The Biological Basis of Rapport

The Biological Basis of RapportAuthor(s): Michael ArgyleSource: Psychological Inquiry, Vol. 1, No. 4 (1990), pp. 297-300Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1449347 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 07:26

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to PsychologicalInquiry.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.28 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 07:26:04 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancis

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1449347?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


COMMENTARIES 297

ods. Moreover, some of my suggestions (e.g., studying rapport in the social contexts of family, friends, and others, and in physical contexts in which dyads are embedded) probably require some combination of naturalistic observation, case studies, ethnographic approaches, or other methods. This does not rule out experimental and other traditional methods, but calls for a broadening of methodological strategies that are congruent with an enhanced theoretical perspective. This is a challenging task, because researchers will have to leam new methodologies and rules of evidence, and new ways of relating data that are not always directly comparable. So, a richer conceptualization of rapport may call for an enhanced approach to methodology.

A Final Word

The Tickle-Degnen and Rosenthal framework of rapport is rich, provocative, and likely to yield valuable research results. It can stand as proposed and be a useful contribution. I believe, however, that it will be worthwhile to extend their framework to include social and physical environmental contexts of rapport, as well as a more comprehensive temporal analysis. Implicit in their proposal, and explicit in my suggested enhancement of their analysis, is a philosophical perspective-a transactional world view-that supplements contemporary approaches to psychological science. By cap- italizing on alternative world views, especially the emerging transactional approach, psychological research on phenomena such as rapport can be especially productive and rewarding.

Note

Irwin Altman, Department of Psychology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112.

References

Altman, I. (1975). Environment and social behavior: Privacy, personal space, territory and crowding. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Altman, I., Brown, B. B., Staples, B., & Werner, C. M. (in press). A transactional approach to close relationships: Courtship, weddings, and placemaking. In B. Walsh, K. Craik, & R. Price (Eds.), Person- environment psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associ- ates, Inc.

Altman, I., & Chemers, M. M. (1984). Culture and environment. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Altman, I., & Gauvain, M. (1981). A cross cultural and dialectic analysis of homes. In L. S. Liben, A. H. Patterson, & N. Newcombe (Eds.), Spatial representation and behavior across the life span (pp. 283- 320). New York: Academic.

Altman, I., & Rogoff, B. (1987). World views in psychology: Trait, in- teractional, organismic, and transactional. In D. Stokols & I. Altman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 1-40). New York: Wiley.

Altman, I., & Werner, C. M. (1985). Human behavior and environment: Advances in theory and research. Vol. 8: Home environments. New York: Plenum.

Gauvain, M., Altman, I., & Fahim, H. (1983). Homes and social change: A cross-cultural analysis. In N. R. Feimer & E. S. Geller (Eds.), Environmental psychology: Directions and perspectives (pp. 80-118). New York: Praeger.

McGrath, J. E. (Ed.). (1988). The social psychology of time. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

McGrath, J. E., & Kelly, J. R. (1986). Time and human interaction. New York: Guilford.

Oxley, D., Haggard, L. M., Werner, C. M., & Altman, I. (1 986). Transac- tional qualities of neighborhood social networks: A case study of "Christmas Street." Environment and Behavior, 18, 640-677.

Schoggen, P. (1989). Behavior settings. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univer- sity Press.

Stokols, D., & Altman, I. (Eds.). (1987). Handbook of environmental psychology. New York: Wiley.

Werner, C. M., Altman, I., & Oxley, D. (1985). Temporal aspects of homes: A transactional perspective. In I. Altman & C. M. Werner (Eds.), Human behavior and environment: Advances in theory and research. Vol. 8: Home environments (pp. 1-32). New York: Plenum.

Werner, C. M., & Haggard, L. M. (1985). Temporal qualities of interpersonal relationships. In G. R. Miller & M. L. Knapp (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 59-99). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

The Biological Basis of Rapport

Michael Argyle University of Oxford

What exactly is rapport? The dictionary is no help at all. Tickle-Degnen and Rosenthal think it is a combination of mutual attentiveness, positivity, and coordination, and that these three components include both behavior and feelings. But how does rapport differ from other kinds of positive relationships-romantic love, mother-infant attachment, cooperation, concern for kin based on shared genes, or identity with a group, for example? And perhaps there are other components or sources of rapport, such as self-disclosure, and other aspects of conversation, and different kinds of bonding or attachment. I suggest that different kinds of rapport occur in different social relationships, and that the biological function of rapport, of positive sociability and cooperation, is different in each case.

