University of Groningen
Unconscious Bonding Rachl, Judith
IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from it. Please check the document version below.
Document Version
Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record
Publication date: 2018
Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database
Citation for published version (APA):
Rachl, J. (2018). Unconscious Bonding: Forming Bonds Quickly in Today's Fast-Paced Society. University of Groningen.
Copyright
Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).
Take-down policy
If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.
The Magic Click: How Psychological
Ease Facilitates Perceptions of
Social Clicking
Rachl-Willberger, J., Leary, M. R., Leander, N. P., & Van Yperen, N. W. (2018). The Mysterious Click: How Psychological Ease Facilitates Perceptions of Social Clicking. Manuscript in preparation for submission.
We thank Natalie Cohen, Vanessa Deppe, Tabea Flasinski, Laura Haslett, Leonie Katofen, Ruth Schlotheuber, Stella Schreiber, Romy Streppel and Nadja Zeiske for their excellent research assistance.
Abstract
People sometimes “click” with another person from the first moment they meet — but what is clicking and when does it occur? In four studies, we tested whether reports of clicking increase when an interaction is characterized by a subjective experience of psychological ease or lack of strain. Study 1 investigated on an implicit level whether people experiencing fluency (vs. disfluency) reported an increase in clicking in a subsequent interaction. In Study 2, the help of another person in a challenging situation increased reported clicking. Study 3 showed that on an interpersonal level, people who are mimicked report more clicking than people who are not mimicked. Finally, Study 4 showed that the conditions for clicking must be present from the beginning of an interaction and that clicking is not self-sustaining. Altogether, people who experienced ease, or less strain on their limited psychological resources, were more likely to report that they
“clicked” with their interaction partner. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.
The Magic Click: How Psychological Ease Facilitates Perceptions of Social Clicking
“Anyone within earshot of Paul and the woman sitting across from him at the poolside table would have thought they’d known each other for years, although the pair had met only two days prior….It was as if each was attuned to what the other was thinking….If there’s such a thing as synergy between two people, it seemed almost palpable here.”
People sometimes “click” with another person from the first moment they meet. For example, the inventors of the microphone, Jim West and Gerhard Sessler, recalled their first encounter as “…always sympathy for the other person. There was always an understanding. We had such an appreciation for each other” (Brafman & Brafman, 2010, p. 9). People frequently use “clicking” when describing an early first impression with a stranger and it seems that they use this expression as they are unable to describe this sudden unexpected and surprising feeling. Although it might be an important concept for relationship formation and an “easy” way to connect in today’s fast moving society, research has rather neglected this phenomenon, which might be due to its mysterious occurrence. Indeed, people rather use abstract terms as “being on the same wavelength”
or “hitting it off” to describe this sudden connection with a person they never met before. Although a popular book summarized some possible indicators of clicking, it remains still unclear why people feel such an immediate connection with some people, but not with other, and under which conditions such instant feelings emerge.
In the present research, we started a first attempt to shed more light on the concept of clicking. Particularly, we investigate how clicking can be measured and whether it arises when people feel at ease. We propose that this ease can be created when people suddenly feel a reduction of strain when interacting with another person. As we normally feel at ease with people we already know for a long time or who have a significant relationship with us, we actually assume that clicking is a way of experience belongingness with a stranger. For example, the two inventors of the microphone felt a mysterious connection between them during their first encounter. Furthermore, we hypothesize that such ease can be experienced on different levels. We mean by this that the experience of ease can
Brafman & Brafman, 2010, p. 1
be triggered by different means, for example implicit aspects, the situation itself and nonverbal cues. Importantly, we suggest that clicking is a fragile concept and might, thus, develop from the beginning or not at all.
What is Clicking?
Typically assumed, relationship development occurs across a long trajectory, wherein one develops a sense of belonging incrementally and over time (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Interestingly, researchers suggest that people change their interpersonal communication when they move from strangers to friends (e.g., Mongeau & Henningsen, 2008), which might indicate that interactions with close significant others may be easier over time because they know what to expect and have habituated to them. For example, a study found that people expect that their partner will help them reach their goals (Fitzsimons & Finkel, 2011). Conversely, interactions with strangers can often be depleting and strain people’s limited psychological resources (Dalton, Chartrand, & Finkel, 2010; Finkel, Campell, Brunell, Dalton, Scarbeck, & Chartrand, 2006). For example, research has shown that people, who experience high maintenance interactions, suffer from an impairment in their self-regulation, namely they do worse on task performance as an anagram task or fine motor skills (Finkel et al., 2006). Therefore, it might be surprising to people that some interactions with strangers feel mysteriously special as if they have known each other already for years. This experience of ease, however, might create a feeling of connection between oneself and the other person – often described as being on the same wavelength with the other person. We refer to this phenomenon as clicking. Similarly, in their popular book on the magic and power of instant connections, Brafman and Brafman (2010) defined clicking as a connection or chemistry with a person that is “…immediate, deep, and meaningful” (p. 5).
