ORCID
0000-0003-2177-1544
Abstract
Alignment in stance-taking is a foundational behavior in conversation, but few studies have quantified the degree to which conversationalists converge in their attitudes toward a topic. We attempted to quantify this convergence in terms of three parameters related to alignment: intensity (low to high), prevalence (percentage of time in alignment), and content (use of open-ended versus closed-ended statements). To examine the utility of these parameters, we compared the content of conversations between unacquainted dyads in either a free conversation condition or a topical condition in which the individuals were mismatched for their attitude toward the topic to maximize disalignment between them. The results revealed that, paradoxically, the dyads in the topical condition showed a higher degree of alignment along all three parameters than did the dyads in the free condition. This finding may reveal a general tendency for people to seek out common ground during first-contact encounters.