Although the research on rapport described by Tickle- Degnen and Rosenthal is most interesting, it has all been

conducted in a kind of biosocial vacuum, behind closed doors, and this results in the essential purposes being over- looked, and no explanation being offered of why the process occurs.

Rapport and Social Interaction

Let us start by describing the basic features of rapport in social interaction. Social interaction is in some ways like a motor skill in which each performer takes rapid, but intermit- tent account of feedback, partly by looking at the other's face, at the ends of utterances, and at grammatical breaks. There is thus linkage between each speaker's utterances, and gazes, and the other's facial expressions. Back-channel utterances and nonverbal signals are closely coordinated with the other's utterances. Tum-taking is achieved by several minor



298 COMMENTARIES

nonverbal signals, especially terminal gaze and falling pitch. Any "gestural dance" is at the level of utterances and phonemic clauses rather than at a finer time-scale (e.g., as a person starts to speak he looks away and starts gesturing, and the opposite as he stops talking; Argyle, 1988). This intricate system of mutual attention and coordination can first be ob- served in infants.

Mothers and Infants

From a very early age, babies are able to send nonverbal signals-they look, cry, and smile-and are thus able to attract and keep the attention of their mother or other care- taker. Developmental psychologists are agreed that "in a number of ways the child arrives in the world prepared for social interaction" (Schaffer, 1984, p. 42). By the age of 2 months, there is a remarkable degree of synchrony:

The speed of interpersonal synchronization is in fact so great that a stimulus-response model could not account for all interactive sequences. It seems rather that the temporal integration one sees within a dyad may be based on a shared programme-Stern (1977) uses the analogy of a waltz, where both partners know the steps and thus move in synchrony, though they are also able to react to each other's cues in stimulus- response fashion in order to reset their general direc- tion. (Schaffer, 1984, pp. 54-55)

Furthermore, infants of this age find this coordination enjoyable. Murray and Trevarthen (1985) found that infants at this age were happy to interact with their mothers over closed- circuit television, but were not at all happy to watch an earlier clip of their mother's behavior. Other experiments have found that if mother remains unresponsive to the child for a period, it will look away, curl up, and look distressed and helpless-infants want to interact.

Other aspects of coordination have to be leamt-for example, turn-taking. From about 6 months, turn-taking im- proves: The infant becomes silent while mother is speaking, she responds to the infant's vocalizations as if they were contributions to a dialogue, and by 12 months quite good turn-taking is established (Snow, 1977). Interaction sequences with mother are first established by games like "peek-a-boo" and "round and round the garden like a teddy bear"; by 12 months, the child is not just a recipient but can initiate the sequences. Playing these games may be how children learn turn-taking, reciprocity, and the other skills needed for social interaction (Bruner, 1977). By 14 months, children will point and then look at mother to check whether she is following. By 18 months, children integrate vocalizing and looking by looking during or after their utterances. They have acquired the basis of social skill.

These repeated and coordinated interactions with mothers result in attachment. From about 7 months, infants begin to show a preference for one person, who is usually the mother, they have a great desire to be near her, and they are distressed at separation and absence. Lytton (in Grusec & Lytton, 1988) measured attachment by nonverbal behavior, by the seeking of physical contact, and by verbal seeking for attention and help. Attachment reached a peak between 13 and 20 months and declined from age 2?/ years. This is a universal pattern for human infants.

It is very interesting that attachment is a cause of cooper-

ative behavior. At 12 to 18 months, securely attached children have been found to be more cooperative and socially competent and to show more positive affect (Sroufe, Fox, & Pancake, 1983). Infants who are more securely attached cooperate more with unfamiliar peers, and interact with a greater number of peers (Clarke-Stewart, 1988).

