Groups are an inherent part of our lives. We form and join social groups from kindergarten and school through college and the workplace to the nursing home. Throughout our lifespan, the groups we belong to shape our identity and social self. Overall, groups have a profound role in shaping our behavior, mental well-being, and even physical health. Decades of research from social, clinical, cognitive, and organizational psychology taught us a great deal about intra-group processes. However, we do not yet fully understand the mechanisms that allow group formation. A relatively new and promising line of research may fill this gap of knowledge by examining how physiological and biological markers underpin social processes in our groups.
Our tendency to form and join social groups is considered evolutionary-based. In order to survive and thrive, humans and some other animals, must be a part of social groups and connect with their members. This promises reproductivity options and security to the individual. Further, contemporary theories posit that our brains are wired to form and join social groups. According to these theories, when we act as a group, rather than a set of individuals, our brains become coordinated in function and allow us to shape relations and processes in our groups. Thus, it is not surprising that scholars call to study groups from a physiological perspective.
Indeed, this line of research finds that the group becomes more cohesive when members' physiological functions are synchronized. For example, past research finds that synchrony in heart rate (HR) and electrodermal activity (EDA) is reflected in group members' reports of cohesion, rapport, and trust. Some research even finds that physiological synchrony positively predicts the group's performance. However, we are just beginning to decipher the complex interconnections between shared physiological patterns and group relations.
One advancement in the research is the recent notion that physiological synchrony is not always beneficial for the group and its members, i.e., resulting in higher cohesion and improved performance. According to this conception, the social context may moderate the relationships since physiological synchrony derives its meaning from context. Therefore, it is crucial to assess how the situation may influence the implications of synchrony in groups.
In the first part of the dissertation, following this contemporary notion, I argue that physiological synchrony, specifically in EDA, is not always related to better group outcomes (i.e., improved group performance). Here I focus on the justice enacted by the group leader as a contextual factor that moderates the benefits of physiological synchrony on the group's performance.
I rely on justice theories (e.g., De Cremer & Tyler, 2005), which state that group members would be more engaged with groups that are treated fairly by their leader and that physiological synchrony in EDA would reflect the level of group engagement. Furthermore, I argue that physiological synchrony cannot contribute to group outcomes when group members are treated unfairly by their leader, thus not feeling secure in the group and not functioning as a group. This is especially true for newly-formed groups, where the leader has an essential role in shaping members' attitudes inside and toward the group and other members.
In this study, I report on a controlled experiment where 150 participants, nested in fifty 3-member groups, were asked to complete a group decision-making task in which they had to reach a group agreement. Half of the groups were treated fairly by the group leader (i.e., the experimenter), whereas the other half were treated unfairly (see details below). I calculated the group's performance scores, which represented the group's success in the task beyond the individual’s contribution. I also calculated a group EDA synchrony score and revealed, in line with the hypothesis, that group physiological synchrony was positively correlated with the group's performance, but only when the group was treated fairly by the leader.
After presenting evidence showing that the effect of physiological synchrony on group outcomes depends on the justice enacted by the group's leader, I turn to discuss future directions of group physiological synchrony research. In the second part of the dissertation, I present a methodological validation of the Empatica E4 wristband (Empatica, Milan, Italy) and suggest how it could be best used in future synchrony research. This sort of tool, I believe, can be valuable to group physiological synchrony research and thus, promoting group physiological synchrony research and psychophysiology research at large.
The Empatica E4 is a portable, wireless, and light-weighted wristband that allows an online collection of several physiological measures, including HR, interbeat intervals (IBIs; from which it is possible to calculate certain heart rate variability measures), EDA, movement, and body temperature. One of the significant advantages of the E4 is that it enables the collection of online high-frequency HR/IBI and EDA data, which enables calculating dyadic and group physiological synchrony also outside the lab. In this chapter, I report a validation study of the E4. I collected data from 15 dyads during baseline measurements and while engaging in a conversation. The data were collected simultaneously by the E4 and a well-validated and well-established device (MindWare Impedance Cardiograph; MindWare Technologies, Gahanna, Ohio) that collects ECG and EDA data via electrodes. Results showed that the E4 is a reliable tool for collecting HR/IBI data, but not heart rate variability and EDA data. Thus, with the E4, researchers may be able to calculate dyadic and group HR/IBI synchrony in field and lab studies. In this chapter, I further discuss the advantages of the E4 in collecting continuous IBI data and detail how researchers may best integrate this device when conducting group physiological synchrony research involving HR/IBI. I end this chapter by calling future group physiological synchrony to consider this tool when conducting synchrony research in field settings.
Next, in the third chapter, I suggest that group physiological synchrony research can be conducive in the context of rivalry by promoting our understanding of the mechanism underlining in this phenomenon. Rivalries are widespread in our lives and in many contexts. One can easily name famous rivalries such as the rivalry between Burger King and McDonald's, Los Angeles Lakers and Boston Celtics, or the Republican and the Democrat parties. The relationships between rivals are unique and intense. When competing against a rival, compared to a non-rival competitor, groups and individuals are putting extra effort into the contest.
Before calling to explore the role of physiological synchrony in rivalry-performance relationships, I review the current status of empirical findings regarding rivalry and performance. An electronic wide-scale search yielded 22 papers from diverse research fields such as management, sports, and cognitive psychology. These papers include 35 studies and 26,215 observations. The studies compared the performance of individuals or groups when competing against a rival versus a non-rival competitor or measured linear relations between rivalry and performance. I systematically reviewed these studies. In line with the hypothesis, it was found that most of these studies reported a positive relationship between rivalry and the performance of the competing actors. I further used a meta-analysis technique to provide quantitative evidence that, as hypothesized, rivalry is positively and significantly related to performance. Moderation analyses indicated that in some
research fields (e.g., sports), these relations are more robust as compared to others (e.g., cognitive psychology) and that these relations exist for both individual rivalry (rivalry between two individuals) and group rivalry (rivalry between two groups, or two individuals identifying with rival groups), although stronger for individual rivalries.
After providing evidence that both individual and group rivalry are related to increased performance, I call for physiological research to better understand rival groups' relations and rivalry effects. We know very little about the physiology that underlies the increased motivation and performance that we experience when we compete against a rival versus a neutral team or a stranger. I speculated that group rivalry is a potential antecedent of group physiological synchrony that at least partially explains group members' elevated performance when competing against a fierce rival. I end this chapter by suggesting that the unique effects of rivalry may be even stronger in the context of political rivalry. Thus, group physiological synchrony may promote our understanding of political rivalry and its unique effects.