Clicking can also correspond with myriad affective experiences that differ from person to person and need not to match across two interaction partners. In the example from the beginning, Paul felt differently than the woman did – he experienced an overwhelming attraction, whilst she felt surprising comfort. Therefore, clicking could be construed as a perception, but also as a positively valenced subjective experience. It thus has cognitive as well as affective components. We suggest that it especially means that clicking might not be a
mutual or shared experience. One interaction partner might experience a click, but the other interaction partner might not have such an experience. This notion is important particularly for the manipulation of clicking and might suggest that one interaction partner can consciously engage in a behavior which induces the experience of clicking without necessarily feeling the same or rather being conscious about his or her own influence on the other person.
As clicking is such a mysterious feeling, it is important to define it considering other concepts important for relationship formation: trust and belonging. Trust is an important factor in relationships (e.g., Rempel, Holmes, & Zanna, 1985). Given that clicking is a feeling of intimate connection, one might assume that people need to be able to judge a person’s trustworthiness in a very short amount of time. Indeed, research has shown that people can judge whether a person is trustworthy or not within 100 milliseconds (Willis & Todorov, 2006). Therefore, it seems that clicking is in a way connected to trusting a person from the first moment, but it is more than that and might deal with the concept of belongingness.
Belongingness is seen as a fundamental feeling and Baumeister and Leary (1995) even argue that it is a fundamental human motivation. It is important for stable and strong positive relationships and people have a pervasive drive for it. Feeling a close bond or connection to someone, undoubtedly involves feelings of belonging. Therefore, we argue that clicking seems to have some sort of belongingness involved. People might ascribe this surprising connection feelings of belonging by calling it clicking.
When it comes to clicking, we assume that clicking either develops from the beginning of an interaction or not at all. We base this idea on the fact that first impressions matter: web designers have only 50 ms to form a good impression with their website (Lindgaard, Fernandes, Dudek, & Brown, 2006). The researchers tested this assumption by showing web pages for a few milliseconds to participants and asking them to rate the web pages later. This finding supports the notion that people can also judge within milliseconds whether they trust a person or not (Willis & Todorov, 2006). These fast impressions might indicate that the very first moments of an interaction are important for people to experience such a clicking situation. This notion is in line with Brafman and Brafman’s (2010) definition of instant connection; in other words, clicking either occurs early or it does not occur at all.
Furthermore, we propose that clicking is (not) durable over time or rather not self-sustaining in itself. Paul and the woman from our example in the beginning got married two months after their first encounter and it seems that their relationship lasted – at least for the first 15 years (Brafman & Brafman, 2010). However, we do not assume that Paul and the woman had this one and only clicking experience and from that moment on they hit it off. We rather assume that Paul and the woman had ongoing experiences. We base this assumption on the idea that “normal” close relationships may withstand a rough patch whereas two strangers might initially click but then stop clicking if the interaction later becomes more difficult. Clicking needs to be nurtured in interactions and a first experience of clicking might not last if the experience of ease vanishes. Such an experience of ease, however, could be triggered by different means: implicit aspects, the situation itself, and nonverbal cues.
When does clicking occur?
A sense of clicking could be fostered by implicit aspects: when the broader social situation is experienced as fluent and easy, irrespective of people’s idiosyncratic interaction with the other person. In other words, a person may click with someone not because there is something special about the other per se, but rather because the interaction happens to coincide with a general sense of fluency. Topolinski and Strack (2009) suggest that “…fluency-induced change… is strong enough to enter into awareness and be experienced as a cognitive feeling of ease…” (p. 1469). Their studies showed that fluent experiences are seen as more positive and liked than disfluent experiences (Topolinski & Strack, 2009). Critically, people may not necessarily consciously know why they experience fluency. Especially when people interact with another person, they might misattribute their fluency experience to the (more salient) interaction partner rather than the original source. Indeed, research on misattribution suggests that when a source of a positive subjective experience is unknown, people may misattribute their feelings to a salient, plausible alternative (e.g., Payne, Hall, Cameron, & Bishara, 2010). In other words, a situational fluency experience could be misattributed to one’s interaction with a stranger, and this may manifest in perceptions that one clicked with the other person.
