Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Review Article
  • Published:

A review of theories and methods in the science of face-to-face social interaction

Nature Reviews Psychology volume 1, pages 42–54 (2022)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

For most of human history, face-to-face interactions have been the primary and most fundamental way to build social relationships, and even in the digital era they remain the basis of our closest bonds. These interactions are built on the dynamic integration and coordination of verbal and non-verbal information between multiple people. However, the psychological processes underlying face-to-face interaction remain difficult to study. In this Review, we discuss three ways the multimodal phenomena underlying face-to-face social interaction can be organized to provide a solid basis for theory development. Next, we review three types of theory of social interaction: theories that focus on the social meaning of actions, theories that explain actions in terms of simple behaviour rules and theories that rely on rich cognitive models of the internal states of others. Finally, we address how different methods can be used to distinguish between theories, showcasing new approaches and outlining important directions for future research. Advances in how face-to-face social interaction can be studied, combined with a renewed focus on cognitive theories, could lead to a renaissance in social interaction research and advance scientific understanding of face-to-face interaction and its underlying cognitive foundations.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Different ways to organize the study of interaction.
Fig. 2: Organizing behaviour by modality or social meaning.
Fig. 3: Summary of theories.
Fig. 4: Linking different approaches to interaction behaviour.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Sparks, A. Tomorrow is Another Country: the Inside Story of South Africa’s Road to Change (University of Chicago Press, 1996).

  2. Argyle, M. Social Interaction: Process and Products (Routledge, 2017).

  3. Hartley, P. Group Communication (Routledge, 2006).

  4. Whittaker, S., Terveen, L., Hill, W. & Cherny, L. in From Usenet to CoWebs. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (eds Lueg, C. & Fisher, D.) 79–91 (Springer, 2003).

  5. Mondada, L. The multimodal interactional organization of tasting: practices of tasting cheese in gourmet shops. Discourse Stud. 20, 743–769 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Stepanyan, K., Borau, K. & Ullrich, C. in 10th IEEE Int. Conf. Advanced Learning Technol. 70–72 (IEEE, 2010).

  7. Eggins, S. & Slade, D. Analysing Casual Conversation (Equinox, 2004).

  8. Heydon, G. The Language of Police Interviewing (Palgrave Macmillan, 2005).

  9. Tschacher, W., Rees, G. & Ramseyer, F. Nonverbal synchrony and affect in dyadic interactions. Front. Psychol. 5, 1323 (2014).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Remland, M. S. Nonverbal Communication in Everyday Life (Sage, 2016).

  11. Guerrero, L. K. & Floyd, K. Nonverbal Communication in Close Relationships (Routledge, 2006).

  12. Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H. & Anderson, C. Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychol. Rev. 110, 265–284 (2003).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hall, J. A. Nonverbal behavior, status, and gender: how do we understand their relations? Psychol. Women Q. 30, 384–391 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Thibaut, J. W. & Kelley, H. H. The Social Psychology of Groups (Routledge, 2017).

  15. Krakauer, J. W., Ghazanfar, A. A., Gomez-Marin, A., MacIver, M. A. & Poeppel, D. Neuroscience needs behavior: correcting a reductionist bias. Neuron 93, 480–490 (2017).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Diamond, A. & Lee, K. Interventions shown to aid executive function development in children 4 to 12 years old. Science 333, 959–964 (2011).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Ramseyer, F. & Tschacher, W. Nonverbal synchrony in psychotherapy: coordinated body movement reflects relationship quality and outcome. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 79, 284–295 (2011).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Cuddy, A. Presence: Bringing your Boldest Self to Your Biggest Challenges (Hachette UK, 2015).

  19. Friedman, H. S. in Nonverbal Communication Today (ed. Key, M. R.) 57–68 (De Gruyter Mouton, 1982).

  20. Ritschel, H., Aslan, I., Sedlbauer, D. & André, E. in Proc. 18th Int. Conf. Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems 86–94 (University Augsburg, 2019).

  21. Sebanz, N. & Knoblich, G. Progress in joint-action research. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 30, 138–143 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Konvalinka, I., Vuust, P., Roepstorff, A. & Frith, C. Follow you, follow me: continuous mutual prediction and adaptation in joint tapping. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 63, 2220–2230 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Hamilton, A. F. D. C. & Lind, F. Audience effects: what can they tell us about social neuroscience, theory of mind and autism? Cult. Brain 4, 159–177 (2016).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Pinti, P. et al. The present and future use of functional near‐infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) for cognitive neuroscience. Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 40, 1–25 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Hecht, M. A. & Ambady, N. Nonverbal communication and psychology: past and future. Atl. J. Commun. 7, 156–170 (1999).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Babbie, E. R. The Practice of Social Research (Cengage Learning, 2020).