We see that the origins of positivity and coordination are found in infancy, that they are partly innate and partly learnt. This kind of interaction is a source of joy for infants and of interpersonal attraction. It is very likely that there is an evolutionary basis for such cooperative behavior, through the process of group selection, and that this is augmented by social evolution mediated by socialization.

Friendship

This is the relationship that comes closest to the situations described by Tickle-Degnen and Rosenthal-casual encoun- ters between strangers, who might become friends. Friend- ship is found in all cultures and between animals. Its biological purpose is establishing relationships of mutual help and support, and creating social integration. People with more friends are happier and in better physical or mental health. Where there is an important biological function of this kind, short-term rewards evolve to reward and motivate; the main short-term reward of friendship is joy. The most common cause of joy is being with friends (Scherer, Wallbott, & Sum- merfield, 1986).

Nonverbal signals act partly as signs for liking and they are important in friendship formation. Smile and tone of voice are most important, with gaze functioning more as a sign of attentiveness. The evolutionary basis of these signals has been traced, via ritualization of other bodily movements. Between established friends, positive nonverbal communication is a source of joy. Nonverbal synchrony similarly acts both as a sign that two people are getting on well together and as an enjoyable feature of interaction.

What do friends do together? We have found that there are several activities distinctive of friendship. The main thing friends do is talk, and this is a major source of rapport.

Conversations may or may not provide the experience of rapport. It may be suggested that they do so under the following conditions:

1. A sufficiently intimate level of self-disclosure. 2. Sufficient shared vocabulary and shared background

knowledge, and agreed-on definition of the situation. 3. "Accommodation" in language, accent, speed, loud-

ness, length of utterances, number of back-channel responses, and so on.

4. "Responsiveness" and other aspects of sequence, following Grice's (1975) rules (of relevance, quantity, quality, and manner).

5. "Politeness," using indirect forms, not threatening face, allowing options, and so on.

6. Use of positive verbal forms, taking an interest in the other, paying compliments, agreeing, reaching for similarity, use of first names, and humor.

The conduct of conversations is sustained by rules-rules of grammar and politeness, and more complex rules governing the sequencing of utterances. Other rules govern the conduct



COMMENTARIES 299

of friendship, including rules about provision of help and about the conduct of friendship networks.

While friends are talking, they do other things together, especially eating and drinking. This is perhaps a rather primitive, biological, kind of coordination: sharing the same food and drink, entertaining one another, following rituals of etiquette, getting into the same bodily state (e.g., drunk, sleepy).

Another major activity of friends is joint leisure. The interesting thing about most forms of social leisure, for present purposes, is the high degree of coordination generated. The reason for this, perhaps, is that coordination is an important source of joy, of emotional rewards, one that cannot be en- joyed alone. One of the most popular friendship activities is dancing, whether folk or ballroom, in groups of 8 or 2, and where a very high degree of bodily coordination and synchrony is needed. Making music, in choirs, orchestras, bands, or chamber groups, also requires very close coordination, together with the arousal of the same emotions, which can be shared by audiences as well. Games and sport similarly involve bodily coordination. Tennis and squash have coordination, but also competition rather than positivity- though players cooperate in keeping to the same rules, in playing in the same spirit, and cooperating with partners in the case of doubles or other teams.

Friends are a major source of joy, partly because of the enjoyable things they do together; and the reason that they are enjoyable is perhaps the coordination (Argyle, in press; Ar- gyle & Fumham, 1982).

Love and Marriage

The biological function of love is obvious-it is the per- petuation of the species. The function of courtship is finding a mate who will be compatible and rewarding and forming a more-or-less enduring relationship, so that mother and infants will be looked after by the male. Again positive nonverbal signals are used to signal attraction, but they are different from those used in friendship. They include touch, pupil dilation, a high level of mutual gaze, grooming of hair and clothes, blushing and perspiring, and erect posture with in- creased muscle tone (Argyle, 1988). A high degree of coordination is achieved, both during courtship activity, and above all in sexual intercourse. This is a source of intense joy, the short-term reward that guarantees long-term results.

People in love spend a lot of time together. What do they do? They do much the same things as friends (talking, eating, dancing, walking, etc.) but they do it away from other people. There is a much higher level of self-disclosure and discussion of intimate topics.