A second way to foster clicking might be the situation itself. We mean by this that situational demands could increase our need for someone else to come along and make it easier for us. The help of an interaction partner may be a direct way to increase experiences of clicking — at least for the person who is helped. For example, a visually impaired person standing in front of a supermarket shelf trying to find a tin of tomato soup might unexpectedly receive the help of a customer standing next to him – no doubt this person eased the situation for the visually impaired person. We propose that in certain situations, in which people depend on the help of another person, that these people are more likely to experience clicking as it eases their situation.
A third way in which clicking occurs might be the influence of nonverbal cues: namely these cues lead to an experience of ease or rather a reduction of psychological strain. Nonverbal behavioral mimicry – copying the postures and mannerisms of another person – is known to smoothen interactions (Chartrand & Bargh, 1999). For example, a study found that people like each other more when they mimic the other person and that even third party observers judge mimicry interactions as smoother (Chartrand & Bargh, 1999). Mimicry also increases feelings of trust, rapport, and perceptions of empathy (Chartrand & Bargh, 1999; Maddux, Mullen, & Galinsky, 2008; Hove & Risen, 2009; Mauer & Tindall, 1983). For example, Chartrand and Bargh (1999) set up interactions between strangers and a confederate, namely to ensure that no previous rapport existed. The confederate was instructed to their mimic or not mimic the postures and mannerisms of the stranger. After this short interaction, the stranger was asked to indicate the liking towards the confederate. Results indicated more liking when mimicry was present in the interaction beforehand compared to no mimicry. Similarly, prosocial behavior can be influenced by mimicry; a lab study showed that people who were instructed to mimic a person in a video donated more money towards a charity which was linked to the person in the video compared to an unlinked charity (Stel, Van Baaren, & Vonk, 2008). Mimicry is particularly interesting for the experience of clicking because it typically goes unnoticed in social interactions (Ashton-James, Van Baaren, Chartrand, Decety, & Karremans, 2007), so people may have limited insight into why they feel more positively toward the other person. Furthermore, research on mimicry and self-regulatory resources have shown that mimicry can reduce self-self-regulatory costs in interactions with another person (Dalton, Chartrand, & Finkel, 2010). In these
studies, people were either mimicked or not and engaged in different performance tasks. Across the studies, participants who were not mimicked experienced a reduction in their task performances compared to people who were mimicked. Indeed, the subtlety of mimicry, combined with its generally positive effects on relationship evaluations, could increase the likelihood that people use more intuitive descriptions of the interaction – turning to phrases such as “being on the same wavelength”, “hitting it off”, “feeling chemistry” – different ways of saying they clicked with the other person.
The Present Research
We propose that a subjective experience of “clicking” arises when an interaction with a stranger feels (remarkably) fluent and easy, like the experience of belonging, which we might experience with someone close to us, such as a very close friend. We conducted four small lab studies, followed by a meta-analysis, to test whether reports of clicking increase when an interaction corresponds with (a manipulation of) ease or lack of strain in a given interaction. We manipulated this at an implicit level (a cognitive fluency experience – Study 1), a challenging situation (dependency on another person – Study 2) and on a nonverbal interpersonal level (nonverbal behavioral mimicry – Study 3). We also tested whether clicking is sensitive to making a good first impression (Study 4) and is ultimately not self-sustaining (Studies 3 and 4) as well as whether the experience of clicking is mediated by belongingness or a motivation for future contact (Study 3). We conclude with a meta-analysis to test the overall reliability of the effects.
Study 1
Study 1 tested whether implicit aspects as cognitive fluency can increase reports of clicking. For example, it may be easier to feel that one clicks with a new colleague after a smooth morning at work as compared to a rough one. We tested this idea by evoking a fluency (vs. disfluency) experience immediately before participants engaged in a brief interaction with the experimenter.
Method
Participants. Sixty-two female participants took part in the experiment.
Their age ranged from 18 to 26 years (M= 20.56, SD = 1.76). One additional participant was removed due to a technical malfunction. All participants were of German origin. The experiment was carried out in German.
Procedure. The study used a one-way (fluency vs. disfluency) design.
Participants first completed the fluency manipulation. Similar to a procedure from Topolinski and Strack (2009), participants were given a cover story that indicated that they would judge whether a series of pictures depicted objects made by human beings or not. Across 36 trials, participants were exposed to sets of three pictures (each for 1.5 seconds), followed by the question “Are the three things in the pictures human made?” (yes or no). For our experimental manipulation, half of the participants were exposed to only fluent picture sets (e.g., dog, cat, rabbit; all are pets), while the other half saw disfluent picture sets (e.g., dog, cat, mountain – “mountain” does not belong in the category pets). It was always the third pictures that did not match the other two.