  27. Argyle, M. & Kendon, A. in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (ed. Berkowitz, L.) 55–98 (Academic, 1967).

  28. Duncan, S. Some signals and rules for taking speaking turns in conversations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 23, 283–292 (1972).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Kendon, A. Some functions of gaze-direction in social interaction. Acta Psychol. 26, 22–63 (1967).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Tickle-Degnen, L. & Rosenthal, R. The nature of rapport and its nonverbal correlates. Psychol. Inq. 1, 285–293 (1990).

    Google Scholar 

  31. LaFrance, M. & Broadbent, M. Group rapport: posture sharing as a nonverbal indicator. Gr. Organ. Stud. 1, 328–333 (1976).

    Google Scholar 

  32. Witkower, Z., Tracy, J. L., Cheng, J. T. & Henrich, J. Two signals of social rank: prestige and dominance are associated with distinct nonverbal displays. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 118, 89–120 (2020).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Carney, D. R. The nonverbal expression of power, status, and dominance. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 33, 256–264 (2020).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Sanborn, F. W. & Harris, R. J. A Cognitive Psychology of Mass Communication (Routledge, 2019).

  35. Meikle, G. Social Media: Communication, Sharing and Visibility (Routledge, 2016).

  36. Fitzpatrick, M. A. & Noller, P. Marital communication in the eighties. J. Marriage Fam. 52, 832–843 (1990).

    Google Scholar 

  37. Heerey, E. A. Decoding the dyad: challenges in the study of individual differences in social behavior. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 24, 285–291 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  38. Hirvenkari, L. et al. Influence of turn-taking in a two-person conversation on the gaze of a viewer. PLoS ONE 8, e71569 (2013).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Hazan, V. & Baker, R. Acoustic–phonetic characteristics of speech produced with communicative intent to counter adverse listening conditions. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 130, 2139–2152 (2011). This innovative study manipulates the acoustic environment of talker and listener separately, demonstrating the importance of communicative intent on speech adjustments.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Lee Masson, H. & Op de Beeck, H. Socio-affective touch expression database. PLoS ONE 13, e0190921 (2018).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Tsao, D. Y. & Livingstone, M. S. Mechanisms of face perception. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 31, 411–437 (2008).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Sauter, D. A., Eisner, F., Ekman, P. & Scott, S. K. Cross-cultural recognition of basic emotions through nonverbal emotional vocalizations. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 2408–2412 (2010).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Cascio, C. J., Moore, D. & McGlone, F. Social touch and human development. Dev. Cogn. Neurosci. 35, 5–11 (2019).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Poppe, R., Truong, K. P. & Heylen, D. in Int. Workshop on Intelligent Virtual Agents (eds Vilhjálmsson, H. H., Kopp, S., Marsella, S. & Thórisson K.R.) 228–239 (Springer, 2011).

  45. Kessous, L., Castellano, G. & Caridakis, G. Multimodal emotion recognition in speech-based interaction using facial expression, body gesture and acoustic analysis. J. Multimodal User Interfaces 3, 33–48 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  46. Patterson, M. L. Nonverbal Behavior: A Functional Perspective (Springer Science & Business Media, 2012).

  47. Friederici, A. D. The brain basis of language processing: from structure to function. Physiol. Rev. 91, 1357–1392 (2011).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Clark, H. Using Language (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1996).

  49. Botvinick, M. M., Braver, T. S., Barch, D. M., Carter, C. S. & Cohen, J. D. Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychol. Rev. 108, 624–652 (2001).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Darda, K. M. & Ramsey, R. The inhibition of automatic imitation: a meta-analysis and synthesis of fMRI studies. Neuroimage 197, 320–329 (2019).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Volman, I., Roelofs, K., Koch, S., Verhagen, L. & Toni, I. Anterior prefrontal cortex inhibition impairs control over social emotional actions. Curr. Biol. 21, 1766–1770 (2011).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Rizzolatti, G. & Craighero, L. The mirror-neuron system. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 27, 169–192 (2004).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Hamilton, A. F. D. C. in Shared Representations: Sensorimotor Foundations of Social Life (eds Obhi, S. S. & Cross, E. S.) 313–331 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2015).