Sexual behavior, over a period of time, and living together result in attachment to the other person, in the sense that there is a powerful need for the other, and great distress if the relationship ends.

Attachment between lovers is rather similar to that between infants and mothers, and indeed uses some of the same kinds of baby-talk and bodily contact. Perhaps one is derived from the other? Shaver and Hazan (1988) proposed that the three kinds of infantile attachment distinguished by Ainsworth lead to similar styles of adult love attachment: secure, avoidant, and anxious/ambivalent. They found that these three styles are stable over time and correlated with reported relations with parents.

Love is a prime example of a communal relationship. Here people are more concerned with the other's needs than with their own rewards. The subjective experience of love in- cludes deep concern for the other (M. S. Clark, 1986).

In marriage there is a great deal of coordination, based on shared activities, some of them rather different from those of friends: sexual behavior, childrearing, joint ownership of home, eating together, looking after each other, talk, and joint leisure (Argyle & Henderson, 1985). Marriage confers high levels of satisfaction and other benefits, especially when coordination and positivity are high, and the partners provide social support for each other. The percentage of married people who say that they are "very happy" is far higher than for the single person. Married people are also less likely to suffer from mental ill-health, or to die early from a range of illnesses (Argyle & Henderson, 1985).

Kin

Kinship is the most important basis of human grouping and sociability for most of the world. The universality of parent-child, husband-wife, sibling, and other relationships, together with their presence in the animal king- dom, suggests a possible genetic basis. Kinship systems have also diverged in different cultures, presumably through social evolution. They are examples of group problem-solving, over long periods of time. The simplest is the rule of descent from one parent, found in agricultural societies. The direct result is the formation of large, strong kinship groups who can band together for mutual protection and support. This is usually combined with the rule of exogamy-marrying into other family groups-which has the effect of creating bonds, mainly female ones, between the different clans.

The coordinated activities of kin are different in some ways from those in the relationships described so far, especially the provision of major help, frequent contact for affection and social support, and inheritance of property. Primary kin relations show a high degree of bonding, in that these relationships usually last indefinitely, especially parent-child relations, despite separation by distance, quite un- like friendship. It is not necessary for them to be sustained by regular reinforcement, though this may strengthen them. How does this bonding become established?

One explanation of these features of kinship is in terms of Hamilton's (1964) theory of inclusive fitness-that the primary biological urge is for the welfare of genes, including those carried by close kin. There is another explanation, that the experience of coordination in the young family produces a permanent attachment between all those involved.

Cooperative Groups

Cooperative groups are formed for work and other purposes. Even in otherwise individualistic or competitive cultures men cooperate to catch large animals and to build houses, things they would not be able to do alone (Mead, 1937). In modem industry, cooperation at work takes very complex forms. Even where jobs could be done alone, cooperative groups are often more effective; because individuals help one another and arrive at better solutions to problems, there can be division of labour, and people have greater job satisfaction, and are made less physically and mentally ill by work stress.



300 COMMENTARIES

Rapport and Social Competence

All social behavior involves minimal levels of coordination, cooperation, and rapport. However, higher degrees of these phenomena are even more desirable, and the ability to generate them is an important aspect of social competence. Let us speculate on what may be involved.

1. Positive nonverbal communication. This is well- documented: more socially competent individuals smile, look, and gesture more, speak louder, and more expressively, approach nearer and touch themselves less (Argyle, 1988).

2. Greater empathy. This applies both in the sense of responding to another's emotional state in a congruent way and being able to judge another's point of view. Such skills are correlated with help and cooperation.

3. Ability to integrate own and another's goals. Re- search into the social skills of children has been much concerned with the child's capacity to integrate the goals of itself and others. Suppose another child cheats in a game; a second child could cry, run away, hit the other, or it could suggest that the other has made an accidental mistake, and the turn should be run again. Or, consider:

You're on a bike hike with five of your friends. One of the girls, who just moved into your neighborhood, is very slow and is holding the group up. The other girls you are with are all yelling at her and threatening to leave her behind. (Dodge, Asher, & Pankhurst, in press)

One solution might be simply to slow down to be with her (Dodge et al., in press).