Afterwards participants engaged in a rapid-paced interview with the experimenter revealing their opinion on certain topics (e.g., “how important are sports?”). We used questions drawn from speed dating exercises to make sure participants talk about mundane topics and are engaged enough in the conversation with the experimenter.
Clicking was then assessed as part of a subsequent questionnaire. We gathered metaphors for clicking in a research meeting and searching through databases for phrases that represent the notion of clicking. We ended with 25 items representing common synonyms for clicking, such as “I feel on the same wavelength with the other person.” Participants rated these statements on a 7-point scale (1 = not at all; 7 = extremely; Cronbach’s α = 0.96; see Appendix A). Participants subsequently indicated their demographics and filled out a funnel debriefing (Chartrand & Bargh, 1999). None guessed our research hypothesis.
Results and Discussion
We conducted a one-way ANOVA to examine an unrelated fluency experience increased report of clicking with the experimenter. Results indicated a small marginally significant effect, F(1, 59) = 3.39, p = .071, ηp2 = .054, showing
two
that participants in the fluency condition (M = 2.98, SE = 0.14, CI95% = [2.70, 3.27]) reported more clicking than participants in the disfluency condition (M = 2.60, SE = 0.15, CI95% = [2.29, 2.91]).1 This offers weak support of our idea that implicit aspects
as the experience of fluency – the psychological experience of ease – is a means through which clicking can be increased.
Study 2
Study 2 examined whether the situation itself can create a clicking experience, in other words whether the help from another person can increase the experience of clicking. Effective self-regulation may necessitate seeking and accepting help from others (vanDellen, Shah, Leander, Delose, & Bornestein, 2015), especially for a difficult pursuit. In this study, we brought two participants to the lab and randomly assigned one to wear a blindfold to complete an obstacle course and the other to provide help as a guide. We predicted that those receiving help would report higher clicking than those giving the help. An inherent assumption of this study is that clicking need not be a shared experience.
Method
Participants. Forty-eight same sex pairs, at a private university in the
Southeastern United States, signed up separately online (29 female pairs, 19 male pairs). Sessions were conducted only when two people signed-up for the timeslot.
Material and Procedure. The study used a one-way design (blind-fold
vs. guide). Participants first completed an unrelated questionnaire in separate rooms. Then, participants were asked to join the experimenter in the hallway and draw a ticket. This ticket had either “blindfolded person” or “guider” written on it to indicate their role in the next exercise. In this exercise, the guider was instructed to verbally guide the blindfolded participant through a maze set up in a room. The guider had a map indicating how he or she should verbally guide the other participant. The guiders were instructed that they should guide the blindfolded person safely through the maze without bumping into obstacles. Thirteen guiders let their blindfolded partner bump into obstacles in the room, suggesting they did not provide adequate help and thus were excluded from the analysis. After this exercise, participants were asked to engage in a second
exercise, namely designing a house together.2 They both received descriptions
what the house should look like and were given 10 minutes to draw an outline of the house on a piece of paper. The experimenter left the room during this time.
Clicking was then assessed as part of a questionnaire battery. Participants read, “Sometimes people feel that they “clicked” with someone – that they
“hit it off” very quickly and “were on the same wavelength” or “in sync.” To what extent do you feel that you clicked with the other person?”.3 Participants
reported their clicking on a 12-point Likert scale from not at all to extremely. Finally, participants were asked about their suspicion, debriefed, and thanked.
Results and Discussion
To test our hypothesis that blindfolded participants would report higher feelings of clicking than guiders, we conducted a repeated measures ANOVA. We treated each dyad as a separate unit of analysis and the members of the dyad (blindfolded vs. guide) as the within subjects factor. The results revealed the predicted effect, F(1, 34) = 4.21, p =.047, ηp2 =.11. The blindfolded participants
reported more clicking (M = 8.94, SE = 0.31, CI95% = [8.31, 9.57]) than the guides (M = 8.14, SE = .34, CI95% = [7.45, 8.84]). This finding suggests that receiving help by another person in a challenging situation is more likely to result in a stronger clicking experience than providing help to another person. Moreover, the results show that clicking is not necessarily mutually shared between interaction partners and appears to occur primarily for those whose efforts are made easier by the other person.