  54. Rizzolatti, G. & Sinigaglia, C. The functional role of the parieto-frontal mirror circuit: interpretations and misinterpretations. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 11, 264–274 (2010).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Caspers, S., Zilles, K., Laird, A. R. & Eickhoff, S. B. ALE meta-analysis of action observation and imitation in the human brain. NeuroImage 50, 1148–1167 (2010).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Chartrand, T. L. & Bargh, J. A. The chameleon effect: the perception–behavior link and social interaction. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 76, 893–910 (1999).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Heyes, C., Bird, G., Johnson, H. & Haggard, P. Experience modulates automatic imitation. Cogn. Brain Res. 22, 233–240 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  58. Adank, P., Nuttall, H., Bekkering, H. & Maegherman, G. Effects of stimulus response compatibility on covert imitation of vowels. Attent. Percept. Psychophys. 80, 1290–1299 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  59. Polyanskaya, L., Samuel, A. G. & Ordin, M. Speech rhythm convergence as a social coalition signal. Evol. Psychol. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474704919879335 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Menenti, L., Pickering, M. J. & Garrod, S. Toward a neural basis of interactive alignment in conversation. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 6, 185 (2012).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Heyes, C. What’s social about social learning? J. Comp. Psychol. 126, 193–202 (2011).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Virhia, J., Kotz, S. A. & Adank, P. Emotional state dependence facilitates automatic imitation of visual speech. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 72, 2833–2847 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  63. Kuhbandner, C., Pekrun, R. & Maier, M. A. The role of positive and negative affect in the “mirroring” of other persons’ actions. Cogn. Emot. 24, 1182–1190 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  64. Smith, J. M. & Harper, D. Animal Signals (Oxford Univ. Press, 2003).

  65. Csibra, G. in Sensorimotor Foundations of Higher Cognition: Attention and Performance (eds Haggard, P., Rosetti, Y. & Kawato., M.) 461–479 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2008).

  66. Seyfarth, R. M., Cheney, D. L. & Marler, P. Vervet monkey alarm calls: semantic communication in a free-ranging primate. Anim. Behav. 28, 1070–1094 (1980).

    Google Scholar 

  67. Burgoon, J. K. Relational message interpretations of touch, conversational distance, and posture. J. Nonverbal Behav. 15, 233–259 (1991).

    Google Scholar 

  68. Argyle, M. Bodily Communication (International Universities Press, 1975).

  69. Ekman, P., Sorenson, E. R. & Friesen, W. V. Pan-cultural elements in facial displays of emotion. Science 164, 86–88 (1969).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Henley, N. Body Politics: Power, Sex, and Nonverbal Communication (Prentice Hall, 1977).

  71. Henley, N. M. in Gender, Power, and Communication in Human Relationships (eds Kalbfleisch, P. J. & Cody, M. J.) 27–61 (Psychology Press, 1995).

  72. Kampe, K. K., Frith, C. D. & Frith, U. “Hey John”: signals conveying communicative intention toward the self activate brain regions associated with “mentalizing,” regardless of modality. J. Neurosci. 23, 5258–5263 (2003). This work is one of the few functional MRI studies to examine social signals across different modalities, showing common activation in the prefrontal cortex for different communicative signals.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. Frith, C. & Frith, U. Theory of mind. Curr. Biol. 15, R644–R645 (2005).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Amodio, D. M. & Frith, C. D. Meeting of minds: the medial frontal cortex and social cognition. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 7, 268–277 (2006).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Hagoort, P. & Levinson, S. C. in The Cognitive Neurosciences 5th edn (eds Gazzaniga, M. S. & Mangun, G. R.) 667–674 (MIT Press, 2014).

  76. Van Berkum, J. J. in Semantics and Pragmatics: From Experiment to Theory (eds Sauerland, U. & Yatsushiro, K.) 276–316 (Palgrave Macmillan, 2009).

  77. Stegmann, U. Animal Communication Theory: Information and Influence (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).