By ages 14 to 15, most children use arguments to persuade others, in which they show how it is in the other's interests to do what is suggested. They can recognize the different needs of the two parties and are able to integrate them in a single course of action (R. A. Clark & Delia, 1976).

In situations that apparently involve a conflict of interest this is still important. Assertiveness trainers recognize that assertiveness situations often contain conflicts between the goals of the two parties, and that skill is needed to reconcile them and to avoid damaging the relationship or hurting other people's feelings (Wilson, 1989). Research on persuasion has shown that others can be influenced best if it is possible to appeal to their motivations. Successful negotiators also col- laborate, informally, to share information, engage in joint problem-solving, to see if an "integrative" solution can be found, which would benefit both sides. For example, one side might make compensation for a concession (Pruitt, 1981). The way from conflict to maximum joint gains turns out to be cooperation, even though the goals of the two sides are apparently opposed.

4. Conversational skills. In our work on training mental patients in social skills, we found that most of our clients were very bad conversationalists. There are various kinds of failure here, of which the most common was failure to initiate, to keep the conversation going.

5. Finer coordination. In view of the importance of coordination for rapport, this may be an important aspect of

social competence. Research on the social behavior of extraverts has found that they are socially competent in several ways, especially in forming new relationships rapidly, and in being cooperative. It seems likely that they may be good at fine coordination. Extraverts are happier than introverts, but particularly when in social situations.

Note

Michael Argyle, Department of Experimental Psycholo- gy, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford, OXI 3UD, England.

References

Argyle, M. (1988). Bodily communication (2nd ed.). London: Methuen. Argyle, M. (1989). The social psychology of work (2nd ed.). Har-

mondsworth, England: Penguin. Argyle, M. (in press). Cooperation. London: Routledge. Argyle, M., & Furnham, A. (1982). The ecology of relationships: Choice

of situation as a function of relationship. British Journal of Social Psychology, 21, 259-262.

Argyle, M., & Henderson, M. (1985). The anatomy of relationships. Lon- don: Heinemann; Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.

Bruner, J. S. (1977). Early social interaction and language acquisition. In H. R. Schaffer (Ed.), Studies in mother-infant interaction. London: Academic.

Clark, M. S. (1986). Evidence for the effectiveness of manipulation of communal and exchange relationships. Personality and Social Psy- chology Bulletin, 12, 414-425.

Clark, R. A., & Delia, J. G. (1976). The development of functional per- suasive skills in childhood and early adolescence. ChildDevelopment, 47, 1008-1014.

Clarke-Stewart, K. A. (1988). Parents' effects on children's development: A decade of progress? Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 9, 41-84.

Dodge, K. A., Asher, S. R., & Pankhurst, J. T. (in press). Social life as a goal coordination task. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education (Vol. 3). New York: Academic.

Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Vol. 3. Speech acts (pp. 41-58). New York: Seminar Press.

Grusec, J. E., & Lytton, H. (1988). Social development. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Hamilton, W. D. (1964). The evolution of social behavior. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7, 1-52.

Mead, M. (Ed.). (1937). Cooperation and competition among primitive peoples. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Murray, L., & Trevarthen, C. (1985). Emotional regulation of interactions between two-month olds and their mothers. In T. M. Field & N. A. Fox (Eds.), Social perception in infants (pp. 177-197). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Pruitt, D. G. (1981). Negotiation behavior. New York: Academic. Schaffer, H. R. (1984). The child's entry into a social world. London:

Academic. Scherer, K. R., Wallbott, H. G., & Summerfield, A. B. (1986). Experi-

encing emotions. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Shaver, P. R., & Hazan, C. (1988). A biased overview of the study of love.

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 5, 473-501. Snow, C. E. (1977). The development of conversation between mothers

and babies. Journal of Child Language, 4, 1-22. Sroufe, L. A., Fox, N. W., & Pancake, V. R. (1983). Attachment and

dependency in developmental perspective. Child Development, 54, 1615-1627.

Stern, D. (1 977). Thefirst relationship. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer- sity Press.

Wilson, L. K. (1989). Assertion and its social context. Doctoral disserta- tion, University of Queensland, Brisbane.



Documents

The Biological Basis of Rapport