Study 3
Study 3 investigated whether an experimental manipulation of nonverbal behavioral mimicry increases reports of clicking. Furthermore, we explored whether clicking is comparable to an experience of (instant) belonging and includes trust – and whether clicking is a momentary subjective experience that may not be self-sustaining. If so, clicking may correspond with a sense of belonging but not necessarily motivation to affiliate in future situations.
Method
Participants. Fifty-nine female participants from a European university
took part in a lab study. Their ages ranged from 18 to 29 years (M = 20.10, SD = 1.39). All participants were of German origin, and the experiment was conducted in German.
Procedure. Participants reported individually to the study and were paired
with a female confederate to design a house together (see Study 2), but this time on a large white board.4 They both received descriptions what the house should
look like and were given 10 minutes to draw an outline of the house on the white board. The experimenter left the room during this time. The participant and the confederate were both standing in front of the white board and for the experimental manipulation, throughout the task, the confederate either mimicked or did not mimic the postures and mannerisms of the participant. For example, if a participant stood straight up, the confederate would copy this position in the mimicry condition but would stand crouched in the no mimicry condition (see Chartrand & Bargh, 1999).
Participants then completed a questionnaire that included our target measures of clicking. In this study, we reduced the number of clicking items and decided on a more practical three item measure, which to our understanding fit best the clicking construct. We operationalized clicking via: “Do you have the feeling that the chemistry between you and the other person is right?”, “Do you have the feeling that you and the other person fit well together?”, “Do you feel that you are on the same wavelength with the other person?”. Ratings were made on a 7-point scale, where 1= not at all and 7= extremely (Cronbach’s α for the three items was .091). We also tried to expand the measurement of clicking by measuring it more subliminally, in other words we showed people pictures with (e.g., gearwheels) and without a click (e.g., needle and thread (too big to go through the whole of the needle)). People had to rate these six pictures on (1) how well they fit together (fit), (2) how well they harmonize (harmony) and (3) how restless they perceive the pictures (restless). The answers of the five pictures to each question were combined (fit: α = 0.02, harmony: α = 0.26; restless: α = -0.16) and unfortunately did not work out as a measurement of implicit clicking.
Prior to assessing clicking, participants also completed measures of belonging and motivation for future contact as well as trust. We used a 5-item measure of belonging from Van Beest and Williams (2006). An example of an item from this scale is “I felt as one with the other participant” (1 = not at all to 7 = extremely;α = 0.78). Trust was measured by the interpersonal trust scale (Zaheer, McEvily, & Perrone, 1998). The scale includes five items (e.g., “the other person is trustworthy”) and was answered on a 7-point scale from 1 (not at all) to 7 (extremely). Unfortunately, the reliability of the scale was too low for our sample, why we dropped the scale (α = 0.49). We measured motivation for future contact by a three-item scale: “Would you like to get to know the other person better?”,
“How likely is it that you and the other person will meet again?”, “Do you think you can become friends?” (1 = not at all; 7 = extremely; α = 0.80). After completing the measurements, participants answered demographic questions and filled out a funnel debriefing (Chartrand & Bargh, 1999). None indicated any suspicion that the study involved mimicry or guessed our research hypothesis.
Results and Discussion
A one-way ANOVA that tested whether mimicry increases reports of clicking indicated the predicted effect, F(1, 57) = 6.03, p = .017, ηp2 = .096. Participants who
were mimicked reported more clicking (M = 4.82, SE = 0.21, CI95% = [4.41, 5.23]) than participants who were not mimicked (M = 4.11, SE = 0.20, CI95% = [3.71, 4.51]).
Next we tested whether clicking is related to belonging and motivation for future contact, and whether either of these measures mediated the effect of mimicry on clicking. We conducted two mediation analyses following Preacher, Rucker, and Hayes (2007). We first ensured that clicking was positively related to instant belonging, B = .93, F(1, 57) = 56.85, p < .001, as well as to motivation for future contact, B = .65, F(1, 57) = 45.32, p < .001. Second, bootstrapping analyses (5000 resamples, bias-corrected, see Preacher et al., 2007) indicated a reliable indirect effect between mimicry, belonging, and clicking, B = 0.45, SEB = 0.21, CI95% [0.10; 0.93], suggesting that clicking was mediated by belonging. The second bootstrapping analyses with motivation for future contact as the mediator indicated no effect, B = 0.29, SEB = 0.19, CI95% [-0.04; 0.71]. Motivation for future contact did not mediate the relationship between mimicry and clicking.
