University of Groningen Unconscious Bonding Rachl, Judith

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.

Unconscious Bonding

Forming Bonds Quickly

in Today’s Fast-Paced Society

This research was funded by the NWO as part of a research grant awarded to Kai Sassenberg and the Faculty of Behavioral and Social Science at the University of Groningen. Financial support for the printing of this thesis was provided by the University of Groningen and the Kurt Lewin Institute. Cover Art: Paul Sprinz

Interior design: Gri Willberger

Printed by: dilling-printmedien, Kölsbachstrasse 14, 57223 Kreuztal ISBN 978-94-034-0757-9 (Paperback)

978-94-034-0758-6 (Electronic Version)

Copyright ©2018 Judith Rachl-Willberger. All rights reserved. No parts of this book may be reproduced ot trasmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retieval system, without permission in writing from the author.

Unconscious Bonding

Forming Bonds Quickly in Today’s Fast-Paced Society

PhD thesis

to obtain the degree of PhD at the University of Groningen

on the authority of the Rector Magnificus Prof. E. Sterken

and in accordance with the decision by the College of Deans. This thesis will be defended in public on

Monday 9 July 2018 at 12:45 hours

by

Judith Rachl-Willberger

born on 9 September 1985 in Künzelsau, Germany

Supervisor

Prof. N. W. Van Yperen

Co-supervisor Prof. N. P. Leander Assessment committee Prof. R. W. Holland Prof. K. Sassenberg Prof. R. Spears

to

Gri

and

Put your servants to the test for ten days; let them give us grain for our food and water for our drink. Then take a look at out faces and the faces of the

young men who have food from the king's table.

Table of Contents

Chapter 1 General Introduction 11

Part 1 Positive Effects of Unconscious Bonding

Chapter 2 The Magic Click: How Psychological Ease Facilitates

Perceptions of Social Clicking 25

Chapter 3 Mimicry is Smooth: On the Embodiment of

Social Smoothness 49

Part 2 Drawbacks of Unconscious Bonding

Chapter 4 The Hidden Costs of Feeling Good:

Nonverbal Behavioral Mimicry Fosters Aversion to Making

an Effort 69

Chapter 5 Virtually Satisfied? How Digital Interactions

May Leave Us Longing for Belonging 91

Chapter 6 General Discussion 111

References 129

Appendix 149

Dutch Summary 161 German Summary 171

About the Author 181

Acknowledgements 185 Kurt Lewin Institute (KLI) Dissertation Series 191

Chapter 1

“We may well prefer to believe that, as rational beings, we retain full conscious control of our actions, thoughtfully processing all the stimuli our senses collect and arriving at sensible conclusions and optimal decisions.”

Chartrand, Huber, Shiv, & Tanner, 2008, p.197

“Emperor Friedrich II wondered what languages babies speak when they are only nurtured, but do not have social acquaintances – the babies died in the end.”

How are 21st century societal changes affecting the way people connect to and bond with others? People interact with multiple others every day, be it due to shifting communication technologies or more rapid changes in their career paths (Doyle, 2017). This could mean that people engage in more short-term bonding than ever before. Yet, as traditionally, bonding – the forming of a relationship – is regarded as developing over a long time (Reber & Reber, 2001; Hazan & Selcuk, 2015). It might, therefore, be that people need to find ways to connect to others more quickly to form the social bonds they need. For example, people may change project teams on a regular basis and each one requires the establishment of trust and mutual support to be effective. Yet, it is unclear how people might form such quick bonds, which one might assume normally takes time to develop; it is also not clear whether such instant relationships are satisfying.

In this dissertation, we investigate quick bonds by looking at mechanisms of automatic or unconscious social bonding. We do so by taking into account the challenging situations people face in today’s society, namely that they have to form instant connections quickly and that new technologies might set new requirements how the bonding can develop. In Chapter 2, we will look at the processes that drive a sense of “clicking” or instant connection with others. In Chapter 3, we look at factors that activate the perception and experience of social smoothness. Chapter 4 investigates whether these instant connections only have positive effects or whether people lose something when engaging in them. In Chapter 5, we examine how new technological trends might interfere with the development of instant connection and whether people cannot fulfill all their bonding needs through them. Altogether, these chapters focus on some common themes – namely, the formation of instant connections with other people,

Niestro, 1987

one

particularly through the application of subtle cues such as nonverbal behavioral mimicry or similar mechanisms of implicit influence.

