Interaction Effects
Cool people
Todd Pezzuti, Caleb Warren & Jinjie Chen
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, forthcoming
Abstract:
What does it mean to be a cool person? Is being cool the same thing as being good? Do the attributes of cool people vary across cultures? We answer these questions by investigating which values and personality traits are associated with cool people and whether these same attributes are associated with good people. Experiments with 5,943 respondents in Australia, Chile, China (Mainland and Hong Kong), Germany, India, Mexico, Nigeria, Spain, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, and the United States revealed that many of the attributes associated with cool people are also associated with good people. Cool and good, however, are not the same. Cool people are perceived to be more extraverted, hedonistic, powerful, adventurous, open, and autonomous, whereas good people are more conforming, traditional, secure, warm, agreeable, universalistic, conscientious, and calm. This pattern is stable across countries, which suggests that the meaning of cool has crystallized on a similar set of values and traits around the globe. We build on the results to advance a theory of the role that coolness plays in establishing social hierarchies and changing social and cultural practices and norms.
The Power of Pausing in Conversation
Alex Van Zant et al.
University of Pennsylvania Working Paper, January 2025
Abstract:
Speakers often pause by taking brief breaks between words and utterances. While both conventional wisdom and prior research suggest that frequent pausing generates negative impressions, this work has almost exclusively focused on monologues. In contrast, we suggest that in the context of conversations, pausing more frequently can actually benefit speakers. Specifically, pausing encourages verbal assents from conversation partners (e.g., "yeah" or "uhhuh"), which lead them to perceive speakers more positively. A multi-method study of synchronous collaborative conversations, including an analysis of hundreds of customer service calls and two experiments manipulating a focal speaker's pause frequency, supports this account. Although pausing frequently can have impression management drawbacks in monologues, our findings indicate that, in conversation, it can make speakers seem more helpful.
Socioeconomic Status Shapes Dyadic Interactions: Examining Behavioral and Physiologic Responses
Jacinth Tan, Tessa West & Wendy Berry Mendes
Psychological Science, forthcoming
Abstract:
With more opportunities for diverse interactions, little is known about how social interactions involving people of different socioeconomic status (SES) may unfold. We investigated social-attunement patterns in dyadic interactions involving SES. Unacquainted adults recruited from a community in the United States interacted with similar-or-different-SES partners in the lab (N = 130 dyads). Attunement was assessed throughout the interaction by examining physiological linkage -- how much a person's physiological change is predicted by another's physiological change over time. Overall, low-SES participants showed stronger physiological linkage -- indicating greater attunement -- to partners across SES. Participants also appeared more comfortable when interacting with low-SES partners. There were no SES differences in dominance during the conversation. After the interaction, participants reported liking similar-SES partners more than different-SES partners. These patterns suggest that during interactions, lower-SES individuals are more other-focused than high-SES individuals, and in-group preference prevails. We note limitations in the racial representation of our sample.
Affective Reactivity and Its Role in Predicting Position in Small Group Networks
Roy Hui, Alex Benson & Blair Evans
Small Group Research, forthcoming
Abstract:
The tendency to experience positive and negative emotions can influence the relationships people form within small groups. The current study examined how affective reactivity predicts one's sociometric centrality in small groups. We collected surveys from 267 members of 16 student clubs, including peer nominations of other club members regarding affiliation and status. Positive affective reactivity predicted centrality for affiliation (but not status) networks. In contrast, negative affective reactivity predicted centrality for status (but not affiliation) networks. The present findings demonstrate the importance of considering individuals' affect to explain how people come to position themselves within small groups.
Diffusion of complex contagions is shaped by a trade-off between reach and reinforcement
Allison Wan, Christoph Riedl & David Lazer
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 15 July 2025
Abstract:
How does social network structure amplify or stifle behavior diffusion? Existing theory suggests that when social reinforcement makes the adoption of behavior more likely, it should spread more -- both farther and faster -- on clustered networks with redundant ties. Conversely, if adoption does not benefit from social reinforcement, it should spread more on random networks which avoid such redundancies. We develop a model of behavior diffusion with tunable probabilistic adoption and social reinforcement parameters to systematically evaluate the conditions under which clustered networks spread behavior better than random networks. Using simulations and analytical methods, we identify precise boundaries in the parameter space where one network type outperforms the other or they perform equally. We find that, in most cases, random networks spread behavior as far or farther than clustered networks, even when social reinforcement increases adoption. Although we find that probabilistic, socially reinforced behaviors can spread farther on clustered networks in some cases, this is not the dominant pattern. Clustered networks are even less advantageous when individuals remain influential for longer after adopting, have more neighbors, or need more neighbors before social reinforcement takes effect. Under such conditions, clustering tends to help only when adoption is nearly deterministic, which is not representative of socially reinforced behaviors more generally. Clustered networks outperform random networks by a 5% margin in only 22% of the parameter space under its most favorable conditions. This pattern reflects a fundamental trade-off: Random ties enhance reach, while clustered ties enhance social reinforcement.