  78. Seyfarth, R. M., Cheney, D. L. & Marler, P. Monkey responses to three different alarm calls: evidence of predator classification and semantic communication. Science 210, 801–803 (1980).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Prat, Y., Taub, M. & Yovel, Y. Everyday bat vocalizations contain information about emitter, addressee, context, and behavior. Sci. Rep. 6, 1–10 (2016). This paper shows how large datasets and machine learning approaches can help us understand the social meanings of animal communications.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Mehu, M. & Scherer, K. R. A psycho-ethological approach to social signal processing. Cogn. Process. 13, 397–414 (2012).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Burgoon, J. K., Magnenat-Thalmann, N., Pantic, M. & Vinciarelli, A. Social Signal Processing (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2017).

  82. Remland, M. S. Leadership impressions and nonverbal communication in a superior–subordinate interaction. Commun. Q. 32, 41–48 (1984).

    Google Scholar 

  83. Burgoon, J. K. & Newton, D. A. Applying a social meaning model to relational message interpretations of conversational involvement: comparing observer and participant perspectives. South. J. Commun. 56, 96–113 (1991).

    Google Scholar 

  84. Hall, J. A., Coats, E. J. & LeBeau, L. S. Nonverbal behavior and the vertical dimension of social relations: a meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 131, 898–924 (2005).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Hessels, R. S. How does gaze to faces support face-to-face interaction? A review and perspective. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 27, 856–881 (2020).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  86. Kendrick, K. H. & Holler, J. Gaze direction signals response preference in conversation. Res. Lang. Soc. Interact. 50, 12–32 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  87. Burgoon, J. K. & Walther, J. B. Nonverbal expectancies and the evaluative consequences of violations. Hum. Commun. Res. 17, 232–265 (1990).

    Google Scholar 

  88. Burgoon, J. K., Coker, D. A. & Coker, R. A. Communicative effects of gaze behavior: a test of two contrasting explanations. Hum. Commun. Res. 12, 495–524 (1986).

    Google Scholar 

  89. Burgoon, J. K. A communication model of personal space violations: explication and an initial test. Hum. Commun. Res. 4, 129–142 (1978).

    Google Scholar 

  90. Cappella, J. N. & Greene, J. O. A discrepancy‐arousal explanation of mutual influence in expressive behavior for adult and infant–adult interaction. Commun. Monogr. 49, 89–114 (1982).

    Google Scholar 

  91. Hildenbrandt, H., Carere, C. & Hemelrijk, C. Self-organized aerial displays of thousands of starlings: a model. Behav. Ecol. 21, 1349–1359 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  92. Huth, A. & Wissel, C. The simulation of the movement of fish schools. J. Theor. Biol. 156, 365–385 (1992).

    Google Scholar 

  93. Couzin, I. D. Collective cognition in animal groups. Trends Cogn. Sci. 13, 36–43 (2009).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Moussaïd, M. et al. Experimental study of the behavioural mechanisms underlying self-organization in human crowds. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 276, 2755–2762 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  95. Hale, J., Ward, J. A., Buccheri, F., Oliver, D. & Hamilton, A. F. D. C. Are you on my wavelength? Interpersonal coordination in dyadic conversations. J. Nonverbal Behav. 44, 63–83 (2020). This study of head nodding behaviour in conversation identifies two different types of nods using motion capture.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Wilson, M. & Wilson, T. An oscillator model of the timing of turn-taking. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 12, 957–968 (2005).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Takahashi, D., Narayanan, D. & Ghazanfar, A. A. Coupled oscillator dynamics of vocal turn-taking in monkeys. Curr. Biol. 23, 2162–2168 (2013).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Pickering, M. J. & Garrod, S. The interactive-alignment model: developments and refinements. Behav. Brain Sci. 27, 212–225 (2004).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Holler, J. & Wilkin, K. Co-speech gesture mimicry in the process of collaborative referring during face-to-face dialogue. J. Nonverbal Behav. 35, 133–153 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  100. Heyes, C. Where do mirror neurons come from? Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 34, 575–583 (2010).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Heyes, C. Cognitive Gadgets (Harvard Univ. Press, 2018).

  102. Giles, H. Accent mobility: a model and some data. Anthropol. Linguist. 15, 87–109 (1973).

    Google Scholar 

  103. Dragojevic, M., Gasiorek, J. & Giles, H. in The International Encyclopedia of Interpersonal Communication (eds Berger, R. C. & Roloff, E. M.) 1–21 (Wiley Blackwell, 2015).