Reported clicking increased following an experimental manipulation of nonverbal behavioral mimicry. In addition, clicking corresponded with evaluations of belonging and motivation for future contact, but only belonging mediated the effect between mimicry and clicking. We interpret this to mean that mimicry created a sense of ease that resembles what one might experience in a close relationship, thus facilitating a sense that the participant clicked with the mimicker. Yet, this experience is dependent on the current situation (not future oriented), and it seems not to be self-sustaining, which we investigated in more details in Study 4.
Study 4
This final study sought to demonstrate that clicking, as a process, has its own idiosyncratic features. Our first assumption is that clicking is dependent on making a good first impression – it either develops early in an interaction or not at all; our second assumption is that clicking depends on maintaining the initial impression – that is, it is not self-sustaining or very resilient to shifting conditions. In other words, clicking should persist only as long as people continue to experience ease. If the interaction stops being easy – whether at the beginning of an interaction or later on – clicking can be expected to vanish. We tested this idea by using the mimicry manipulation from Study 1 and varying whether the mimicry occurred at the beginning of interaction (and stopped later) or whether it did not occur at the beginning but started later.
Method
Participants. Thirty female participants took part in an experiment. They
were of German origin and their ages ranged from 18 to 21 years (M = 19.76, SD = 0.83; one missing). The study was carried out in German.
Procedure. We used a mixed-model design with one between-subjects
factor (mimicry vs. no mimicry) and one within-subjects factor (whether the mimicry (no mimicry) took part in the beginning or the end of the interaction). Participants engaged in an interaction with the experimenter wherein, in the first half of the interaction, the experimenter either mimicked or did not mimic the postures and mannerisms of the participants; in the last half of the interaction
the experimenter then did the opposite of what she was doing before. Thus, each participant was both mimicked and not mimicked, but the mimicry occurred either in the first or last half of the interaction. As a cover story, participants were instructed to name seven words for each of 40 categories (e.g. category: color; answers: red, blue, green, yellow, pink, black, brown). The change of the mimicry behavior took place after the first 20 categories (either from mimicry to no mimicry or from no mimicry to mimicry). This interaction was videotaped.
We measured clicking by showing each participant his/her video of the interaction with the experimenter. Participants were asked to press the space bar whenever they had the feeling of clicking with the experimenter. Precisely, we told them: “You will shortly watch the video of the interaction you had with the experimenter. We ask you that you reflect on the video and think of when you had a feeling of clicking – so a feeling of an instant connection between you and the experimenter (being in sync, on the same wavelength). Please write down the times of the video when you experienced such a clicking experience.”
We summed the number of times participants pressed the space bar in the first 90 seconds and the last 90 seconds of the interaction (M = 3.28, SD = 1.62). The 90s mark was chosen a priori and was based on the shortest interaction length of 366 seconds (meaning the middle 186 seconds were cut). This procedure ensured that we assessed clicking at the very beginning and end of each interaction while removing any variation in the total length of any given interaction. It also ensured that there was clear mimicry or no mimicry.
Participants also completed a questionnaire battery including their demographics and filled out a funnel debriefing (Chartrand & Bargh, 1999). None guessed our research hypothesis.
Results and Discussion
To test whether clicking is not resilient to shifting conditions (replication of Study 3), we conducted a 2 (between-subjects: mimicry first vs. no mimicry first) x 2 (within subjects: clicking assessed at either first 90 seconds vs. last 90 seconds) mixed model ANOVA. Based on outlier detection (Curran, n.d.), we removed an outlier prior to the analysis (SDbeta = -1.03, cutoff score = -/+ 0.37). The analysis revealed a significant effect for the within-subjects factor, F(1, 27) = 10.58, p =.003,
ηp2 =.28, qualifi ed by a two-way interaction, F(1, 27) = 10.58, p =.003, η
p2 =.28. As
illustrated in Figure 1, participants who were mimicked in the beginning of the interaction reported more clicking than participants who were not mimicked in the beginning (p < .001), but the clicking stopped when the mimicry stopped. In contrast, participants who were not mimicked fi rst did not report an increase in their feelings of clicking even when mimicked later (p = 1.0).
Figure 1: Average number of pressed space bar for indicating the amount of clicking people experienced in the beginning compared to the end of an
interaction.
Meta-Analysis
We conducted a fi xed-effects meta-analysis over all four studies to verify that the experience of ease leads to an increase in clicking (see Goh, Hall & Rosenthal, 2016). For Study 4, we disregarded the within-subject manipulation and included only the mimicry vs. no mimicry manipulation at the beginning of the interaction (fi rst 90 seconds). For the analysis we used the excel sheet provided by these researchers and entered the required statistics which are displayed in Table 1. We calculated Cohen’s d for each effect, which was converted into Pearson correlations. The effect was highly signifi cant, Mr = .33, Z = 4.47, p < .001, two-tailed.
People who experienced ease experienced more clicking than people who did not have such experiences. Although the studies were individually underpowered, with marginally significant results, together they support our prediction that the experience of ease increases.
t N r
Study 1 2.46 59 .31 Study 2 1.84 61 .23
Study3 3.06 35 .33
Study 4 3.15 29 .52 Table 1: Relevant parameters for the meta-analysis
General Discussion
Clicking is a mysterious concept and research so far has neglected this phenomenon although it might be important to understand the formation of relationships better especially in today’s fast moving society in which instant connection are an important aspect. Although a popular book tried to shed more light on the concept of clicking (Brafman & Brafman, 2010), it did not scientifically show how clicking can be evoked and what leads to a clicking experience between strangers. However, we investigated in this paper how the experience of ease can create an experience of clicking. Additionally, we are the first suggesting how and in what way clicking can be measured.
In four studies, we tested the idea that the experience of ease increases reports of clicking in an interpersonal interaction and investigated whether clicking involves a sense of instant belonging and is generally dependent on making and maintaining a good first impression. In Study 1, we found that the inducement of ease on an implicit level tend to lead people to experience more clicking than people who did not experience ease from an incidental fluency experience. In Study 2, we found that the situation itself, namely being helped by another person, can increase reports of clicking. Study 3 showed that people who
are mimicked experience more clicking than people who are not mimicked and that this relationship is mediated by the experience of instant belonging and not future contact. Studies 3 and 4 also show that clicking is an instant connection that either happens early or not at all, and it is not necessarily self-sustaining.
Theoretical Implications
Our results suggest that clicking increases when people experience ease in an interaction with a stranger. Clicking is experienced as something almost magical, as people normally only experience ease with close others, yet high demands when interacting with strangers (Dalton, Chartrand, & Finkel, 2010; Finkel et al., 2006). Additionally, we demonstrated that the experience of ease could be caused by different means: implicit aspects, the situation itself and nonverbal cues. Although our studies were underpowered, the four studies show the same pattern of results and are supported by the meta-analysis. Therefore, we are confident that the experience of ease elicits clicking.
Although, implicit aspects only showed a trend towards increasing the experience of clicking, we still assume that the broader social situation can influence the experience of clicking and that people misattribute their inner states to their interaction partner. The trend might be due to the fact that our fluency manipulation we adapted from Topolinski and Strack (2009) was perceived as arbitrary and random, and perhaps why participants were not convinced with our cover story. Furthermore, they might have been irritated what the decision of human and non-human objects has to do with their own life or rather their answers of the speed interview, evoking a situation of disfluency rather than fluency.
Second, we showed that the situation itself can foster the experience of clicking. In Study 2, blindfolded participants had to depend on their interaction partner to successfully traverse through the maze, so the guider made blindfolded people’s tasks “easier”, leading them to indicate more clicking. However, the guider did not experience such a dependency and, therefore, did not experience ease and clicking. Note that we excluded thirteen participant pairs due to incautious guiding behavior. The guider did not manage to traverse the blindfolded through the maze without bumping into obstacles. This raises the question how much the
interaction partner has to “ease” the situation. One can argue that guiding the blindfolded is already easing their task as they would definitely not know how to walk through the maze. On the other hand, bumping in obstacles does not help the blindfolded person to perform the task successfully. Researchers are encouraged to test the extent of ease needed to experience clicking.
Third, we demonstrated that subtly nonverbal cues increase the experience of clicking. As former research has demonstrated (e.g., Chartrand & Van Baaren, 2009), mimicry has a positive influence on interactions with other people and eases the demands on people’s psychological resources. Our findings support these results and even show that people use more intuitive phrases when they try to explain the experience of mimicry, at least with strangers. Yet, ease is a very broad concept and we only tested three possible means leading to the experience of ease. Ease could also be evoked by other means, as, for example, the perception of similarities. Similarities play an important role when it comes to attraction (Berscheid & Walster, 1969; Byrne, 1971; Singh & Ho, 2000) and might also be involved when it comes to clicking in romantic relationships or rather
“love at first sight”. Yet, we investigated only clicking within same sex pairs. However, clicking might also offer insights into interpersonal attraction. “Love at first sight” might be a comparable experience to clicking. Yet, Brafman and Brafman (2010) assume that similarity plays an important role due to signalizing familiarity. Similarities can range from sharing the same name (Burger, Messian, Patel, Prado, & Anderson, 2004) to the activation of the same brain region due to mirror neurons (Chartrand & Van Baaren, 2009). Similarities might also be created when people have the same passion for something as in our example of the two microphone inventors. Researchers are encouraged to test other means of experiencing ease and its connection to clicking.