Social Bonding

What is social bonding and why does it matter? Social bonding or attachment is defined as the act of forming relationships with others while a desire for closeness and proximity exists (Reber & Reber, 2001; Ainsworth, 1989). While most people associate bonding with Mary Ainsworth (1969) and Wittig’s groundbreaking research on secure and insecure attachment styles, Bowlby’s (1979) initial theory targeted towards the need of attachment figures in infants, as otherwise these babies would not have survived (see example from the beginning on emperor Friedrich II). Yet, Bowlby extended his assumption and stated that

“attachment behavior is held to characterize human beings from the cradle to the grave” (Bowlby, 1979, p. 129). In other words, attachment is not only important for infants to survive, although they need to be nurtured, but attachment and bonding are also needed in later years and have a positive influence on people’s physical and psychological health (Hunter & Maunder, 2001).

There are two general themes in the bonding literature that are worth noting – (1) it takes time to develop and (2) social bonds can influence our behavior and cognitions. A general assumption is that relationships typically, or perhaps even ideally, develop steadily over a long trajectory (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). This development is characterized by reestablishing proximity after distance, which might be accompanied by joy of the reunion, even in adults (Ainsworth, 1989). The bonding time together might give people the opportunity to get to know and understand each other better. For example, one might know how to best react towards a frustrated interaction partner, if a close bond had already been formed (if frustration happens, doing behavior X helps). We base this idea on the fact that older people profit from their life experiences in decisions, and, seems to even act with more patience (Li, Baldassi, Johnson, & Weber, 2013). This fact might also be true when it comes to social bonding. Learning from situations might help people to react “correctly” towards their interaction partner so that this partner feels loved and “at home”, in other words strengthening the bonding relationship. Yet, it seems that developing social bonds no longer has the luxury of time.

Social bonding influences people’s cognitions and behaviors in ways that could affect everyday functioning at work or in one’s relationships. For example, a study has shown that overweight female adolescences are more prone to develop a clinical eating disorder, but that this risk can be reduced by a positive parent-child relationship, namely, that the parents provide a secure bonding with the child (Turner, Rose, & Cooper, 2005). In other words, bonding influences people´s cognitions and how they see the world around them. This is also the case when it comes to regulation. It has been shown that people outsource their self-regulation, for example their health goal, when people think of ways how their partner can support them in their goal (Fitzsimons & Finkel, 2011). One can assume that when people think about being supported by someone, they likely have a secure relationship with this person. So, bonding influences people in the way they think and act and might also shape the goals they pursue. Indeed, people seek more support and closeness when they are experimentally primed with the mental representation of an attachment figure (Gillath, Mikulincer, Fitzsimons, Shaver, Schachner, & Bargh, 2006). Taken together, bonding has an influence on people’s behaviors and seems to influence many facets in people’s lives.

Nonverbal Behavioral Mimicry

Most of this bonding might occur on a nonverbal level, as people communicate up to 70% nonverbally (Reiman, 2007). A famous nonverbal behavioral communication tool is the copying of postures and mannerisms of others, namely the mimicking behavior of people, which we focused on in this dissertation. Nonverbal behavioral mimicry binds and bonds people together and is often referred to as a social glue (for a review see Chartrand & Van Baaren, 2009). Mimicry is known to influence people in their perception of liking and smoothness as well as influences people’s prosocial behavior. For example, an early study showed that people like a person more when they were mimicked in their nonverbal behavior, namely that their postures and mannerisms were copied, compared to a person who was not mimicked (Chartrand & Bargh, 1999). Beyond matters of liking, nonverbal behavioral mimicry can also affect the perceived smoothness of the interaction, as rated by third-party (Chartrand & Bargh, 1999). Furthermore, it has been shown mimicry also has a positive effect on people’s prosocial behavior. For example, participants who were mimicked were more likely to help an experimenter to pick up pens he accidently dropped on

one

the floor compared to participants who were not mimicked (Van Baaren, Holland, Kawakami, & Van Knippenberg, 2004). A waitress verbally mimicking a customer’s sentences, namely reciting them, received more tips compared to a waitress who only paraphrased the customer’s sentences (Van Baaren, Holland, Steenaert, & Van Knippenberg, 2003). Interestingly, even noninvolved people can prosocially profit from nonverbal behavioral mimicry. Mimicked people donated more to a charity compared to non-mimicked people and this effect was independent of whether the mimicking experimenter presented the charity or an unrelated experimenter (Van Baaren, Holland, Kawakami, & Van Knippenberg, 2004). Mimicry has been shown to influence people in a variety of ways. Not only do mimicked people like the mimicker more and experience the interaction as being smoother, it also influences how they act towards them and the world around them, namely to be more prosocial. Interestingly, this happens within a few minutes and not over a long time, suggesting that mimicry might be a way to form quick bonds with others. In this dissertation, we investigate this idea of mimicry as a quick bonding mechanism and how it influences people’s perceptions and behaviors.