  104. Bailenson, J. N. & Yee, N. Digital chameleons: automatic assimilation of nonverbal gestures in immersive virtual environments. Psychol. Sci. 16, 814–819 (2005).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. Pomerantz, A. in Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis (eds Atkinson, J. & Heritage, J.) 57–101 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1984).

  106. Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. Relevance: Communication and Cognition (Harvard Univ. Press, 1986).

  107. Butterworth, G. & Morissette, P. Onset of pointing and the acquisition of language in infancy. J. Reprod. Infant. Psychol. 14, 219–231 (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  108. Morissette, P., Ricard, M. & Décarie, T. G. Joint visual attention and pointing in infancy: a longitudinal study of comprehension. Br. J. Dev. Psychol. 13, 163–175 (1995).

    Google Scholar 

  109. Southgate, V., Van Maanen, C. & Csibra, G. Infant pointing: communication to cooperate or communication to learn? Child. Dev. 78, 735–740 (2007).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. Tomasello, M., Carpenter, M. & Liszkowski, U. A new look at infant pointing. Child. Dev. 78, 705–722 (2007).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  111. Begus, K. & Southgate, V. Infant pointing serves an interrogative function. Dev. Sci. 15, 611–617 (2012).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. Wyman, E., Rakoczy, H. & Tomasello, M. Non-verbal communication enables children’s coordination in a “stag hunt” game. Eur. J. Dev. Psychol. 10, 597–610 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  113. Clark, H. H. & Murphy, G. L. Audience design in meaning and reference. Adv. Psychol. 9, 287–299 (1982).

    Google Scholar 

  114. Trujillo, J., Özyürek, A., Holler, J. & Drijvers, L. Evidence for a multimodal Lombard effect: speakers modulate not only speech but also gesture to overcome noise. Sci. Rep. 11, 16721 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  115. Beechey, T., Buchholz, J. M. & Keidser, G. Hearing impairment increases communication effort during conversations in noise. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 63, 305–320 (2020). This study shows how talkers spontaneously modify their speech according to the acoustic environment and their partner’s hearing ability.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  116. Krishnan-Barman, S. & Hamilton, A. F. D. C. Adults imitate to send a social signal. Cognition 187, 150–155 (2019).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  117. Fridlund, A. Sociality of solitary smiling: potentiation by an implicit audience. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 60, 229–240 (1991).

    Google Scholar 

  118. Senju, A., Southgate, V., White, S. & Frith, U. Mindblind eyes: an absence of spontaneous theory of mind in Asperger syndrome. Science 325, 883–885 (2009).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  119. Nadig, A., Vivanti, G. & Ozonoff, S. Adaptation of object descriptions to a partner under increasing communicative demands: a comparison of children with and without autism. Autism Res. 2, 334–347 (2009).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  120. Georgescu, A. L. et al. Reduced nonverbal interpersonal synchrony in autism spectrum disorder independent of partner diagnosis: a motion energy study. Mol. Autism 11, 1–14 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  121. Freeth, M. & Bugembe, P. Social partner gaze direction and conversational phase; factors affecting social attention during face-to-face conversations in autistic adults? Autism 23, 503–513 (2019).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  122. Cisek, P. & Kalaska, J. F. Neural mechanisms for interacting with a world full of action choices. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 33, 269–298 (2010).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  123. Wang, Y. & Hamilton, A. F. D. C. Social top-down response modulation (STORM): a model of the control of mimicry in social interaction. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 6, 153 (2012).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  124. Cornejo, C., Cuadros, Z., Morales, R. & Paredes, J. Interpersonal coordination: methods, achievements, and challenges. Front. Psychol. 8, 1685 (2017).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  125. Onnela, J. P., Waber, B. N., Pentland, A., Schnorf, S. & Lazer, D. Using sociometers to quantify social interaction patterns. Sci. Rep. 4, 1–9 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  126. Baltrušaitis, T., Robinson, P. & Morency, L. P. in 2016 IEEE Winter Conf. Applications of Computer Vision (WACV) 1–10 (IEEE, 2016).

  127. Issartel, J., Bardainne, T., Gaillot, P. & Marin, L. The relevance of the cross-wavelet transform in the analysis of human interaction — a tutorial. Front. Psychol. 5, 1566 (2015).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  128. Gatica-Perez, D. Automatic nonverbal analysis of social interaction in small groups: a review. Image Vis. Comput. 27, 1775–1787 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  129. Richardson, M. J., Dale, R. & Marsh, K. L. in Handbook of Research Methods in Social and Personality Psychology (eds Reis, H. T. & Judd, C. M.) 253–282 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).