Additionally, clicking seems to have its own idiosyncratic process and that it is fragile to any changes in the interaction. Indeed, we support with our findings that the first (milli-)seconds of an interaction have a great impact (Lindgaard, Fernandes, Dudek, & Brown, 2006), especially on the development of the clicking experience and might also shape the development of a possible relationship. We also showed that it also matters to maintain this impression. Clicking seems to be fragile to any sort of violation and does, compared to “normal” close relationships, not withstand a rough patch.
Relatively simple features of an interpersonal encounter can increase reports of clicking, which lead us to wonder whether clicking is the first step in relationship development. We showed that clicking is an experience of instant belonging, but includes no increased motivation for future contact. This finding suggests relationships do not necessarily develop out of such clicking experiences, as normal relationship development occurs across a long trajectory (Baumeister & Leary, 1995), which in a way is future oriented. We also observed that clicking is vulnerable to slight changes in the experience of ease and is not sustained if the sense of ease dissipates.
Furthermore, clicking does not need to be mutually shared by both interaction partners. In Study 2, only one person of the dyad experienced ease – which might also be the case for all of our studies in which confederates and experimenters were the interaction partners. In fact, it is possible that one person can experience clicking whereas another person can feel that the interaction is not going well. This fact is interesting especially when clicking plays an important role for relationship development. Research suggests that positive illusion is an important factor in relationship development among couples (e.g., Murray & Holmes, 1997) and this positive illusion might be supported by the experience of ease and clicking.
Practical Implications
Indeed, clicking might be a comparable phenomenon to “love at first sight” in a non-romantic environment and people might actually experience “like at first sight”. We showed that such a connection “at first sight” exists between strangers and that it establishes quickly in the very first moments of an interaction. Yet, in the same way as “love at first sight” leads to some deeper relationships and even marriages, “like at first sight” might be the beginning of deeper and meaningful relationship with “future” significant others. This fact also raises the question whether clicking can be experienced with people we know well or happens only with strangers. Could an unexpected experience of ease, which is normally not given when interacting with this person, evoke a clicking experience with a significant other? If a person always has to remind their roommates to bring out the garbage, but one day comes home and the garbage is outside – does this increase the feeling of clicking?
As clicking is a way to connect quickly with other people never met before, it might be especially important in today’s fast moving society. Constantly changing project teams are very common tasks people have to face in their working environment. Imagine a consultant who has daily changing clients. S/he needs to be able to form quick bonds with any sort of person (e.g., banker vs. nurse) to be successful. These people can make use of clicking to form instant connections with others. Indeed, our findings suggest that people can influence their interactions with others as has already been shown in studies on relationships formation (e.g. Chartrand & Van Baaren, 2009). Yet, we showed that people can influence their interaction partners in the very first seconds of the interaction, which in terms might also influence how successful a task or deal might be.
In conclusion, we found that the mysterious feelings of clicking can be evoked when people experience ease. People might even click with strangers when the source of the ease is not the interaction partner per se but proximately linked as in the study that manipulated fluency. Yet, clicking is a fragile feeling, sensitive to slight changes in the initial experience of ease, and is difficult to establish later on.
Notes
1 Although the confidence intervals do not overlap with the means, the
result is only marginally significant. This was puzzling and we assumed it was due in part to our presentation of the estimated marginal means. When we perform a t-test and estimate the confidence interval around the difference between means, we both receive the same marginally significant result and a confidence interval that crosses zero, t (59) = 1.84, p = .071, Mdiff = 0.38, CI95% = [-0.03, 0.80].
2 Before this exercise another manipulation took place for testing an unrelated
research hypothesis. In this manipulation one participant out of the pair received either the information that the other person would evaluate him/ her later on or that he/she would evaluate the other person later on or no information. This manipulation had no effect on our results (Fs < 1, ps > .70).
3 Note that this Study was the very first study we run on the experience of
clicking, why we decided to simply ask them whether they clicked or not. Only after this study we thought more deliberately about a measurement of clicking.
4 At the beginning of the study, another manipulation took place wherein
participants first indicated characteristics of a close other and either received a character description of the confederate including these indicated characteristics or not. This manipulation aimed for an unrelated research hypothesis and the results had no bearings on our target effect (Fs < 1.5, ps
> .26)