Bonding in Today’s Society

Mimicry seems especially important in today’s fast moving society, as people can rarely invest a lot of time to form bonds. For example, imagine a doctor who meets new patients every day, yet has to convince them to undertake certain treatments and procedures. Studies suggest that nonverbal behavior can influence the forming of rapport with the patients and that nonverbal behavior facilitates the psychotherapy process (DiMatteo, 1979; Ramseyer, & Tschacher, 2011). Yet, not only in a medical environment are fast bonds important, but also in project teams. Imagine a project team with the aim to finish building the Berlin airport. At first, the project was very difficult as the finishing deadline already passed in 2012, so the project in itself is already overdue and overbudget (Guldner & Uken, 2013). The reasons for the delay might be many, yet one might be that people were not able to bond with each other and increase their performance. Supporting this notion, a study showed that negotiators who mimic their interaction partner gained better individual outcomes as well as the dyad performed better compared to dyads without mimicry (Maddux, Mullen, & Galinsky, 2008). This study shows that (1) bonding is important in negotiation and (2) that mimicry has the ability to form bonds even in formal business settings.

Today’s society is also known for technological developments and thus many interactions take place online. Although these devices allow people to be physically present, it might be that people are not able to bond in the same way as in face-to-face interactions: face-to-face and digital interactions might be different from each other. For example, digital interactions seem to be negatively associated with feelings of connectedness and reduced happiness (Clerkin, Smith, & Hames, 2013; Vlahovic, Roberts, & Dunbar, 2012). Romantic relationships even seem to be weaker in a digital compared to face-to-face setting (Scott, Mottarella, & Lavooy, 2006). Although, digital interactions provide the possibility to see another person who is further away, it seems that these digital interactions differ from face-to-face interactions. It might also be that bonding develops differently in digital interactions or might lead to less strong bonds as the nonverbal cues of mimicry might not be transferred in the same way as in face-to-face interactions. In other words, we mean that people might not experience the whole range of human bonding in digital interactions in the same way as they do in face-to-face interactions.

Overview of the Dissertation

In this dissertation, we look at the unconscious bonding behavior between people in short interactions (10 minutes). More precisely, we investigated how nonverbal behavioral mimicry influences people in forming instant connections (Chapter 2) and whether people are motivated to increase the likeability of bonding with others (Chapter 3). Furthermore, we examined whether such unconscious bonding only leaves positive effects or whether it has drawbacks (Chapter 4). We conclude with a set of studies investigating whether people’s bonding needs are also fulfilled when engaging in digital interactions (Chapter 5). Finally, we summarize our findings and discuss how new technological trends might require a change of the unconscious bonding behavior.

Part 1: The Positive Effects of Unconscious Bonding

Part 1 investigates the positive effects of unconscious bonding and shows that people can use it as a tool to form instant connections as well as to maintain a sense of “smoothness” to experience bonding.

one

The Magic Click: How Psychological Ease Facilitates Perceptions of Social Clicking

In Chapter 2, we take a closer look on how instant connection between people evoke a sense of “clicking” with an interaction partner. This research was inspired by bestselling authors’ Ori and Rom Brafman’s (2010) book, “Click – the Power of Instant Connections”. In this book, they talk about accelerators, which in their eyes nurture the experience of clicking. Inspired by their reasoning, we hypothesized that the experience of ease, so feeling at ease and no burden, between strangers leads to a subjective experience of clicking. Although an experience of ease might normally be assumed to occur only with significant others, clicking is interesting because it might represent a sudden sense of closeness or connection with a stranger (“From the moment we met, we just… clicked” ). This is exactly what the experience of clicking is: surprisingly feeling a very deep connection with a stranger. We specifically hypothesize that this feeling is a sense of belongingness that occurs with a stranger.

We investigated in our set of studies whether the experience of ease needs to be displayed by the interaction partner (Study 2-4) or whether this ease can also be induced by external factors (Study 1). For example, a lecturer might experience the interaction with a new colleague differently depending on whether he read a well-written, smoothly understandable manuscript or not. Additionally, we assumed that mimicry as a bonding factor will influence the experience of clicking (Study 3 and 4), but it might also be that the help of another person induces the experience of ease (Study 2). For example, a visually impaired person who unexpectedly receives the help from a customer to find a tin of tomato soup, might experience a click.