  130. Wykowska, A., Chaminade, T. & Cheng, G. Embodied artificial agents for understanding human social cognition. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 371, 20150375 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  131. Parry, R. in Sage Handbook of Qualitative Methods in Health Research (Bourgeault, I., Dingwall, R. & De Vries, R.) 373–396 (Sage, 2010).

  132. Wild, K. S., Poliakoff, E., Jerrison, A. & Gowen, E. The influence of goals on movement kinematics during imitation. Exp. Brain Res. 204, 353–360 (2010).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  133. McEllin, L., Sebanz, N. & Knoblich, G. Identifying others’ informative intentions from movement kinematics. Cognition 180, 246–258 (2018).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  134. Schegloff, E. A. in Talk and Social Structure (eds Boden, D. & Zimmerman, D.) 44–70 (Univ. of California Press, 1991).

  135. Schegloff, E. A. Reflections on quantification in the study of conversation. Res. Lang. Soc. Interact. 26, 99–128 (1993).

    Google Scholar 

  136. Kendrick, K. H. Using conversation analysis in the lab. Res. Lang. Soc. Interact. 50, 1–11 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  137. de Ruiter, J. P. & Albert, S. An appeal for a methodological fusion of conversation analysis and experimental psychology. Res. Lang. Soc. Interact. 50, 90–107 (2017). This work is a helpful review that draws together ideas from the conversation analysis tradition and cognitive science.

    Google Scholar 

  138. Gomez-Marin, A. & Ghazanfar, A. A. The life of behavior. Neuron 104, 25–36 (2019). This paper explores the importance of context in studying and understanding behaviour.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  139. Baxter, L. A. & Babbie, E. R. in The Basics of Communication Research (eds Baxter L. A. & Babbie, E.) 296–380 (Cengage Learning, 2003).

  140. Hömke, P., Holler, J. & Levinson, S. C. Eye blinking as addressee feedback in face-to-face conversation. Res. Lang. Soc. Interact. 50, 54–70 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  141. Hömke, P., Holler, J. & Levinson, S. C. Eye blinks are perceived as communicative signals in human face-to-face interaction. PLoS ONE 13, e0208030 (2018). This study elucidates the role of blinks in conversation and communication.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  142. Chen, P. H. A. et al. Socially transmitted placebo effects. Nat. Hum. Behav. 3, 1295–1305 (2019). This high-resolution face-tracking study demonstrates the power of detailed analyses of structured social interactions.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  143. van der Steen, M. C. & Keller, P. E. The ADaptation and Anticipation Model (ADAM) of sensorimotor synchronization. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 7, 253 (2013).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  144. van der Steen, M. C., Jacoby, N., Fairhurst, M. T. & Keller, P. E. Sensorimotor synchronization with tempo-changing auditory sequences: modeling temporal adaptation and anticipation. Brain Res. 1626, 66–87 (2015).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  145. Gratch, J., Wang, N., Gerten, J., Fast, E. & Duffy, R. in Intelligent Virtual Agents (eds Pelachaud, C. et al.) 125–138 (Springer, 2007). This study investigates how artificial agents can create rapport, demonstrating the possibilities and limitations of this technology.

  146. Cooke, M., King, S., Garnier, M. & Aubanel, V. The listening talker: a review of human and algorithmic context-induced modifications of speech. Comput. Speech Lang. 28, 543–571 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  147. McEllin, L., Knoblich, G. & Sebanz, N. Distinct kinematic markers of demonstration and joint action coordination? Evidence from virtual xylophone playing. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 44, 885–897 (2018). This study shows how people use subtle variations in action kinematics to communicate to a partner in different contexts.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  148. Nunamaker, J. F. Jr, Chen, M. & Purdin, T. D. Systems development in information systems research. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 7, 89–106 (1990).

    Google Scholar 

  149. Wallace, W. L. The Logic of Science in Sociology (Routledge, 2017).

  150. Marsella, S. & Gratch, J. in Handbook of Emotions (eds Barrett, L. F., Lewis, M. & Haviland-Jones, J. M.) 113–132 (The Guilford Press, 2016).

