eds. (Oxford: Berg Publishers, 2006) pp. 39– 69.
  4. [6]M. G. Méndez-Cárdenas, E. Zimmermann, Duetting--A mechanism to strengthen pair bonds in a dispersed pair-living primate (Lepilemur edwardsi)? Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 139, 523– 532 (2009). 19280671
  5. [7]D. Y. Takahashi, D. Z. Narayanan, A. A. Ghazanfar, Coupled oscillator dynamics of vocal turn-taking in monkeys. Curr. Biol. 23, 2162– 2168 (2013). 24139740
  6. [9]C. T. Snowdon, J. Cleveland, “Conversations” among pygmy marmosets. Am. J. Primatol. 7, 15– 20 (1984). 32138463
  7. [10]T. Geissmann, M. Orgeldinger, The relationship between duet songs and pair bonds in siamangs, Hylobates syndactylus. Anim. Behav. 60, 805– 809 (2000). 11124879
  8. [11]J. Jaffe, B. Beebe, S. Feldstein, C. L. Crown, M. D. Jasnow, Rhythms of dialogue in infancy: Coordinated timing in development. Monogr. Soc. Res. Child Dev., 1–132 (2001). 11428150
  9. [12]M. Gratier, Early development of turn-taking in vocal interaction between mothers and infants. Front. Psychol. 6, 1167 (2015). 26388790 PMC4560030
  10. [13]E. A. Schegloff, “Interaction: The infrastructure for social institutions, the natural ecological niche for language, and the arena in which culture is enacted.” in Roots of Human Sociality: Culture, Cognition and Interaction (Routledge, 2020), pp. 70– 96.
  11. [16]H. P. Grice, “Logic and conversation” in Speech Acts, P. Cole, J. L. Morgan, Eds. (Brill, 1975), pp. 41– 58.
  12. [17]H. H. Clark, Using Language (Cambridge University Press, 1996).
  13. [19]S. C. Levinson, F. Torreira, Timing in turn-taking and its implications for processing models of language. Front. Psychol. 6, 731 (2015). 26124727 PMC4464110
  14. [21]P. Indefrey, W. J. M. Levelt, The spatial and temporal signatures of word production components. Cognition 92, 101– 144 (2004). 15037128
  15. [22]A. R. Aron, R. A. Poldrack, Cortical and subcortical contributions to stop signal response inhibition: Role of the subthalamic nucleus. J. Neurosci. 26, 2424– 2433 (2006). 16510720 PMC6793670
  16. [25]S. C. Levinson, Turn-taking in human communication--Origins and implications for language processing. Trends Cogn. Sci. 20, 6– 14 (2016). 26651245
  17. [26]C. Riest, A. B. Jorschick, J. P. de Ruiter, Anticipation in turn-taking: Mechanisms and information sources. Front. Psychol. 6, 89 (2015). 25699004 PMC4313610
  18. [28]M. Rossignac-Milon, N. Bolger, K. S. Zee, E. J. Boothby, E. T. Higgins, Merged minds: Generalized shared reality in dyadic relationships. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 120, 882– 911 (2021). 32673045
  19. [29]D. J. Barr, B. Keysar, “Perspective taking and the coordination of meaning in language use” in Handbook of Psycholinguistics, M. J. Traxler, M. A. Gernsbacher, Eds. (Academic Press, ed. 2, 2006), chap. 23, pp. 901– 938.
  20. [30]R. Gramling, AAHPM Research Committee Writing Group, Feeling heard and understood: A patient-reported quality measure for the inpatient palliative care setting. J. Pain Symptom Manage. 51, 150– 154 (2016). 26596879
  21. [31]E. Brunswik, Representative design and probabilistic theory in a functional psychology. Psychol. Rev. 62, 193– 217 (1955). 14371898
  22. [32]V. Gates, F. Callaway, M. K. Ho, T. L. Griffiths, A rational model of people’s inferences about others’ preferences based on response times. Cognition 217, 104885 (2021). 34454336
  23. [33]I. Ziano, D. Wang, Slow lies: Response delays promote perceptions of insincerity. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 120, 1457– 1479 (2021). 33591774
  24. [35]C. Parkinson, A. M. Kleinbaum, T. Wheatley, Spontaneous neural encoding of social network position. Nat. Hum. Behav. 1, 0072 (2017).
  25. [36]R. M. Seyfarth, D. L. Cheney, T. J. Bergman, Primate social cognition and the origins of language. Trends Cogn. Sci. 9, 264– 266 (2005). 15925802
  26. [37]F. Grezes, J. Richards, A. Rosenberg, “Let me finish: Automatic conflict detection using speaker overlap” in Interspeech (ISCA, 2013), pp. 200– 204.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Templeton, E. M., Chang, L. J., Reynolds, E. A., Cone LeBeaumont, M. D., & Wheatley, T.
Affiliations
  • Dartmouth College (US)
  • Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755
Corresponding author
Templeton, Emma M.
ORCID
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Publisher
National Academy of Sciences
Published
2022-01-18
Volume
119
Issue
4
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
DOI
10.1073/pnas.2116915119
PMC
PMC8794835
OpenAlex
W4205725129
Cited by
128
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 25 · 2025: 52 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 7 · 2016: 1
FWCI
24.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Action Observation and Synchronization
Keywords
social connectedness, interpersonal synchrony, friends versus strangers, third-party perceptions, honest signaling, interpersonal communication
MeSH terms
Social Interaction, Communication, Emotions, Female, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Male, New Hampshire, Reaction Time, Verbal Behavior, Friends, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review