We faced the challenge in Chapter 2 to develop a measure for clicking. Although Brafman and Brafman inspired us to come up with an idea how clicking might be evoked, their work was not focused on how clicking can be objectively measured. We, therefore, used this set of studies to develop a measure for clicking. In the very first experiment (Study 2), we decided on purely asking participants about their clicking experience with one single item. Due to reliability and validity issues, we decided to extend this single item to a multiple-item questionnaire. We used proverbs and common euphemisms that heuristically capture the essence of clicking (e.g., “I feel that I and the other person are on the same wavelength”).

We came up with a set of 25 items (see Appendix A) to measure clicking (Study 1). Yet, we recognized quickly, that 25 items might be a very inconveniently high amount, which is why we reduced it to three items, in our eyes best capturing the experience of clicking (Study 3). We end this chapter with showing that clicking is a sensitive construct which needs to be fostered either from the beginning or does not develop at all (Study 4). Finally, we conclude how people can profit from understanding clicking more in their daily lives.

Mimicry is Smooth: On the Embodiment of Social Smoothness

In Chapter 3, we talk about the underlying motivation people have to experience bonding or rather their desire to maintain a sense of “smoothness”

in one’s thoughts, feelings, and social behavior. We assume that priming

“smoothness” will increase motivation to experience smoothness, namely to experience minimal strain on one’s resources. Research has shown that nonverbal behavioral mimicry is a way to prime people unconsciously and that it influences people in their perceptions and behaviors (for a review see Chartrand & Van Baaren, 2009). Mimicry, however, is displayed to participants on a subliminal level, meaning that they did not consciously perceive that they are mimicked. Along similar lines, embodiment research has shown that the physical experiences people have can influence people in their cognition. For example, an experiment showed that people who were holding a heavy clipboard compared to a light clipboard evaluated a job applicant as being more serious and interested in the position (Ackerman, Nocera, & Bargh, 2010). These findings inspired us to hypothesize that unconscious mimicry might influence people’s subsequent perceptions, judgments, and behaviors in a way that they sustain in the primed concept of smoothness and perceive and judge the world around them as smoother as well as behave more smoothly.

We again focused on nonverbal behavioral mimicry, but this time specifically considered whether mimicry is an embodied form of “social smoothness” that motivates people to seek out other ways to experience physical or psychological smoothness. We tested this idea in three studies showing that an initial mimicry manipulation can affect people’s consumer choices (Study 1a) and perceptions of pictures (Study 1b) in ways that promote a search for sustained smoothness. That is, when they are mimicked they are more likely to pick a smooth (vs. rough)

one

candy bar and rated pictures as smoother and less rough. The effects were also bidirectional, in the sense that when people are initially cued with smoothness by, for instance, subliminally priming them with pictures of smooth objects (billiards ball vs. golf ball), they engaged in more nonverbal behavioral mimicry (Study 2). The studies themselves directly suggest that an initial experience of physical, social or psychological smoothness facilitates perceptions, cognitions, and behaviors that serve to sustain that sense of smoothness. This might imply that smoothness is a way to engage in unconscious bonding and suggest that people are motivated to sustain in their bonding behavior.

Part 2: Drawbacks of Unconscious Bonding

In Part 1, we considered the positive effects unconscious bonding has for people and how they profit from unconscious bonding in terms of being able to form instant connections and use it as a way to fulfill one’s motivation or desire for smoothness. In Part 2, we investigated how unconscious bonding can have potential negative effects for people. We mean by this that engaging in unconscious bonding might not be without costs. For example, people might get too comfortable and start to scale back their efforts and “coast” (Chapter 4). Additionally, unconscious bonding might be challenged due to the rise of technological development (e.g., virtual communication; Chapter 5).

The Hidden Costs of Feeling Good: Mimicry Fosters Aversion to Making an Effort

Although most research on nonverbal behavioral mimicry suggests positive effects for the individual and the dyad (for a review see Chartrand & Van Baaren, 2009), some studies point towards possible drawbacks of mimicry. For example, a study showed that mimicry only leads to liking within ones ingroup, but not within the outgroup (Lakin, Chartrand, & Arkin, 2008). Furthermore, when a person is already disliked, mimicry by this person actually leads to even more disliking (Stel, Blascovich, McCall, Mastop, Van Baaren, & Vonk, 2010). Yet, not being mimicked when it is expected has also its drawbacks, namely that people feel coldness (Leander, Chartrand, & Bargh, 2012). Given that the focus of this dissertation is on the formation of social bonds, which addresses a basic psychological need to belong (Chapter 2) and facilitates the pursuit of smoothness

(Chapter 3), one might wonder if there are hidden costs – namely, that people’s focus on the relationship makes them less motivated to pursue achievement goals (e.g., Leander, Chartrand, & Wood, 2011), or their focus on sustaining a sense of psychological smoothness makes them averse to making much of an effort at all. Chapter 4 investigates whether being mimicked in an interaction implicitly undermines people’s effort and working behavior. In other words, being mimicked could be so pleasant and satisfying that people subsequently engage in coasting. We base this idea on Carver’s (2003) coasting theory which suggests that people, who feel positive (i.e. feeling accepted), reduce their investment of resources. In other words, people might think due to mimicry that they invest more resources than necessary and reduce their effort. We investigated this idea by testing whether mimicked people take more time to make decisions (Study 1) and become less competent at basic tasks (such as solving a maze, Study 2). We conclude this Chapter by testing, in Study 3, whether the famous social loafing effect – that people reduce their investment when working in a group – is more likely to occur under conditions of mimicry.

Virtually Satisfied? How Digital Interactions May Leave Us Longing for Belonging

In Chapter 5, we investigated how unconscious bonding reacts in a virtual environment. As the world is more and more changing into a digital environment, it seems that the ability to form quick bonds ascends to a new level. We mean by this that it not only requires the ability to form bonds quickly, but that such an instant connection as to be formed via a digital interaction. Yet, this challenge might resolve in losing or rather missing something in bonding interactions, as it seems that digital interactions and connectedness are negatively correlated (Clerkin, Smith, & Hames, 2013). We hypothesized that especially the need to belong might be at risk when people engage in digital interactions compared to face-to-face interactions. Normal relationship development needs time and proximity (Ainsworth, 1989), which might both be restricted in digital interactions or at least experienced differently due to possible technological malfunctions. We investigated whether people in general hold pessimistic beliefs about digital interactions, which might already point towards the idea that people miss something when engaging in them (Study 1). We followed up on this thought by

one

conducting a study on the experience of belonging in a Skype interaction compared to a face-to-face interaction (Study 2). In addition, we examined whether the pure activation of the concept of digital interactions can leave people with a longing for belonging, which was tested by placing two chairs closer together (Study 3).

Summary

This section provided a theoretical basis for the upcoming empirical chapters. It reflected on how our research will add to a more elaborate theoretical understanding of how (unconscious) bonding influences people in their self-regulation and interactions with others. We looked at different aspects important for today’s society as how people can establish bonds quickly, how bonding influences one’s performance behavior or bonding in digital interactions. With this dissertation, we add to the existing literature and shed more light on the concept of nonverbal behavioral mimicry and why people might be likely to pursue more of it. In the last section of this dissertation, we discuss the strength and weakness of our empirical research and suggest future study possibilities. We also discuss our findings in light of recent developments in psychological research, namely, the challenge of replicability of priming effects and small sample sizes. Finally, we provide practical implications of the research findings for organizations and society, providing a clearer understanding how these unconscious bonding mechanisms influence them.

Additional Remarks

Each chapter in this dissertation was written as an individual research paper and might, therefore, include some overlap in terms of theoretical background or methodological information. We report how we determined our sample size, all data exclusions (if any), all manipulations, and all measures in the study. The chapters are either currently under review or about to be submitted to journals. In addition, this dissertation work included a big research team including co-authors and research assistants developing the ideas and study designs with me, why instead of “I” the term “we” was used. This dissertation would not be the way it is without the support, ideas and thoughts of these people.

one

Chapter 2

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.

two

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

two

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.

two

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.

two

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, η_p2 _{= .054, showing}

that participants in the fluency condition (M = 2.98, SE = 0.14, CI_95% = [2.70, 3.27]) reported more clicking than participants in the disfluency condition (M = 2.60, SE = 0.15, CI_95% = [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

two

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, η_p2 _{=.11. The blindfolded participants}

reported more clicking (M = 8.94, SE = 0.31, CI_95% = [8.31, 9.57]) than the guides (M = 8.14, SE = .34, CI_95% = [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.

two

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, η_p2 _{= .096. Participants who}

were mimicked reported more clicking (M = 4.82, SE = 0.21, CI_95% = [4.41, 5.23]) than participants who were not mimicked (M = 4.11, SE = 0.20, CI_95% = [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, SE_B = 0.21, CI_95% [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, SE_B = 0.19, CI_95% [-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

two

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,

η_p2 _{=.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, M_r = .33, Z = 4.47, p < .001, two-tailed.

two

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

two

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.