  151. Mills, P. F., Harry, B., Stevens, C. J., Knoblich, G. & Keller, P. E. Intentionality of a co-actor influences sensorimotor synchronisation with a virtual partner. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 72, 1478–1492 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  152. van der Steen, M. C., Schwartze, M., Kotz, S. A. & Keller, P. E. Modeling effects of cerebellar and basal ganglia lesions on adaptation and anticipation during sensorimotor synchronization. Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 1337, 101–110 (2015).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  153. Tracy, L. F., Segina, R. K., Cadiz, M. D. & Stepp, C. E. The impact of communication modality on voice production. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 63, 2913–2920 (2020).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  154. Cañigueral, R., Ward, J. A. & Hamilton, A. F. D. C. Effects of being watched on eye gaze and facial displays of typical and autistic individuals during conversation. Autism 25, 210–226 (2021).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  155. Pika, S., Wilkinson, R., Kendrick, K. H. & Vernes, S. C. Taking turns: bridging the gap between human and animal communication. Proc. R. Soc. B 285, 20180598 (2018).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  156. Henrich, J., Heine, S. J. & Norenzayan, A. Most people are not WEIRD. Nature 466, 29 (2010).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  157. Stivers, T. et al. Universals and cultural variation in turn-taking in conversation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 10587–10592 (2009). This cross-linguistic study of question–answer pairs in spontaneous conversation shows the speed and accuracy with which people take turns.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  158. Dingemanse, M., Torreira, F. & Enfield, N. J. Is “Huh?” a universal word? Conversational infrastructure and the convergent evolution of linguistic items. PLoS ONE 8, e78273 (2013).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  159. Bandura, A. & Walters, R. H. Social Learning Theory (Prentice Hall, 1977).

  160. Haensel, J. X., Smith, T. J. & Senju, A. Cultural differences in mutual gaze during face-to-face interactions: a dual head-mounted eye-tracking study. Vis. Cogn. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506285.2021.1928354 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  161. De Lillo, M. et al. Tracking developmental differences in real-world social attention across adolescence, young adulthood and older adulthood. Nat. Hum. Behav. 5, 1381–1390 (2021).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  162. Eaton, L. G. & Funder, D. C. The creation and consequences of the social world: an interactional analysis of extraversion. Eur. J. Pers. 17, 375–395 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  163. Back, M. D., Schmukle, S. C. & Egloff, B. Predicting actual behavior from the explicit and implicit self-concept of personality. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 97, 533–548 (2009).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  164. Uekermann, J. et al. Social cognition in attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 34, 734–743 (2010).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  165. Heerey, E. A. & Kring, A. M. Interpersonal consequences of social anxiety. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 116, 125–134 (2007).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  166. McNaughton, K. A. & Redcay, E. Interpersonal synchrony in autism. Curr. Psychiatry Rep. 22, 1–11 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  167. Barzy, M., Ferguson, H. J. & Williams, D. M. Perspective influences eye movements during real-life conversation: mentalising about self versus others in autism. Autism 24, 2153–2165 (2020).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  168. Zhao, Z. et al. Random and short-term excessive eye movement in children with autism during face-to-face conversation. J. Autism Dev. Disord. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-021-05255-7 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  169. Cañigueral, R. & Hamilton, A. F. D. C. The role of eye gaze during natural social interactions in typical and autistic people. Front. Psychol. 10, 560 (2019).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

L.V.H is supported by a UKRI Future Leaders Fellowship (MR/T041471/1). G.N. is supported by the Medical Research Council (MR/S003576/1) and the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government. A.F.C.H. was supported by the Leverhulme Trust (RPG-20160-251).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Hearing Sciences — Scottish Section, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Glasgow, UK

    Lauren V. Hadley & Graham Naylor

  2. Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, Division of Psychology and Language Sciences, University College London, London, UK

    Antonia F. de C. Hamilton

Authors
  1. Lauren V. Hadley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Graham Naylor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Antonia F. de C. Hamilton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

L.V.H and A.F.C.H. contributed substantially to discussion of article content and wrote the article. All authors reviewed and/or edited the manuscript before submission.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lauren V. Hadley.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information

Nature Reviews Psychology thanks Andrew Bayliss, who co-reviewed with Kristina Veranic; Judee Burgoon; and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hadley, L.V., Naylor, G. & Hamilton, A.F.d.C. A review of theories and methods in the science of face-to-face social interaction. Nat Rev Psychol 1, 42–54 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-021-00008-w

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-021-00008-w

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing