Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Jul 23;16(7):e0254017. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0254017

Lost in the crowd: Imagining walking in synchrony with a crowd increases affiliation and deindividuation

Benjamin Philip Crossey 1, Gray Atherton 2, Liam Cross 2,*
Editor: Sebastian Wallot3
PMCID: PMC8301649  PMID: 34297728

Abstract

Moving in time with others—interpersonal coordination—increases affiliation, helping behaviours and gives rise to a host of other prosocial outcomes. Recent research suggests that merely imagining coordination may lead to similar social effects. In the present study, participants were asked to imagine walking with a crowd in a coordinated (versus uncoordinated) way to explore the effects of imagined coordination on individuals’ perceptions of themselves and the crowd. Imagined coordination led to greater levels of deindividuation and affiliation. That is, participants were less likely to report seeing themselves as unique individuals, instead viewing themselves as a part of a group (deindividuation) and more likely to report a sense of emotional closeness (affiliation) with the imagined group. Deindividuation partially mediated the effect of imagined coordination on affiliation. This work establishes that imagined synchrony can be employed online to foster prosocial attitudes towards groups of people, and that a process of deindividuation might mediate this effect.

Introduction

Deindividuation and the perceptions of responsibility linked with membership in a crowd are among the most long-standing areas of interest in social psychology and include some of its most well-established findings (e.g., [1, 2]). Indeed, many studies in social psychology have paid particular attention to the way that people, once absorbed in a crowd, act less with reference to the personal or individual self and more in line with the collective [3]; see also: [4]) In the present investigation we reveal that the deindividuating effects of crowd membership extend beyond physical crowds to include membership in imagined, unspecified crowds; that the motoric aspects of the crowd are important, and that some of the effects that are usually attributed to synchronous movement can be obtained via imagination alone.

Coordinated interpersonal movement has been shown to elicit a range of social consequences that can arise irrespective of movement type (for reviews see, [58]). Though traditionally more speculative (e.g., [4]), the previous decade has seen an increase in the number of experimental investigations into the prosocial effects of motoric coordination. In a seminal study, participants who tapped in synchrony with an experimenter later rated the experimenter as more likeable than those who tapped asynchronously with them [9]. This increase in affiliation following coordination has been demonstrated in several studies [1012] and some research indicates that the increased level of affiliation that is evoked by synchronous movement may also lead to more prosocial behaviours. An example of this is that synchronous walking, or cup waving and singing, results in participants making more cooperative choices in subsequent economic games, even if such choices come at a real financial cost to them [13]. Other research has shown that after moving synchronously together, participants are more likely to help their co-actors, even some time after the initial coordination task [14], as well as to conform and obey their requests [15, 16], and show better memories for co-actors [1719].

Interestingly, some findings suggest that deindividuation—a known element of crowd behaviour—may itself play a meditational role in these social outcomes [5]. In other words, although deindividuation usually describes the phenomenon by which membership of a group reduces individuals’ sense of individuality, personal responsibility, and self-awareness (e.g., [20]), it may also give rise to the greater levels of coherence, affiliation and prosociality for fellow group members that follows interpersonal coordination. Consistent with this, it has been shown that moving in synchrony causes individuals to be more likely to think of themselves as part of the collective rather than as separate individuals [10]. Similarly, another study has demonstrated that after interpersonal coordination, individuals perceive themselves in more interdependent terms [21]. This effect is not only present in self-reports but can also be detected by external observers [22]. Moreover, participants who see themselves in more interdependent (i.e., relational) rather than individualistic terms, think and act in more prosocial ways and have been shown, for example, to be more likely to cooperate [2325].

Consistent with the notion that coordinated movement may lead to greater prosociality as mediated by deindividuation levels, it has been reported that two experiments showing that synchrony not only increases the odds that a participant will be willing to help others, but that their likelihood of helping is directly related to their reported levels of deindividuation [14]. That is, the greater the level of deindividuation evoked by synchronous movement, the more likely participants are to offer help. The present experiment investigated whether deindividuation mediates such outcomes.

A key issue with the idea that synchrony increases deindividuation which in turn mediates affiliation and prosociality, is that both affiliation and prosociality were initially understood to arise in group movement as a result of endorphin levels. Although, it has been argued that by engaging in synchronised drills soldiers may develop a sense of ’we-ness’, and is also suggested that the ‘fellow-feeling’ that such drills give rise to are the result of the interaction between endorphins themselves arising from the physical components of movements, and experience [4]. In other words, endorphins are likely largely responsible for the affiliation and deindividuation levels evoked by group coordination (see [4]). Although compelling, the notion that the social effects of synchrony arise as a consequence of an interaction between the endorphins that are released as a consequence of gross motor movement and the experience of moving synchronously with others is not fully supported by the literature. In fact, one of the first experimental studies to show a direct link between synchrony and prosociality found these effects to be present following synchronous fine muscle movements (e.g. finger tapping [9]), which do not result in endorphin release, unlike strenuous gross motor movements (for example see [26]). In part, the present experiment set out to investigate whether the affiliative effects of synchrony can be obtained following gross motor movements (e.g., walking, marching, etc.) without the presence of endorphins, indeed, without any actual movement at all. To achieve this, we asked participants to merely imagine a physical movement interaction rather than to actually make the movements, in order to determine whether comparable social outcomes can be evoked without any possibility of muscular or other physical movement effects. If similar outcomes are evoked then clearly the movements themselves are not essential to the social outcomes of coordinated movement.

Recent research suggests that similar effects should be elicited following imagined rather than physical/real movements because many of the social and cognitive, non-physical aspects of coordinated movements can be activated by imagination alone. Imagined actions have been shown to recruit similar neural areas and to elicit similar physiological responses as actual performance (e.g., [2732]). For example, one study found that people take the relevant aspects of an imagined co-actors’ actions into account much as they do when coordinating with them in real life [33]. That is, they integrate simulations of the imagined co-actor’s part of the joint action with their own. Moreover, just as practice improves performance, imagined motor tasks improve performance for the relevant action across a range of domains (e.g., [3441]). As for prosociality, imagining being part of a crowd can result in effects that often mirror the effects of real crowd membership, such as the bystander effect [42]. Researchers have revealed that imagining a positive verbal interaction improves relationships between people similar to actual positive contact [4346]. There is also evidence that imagining walking in synchrony can foster affiliation towards small groups of people one has previously met [47] and influence attitudes towards outgroup members just as physical synchrony does [48, 49].

Imagination paradigms have a number of advantages over physical paradigms that can be used to circumvent some of the limitations of physical research. The first is that they can be used to test effects of interactions with entirely unspecified populations. A participant can be asked to imagine an interaction with a crowd of people without there being any need to outline the specific details of the crowd. This is contrastable with research involving physical crowds in which the real crowd members will necessarily have physical characteristics that may be difficult to control for or partial out in subsequent analyses. For instance, a person may be asked to imagine synchronising with a large crowd of other people who are all walking in time with each. Achieving this in a lab environment would be more difficult as the group size increases. (We would like to stress: we do not suggest that imagination paradigms should or can take the place of physical paradigms but rather that they can be used to support their findings or act as a further source of comparison). In the case of synchrony research, even when bringing a group of strangers into the lab for a group movement experiment involving relatively small groups of people (e.g., dyads or triads) the participants involved will usually have a shared goal (i.e., to do an experiment and to get paid for it or to gain course credits) and shared characteristics (they will likely be of a similar age, the same nationality and region, be students of the same university etc, and very often study the same discipline). These extraneous factors may interact with the experience of synchronous movement. However, if alternative manipulations including imagination-based paradigms lead to the same social outcomes as ‘real’ interpersonal synchrony then it is less probable that such extraneous variables will play a role. In other words, an imagined coordination paradigm not only controls for the possible interaction between endorphins and experience (e.g., [4]) but other extraneous interactions such as shared goals. What’s more, much is to be gained by investigating the prosocial effects of imagined synchrony in and of itself. If affiliation can be increased merely by imagining a synchronous interaction then imagined synchrony paradigms greatly broaden the availability of interpersonal synchrony to applied research.

The present experiment extends previous research and addresses existing confounds in the literature by testing whether the prosocial effects of coordinated vs uncoordinated walking can be elicited in response to imagined, unspecified individuals. In a paradigm presented via an online platform, participants were asked to imagine walking either synchronously or asynchronously with a crowd. No description of the characteristics of this crowd was provided. In order to better understand the relationship between coordination, deindividuation and affiliation, this task was followed by items assessing affiliation and deindividuation. It has been discussed that ’fellow-feeling’ and the process of becoming one with others, arguing that the interaction between endorphins and experience may account for the increased level of affiliation evoked by behavioural synchrony [4]. However, besides the possible effect of endorphins, it remains unclear whether deindividuation itself plays a specifically meditational role in the synchrony-affiliation relationship. Previous literature suggests that it does—the present experiment tested this explicitly. If deindividuation accounts for the affiliative outcomes observed following synchrony, we would expect it to do so for imagined synchrony, that is, without the need for physical movement, particularly given that imagined physical interactions recruit much of the same neural substrate as real physical movement. Hence, we investigated whether the effects of physical synchrony can be elicited in the absence of the potential confounds of motor movement paradigms themselves.

We hypothesised that participants who imagined walking in synchrony with a crowd would i) report a greater level of affiliation with the crowd, and ii) report a greater sense of deindividuation than those who had imagined walking asynchronously with the crowd, and that iii) deindividuation levels would mediate imagined synchrony’s effect on affiliation.

Method

Design, materials & procedure

The study employed a single factor (imagined synchrony versus imagined asynchrony) between participants design. Participants from the United Kingdom and North America were recruited from the Universities of Buckingham, Leeds Beckett, and Houston, completing the questionnaire online in response to email requests and advertisements posted on Sona in exchange for course credit.

This study was conducted online via the survey platform, Qualtrics. Participants were instructed to complete the survey on a computer or laptop rather than on a handheld device and in a quiet place where they would not be interrupted. Individuals were randomly assigned to one of two conditions (imagined synchrony versus imagined asynchrony) and asked to close their eyes and spend two minutes imagining walking with a large crowd, presented with the following instructions:

Imagined synchrony

Imagine the experience of moving in a large crowd. You are all walking in time with each other. Your feet connect with the pavement at the same time. You can hear the sound of everyone’s footsteps as you move in time together.

Imagined asynchrony

Imagine the experience of moving in a large crowd. You are all walking out of time with each other. Your feet connect with the pavement at different times. You can hear the sound of everyone’s footsteps as you move out of time together.

Since the experiment was conducted online rather than in a controlled laboratory setting several checks were included which sought to determine the quality of the environment and the imagined interaction in which participants had taken part. These assessed the quiescence of the environment in which participants had undertaken the experiment. In order to ensure that all participants spent at least 90 seconds on the imagination task, time spent on this page of the survey was recorded. Anyone who progressed through this page before 90 seconds had elapsed was excused from the remainder of the survey and directed to a debrief page. Participants also responded to three items targeting whether they had been interrupted during the task (no/yes), how persistent (NA versus a scale ranging from 1 (brief) to 7 (continuous)), and how disruptive (NA versus a scale ranging from 1 (brief) to 7 (continuous)) the disturbance had been if present. Those who reported being interrupted during the task were excused from the remainder of the survey and directed to a debrief page.

Social affiliation was measured using eight items adapted from previous studies [47]; and [50]. These questions measured participants perceived closeness, connectedness, liking, trust, rapport, and similarity with the crowd, along with the degree to which respondents would wish to see them again and get to know them. All items were responded to on seven-point scales ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very). Deindividuation was assessed via three items from previous research ([47] originally adapted from [51]). These were presented on seven-point scales as follows: Respondents reported the degree to which they saw themselves as (i) an individual or a group member (1–7, with 1 representing individual and 7 representing group member), (ii) a group member (1–7), and (iii) a unique individual (1–7; reverse-scored). Item order was randomised.

Finally, basic demographic information was requested (i.e., age and sex/gender) along with a series of questions assessing the degree to which they felt the crowd had been tightly coordinated and in sync. Responses were scored on a scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very). A further three items assessed how vivid and difficult the imagination task had seemed, and how successful participants felt they had been at imagining group walking situation outlined in the vignette. Responses were made on seven-point scales ranging from 1 (not very) to 7 (very).

Participants & ethics

A total of 464 people (373 female; Mage = 22.52 years, SDage = 5.54 years) completed the survey and passed the check questions described above. This included 218 people in the Asynchrony condition and 246 in the Synchrony condition. Sample size was not predetermined at the design phase; the study aimed to recruit as many participants as possible within a 1 month time frame. Post hoc power analysis using G power [52] confirmed that the final sample had a.996 probability of detecting medium effect sizes (d = .05; see also [48] and [47]). The experiment was approved by the University of Buckingham Psychology Ethics Review Board and the University of Houston’s Institutional Review Board. Anonymised data is available online (https://osf.io/dtcq7/).

Results

Parametric assumptions were first checked and where measures were found to deviate significantly from normality, non-parametric statistics have been reported (see Table 1). Principal components analysis was also undertaken for each of our scales to ensure they could be reliably compiled into composite scores. These analyses can be found in the S1 File.

Table 1. Shapiro-Wilk tests for each measure as a function of condition.

Imagined Synchrony Imagined Asynchrony
Imagined Synchronousness .897** .952**
Task Difficulty .961** .971**
Affiliation .991 .987*
Deindividuation .975** .970**

Note.

* p < .05,

** p < .001.

The degree to which participants thought that the imagined crowd had been coordinated and in-sync were averaged to create an index of imagined synchrony (rs = .70). Participants in the synchronous condition (Mdn = 5.50, IQR = 3.00) reported greater levels of imagined synchrony than those in the asynchrony condition (Mdn = 3.50, IQR = 3.00), U = 12089.50, p < .001, r = .48, suggesting that our manipulation resulted in different levels of imagined synchrony in line with the vignettes presented for each condition.

To create an index of task difficulty, the item assessing the task’s vividness was combined with its purported difficulty (reverse-scored) and the degree to which participants felt they had been successful at imagining the scenario. This was not affected by condition, U = 24950.500, p = .194, r = .06. In other words, synchrony (Mdn = 2.67, IQR = 2.00) and asynchrony (Mdn = 3.00, IQR = 1.67) were similarly easy to imagine, and participants felt they were similarly successful at doing so.

The extent to which participants reported a sense of closeness, connectedness, liking, trust, rapport, and similarity with the crowd, along with the degree to which they would wish to see them again, and get to know them, were combined to create a measure of affiliation. Participants who imagined walking with a synchronous crowd reported greater levels of affiliation (Mdn = 3.89, IQR = 1.75) with the crowd than those who imagined walking with an asynchronous (Mdn = 3.38, IQR = 1.75) crowd (U = 21389.50, p < .001, r = .17).

The measure of deindividuation was constructed by combining items measuring whether participants identified as an individual (reverse scored), a group member, and the individual-group member rating scale. Imagined synchrony (Mdn = 3.33, IQR = 1.67) led to significantly greater levels of deindividuation than imagined asynchrony (Mdn = 3.00, IQR = 1.75), U = 21282.00, p < .001, r = .18.

Whether imagined coordination’s effect on affiliation was mediated by deindividuation was evaluated using model 4 of the PROCESS macro available in SPSS (Hayes, 2013). Bootstrapped estimates (normality not assumed) of 95% confidence intervals (10,000 iterations) revealed that condition influenced both affiliation F(1, 462) = 14.49, p < .001, R2 = .03, and deindividuation levels, F(1, 462) = 17.53, p < .001, R2 = .04. Moreover, controlling for the influence of deindividuation on affiliation (b = .39, p < .001), reduced the effect of condition on outcome (see also Fig 1). Hence, we found evidence that deindividuation partially accounts for the effect of imagined synchrony on affiliation.

Fig 1. Effect of imagined movement condition on affiliation.

Fig 1

*p < .05, ** p < .001.

Discussion

This study investigated whether imagining walking in synchrony with a crowd increases feelings of deindividuation and affiliation relative to imagining asynchronous walking. It also sought to determine whether deindividuation levels mediate the affiliative outcomes of imagined coordination. In line with our hypotheses, our results showed that individuals who imagined walking in synchrony reported greater levels of deindividuation and affiliation than those who imagined walking asynchronously. Moreover, the deindividuation levels evoked by imagined coordination mediated its effects on affiliation.

A recent review of synchrony’s prosocial effects [5] highlights how the wide-ranging social effects of synchrony might result from individuals re-categorising themselves in group terms. The mediating effect of deindividuation on the imagined synchrony-affiliation relationship that we have uncovered supports this argument (see also that moving in time with others allows people to shift from a ’me’ to a ’we’ mindset [53] in turn leading to closer ties with group members).

However, it’s important to point out that even though deindividuation may affect affiliation, and affiliation increases pro-sociality, deindividuation does not necessarily always lead to prosocial outcomes. For instance, it was found that the deindividuating effects of synchrony can lead to ’destructive obedience’, tested via a novel bug-killing paradigm [15]. This experiment showed that participants were more likely to kill bugs at the behest of their co-actors when they had engaged in synchronous co-action than participants who had not. Other researchers have reported anecdotal evidence that synchrony can lead to conformity and ’group think’. For instance, Herrera [54] reports on the deindividuating effects of chanting during Argentinian soccer matches through which it seems to become more permissible to take on the persona of the crowd and engage in violent and anti-social interactions. That is, deindividuation promotes feelings of affiliation with the ingroup while often also resulting in feelings of antipathy towards (and antisocial behaviour directed at) outgroup members. Our experiment demonstrates that deindividuation likely plays a critical role in affiliating the individual with the group since it changes self-categorisation from a ’me’ to part of the ’we’ and so bonds the individual with coordinated co-actors. Comparing the degree to which imagined and physical coordination evoke anti-social outcomes arising from deindividuation will help to determine whether these tasks give rise to shared or distinct cognitive processes.

A number of experiments have shown that imagined task performance may enhance real-life performance (e.g., [3441]), and recruits similar neural regions and physiological responses [2732] as physical task enactment. Other work has found that imagining a positive interaction can lead to improvements in a relationship akin to real-life positive interactions [4346]. Similarly, our results suggest that the social effects of imagined synchronous movement mirror the effects previously found for physical synchrony. Hence our findings are consistent with simulation theory [31], which suggests that for the purposes of motor planning and execution, individuals mentally enact the given movement thus subjecting themselves to the physical effects of the action ’in vivo.’

This is the first research to show that imagining walking in synchrony (versus asynchrony) can lead to greater affiliation with an unspecified group of people. It builds on previous findings, confirming that mentally simulated synchronous walking fosters affiliation, similar to engagement in actual (i.e., physical) synchrony [47]. Our findings also lend support to the idea that this outcome is itself mediated by a shift in individuals’ self-construal, leading them to perceive themselves in less individualised and more group terms. Moreover, our results suggest that individuals can experience the affiliative effects of synchronous walking online without having to be physically present with their imagined co-actors.

It has been demonstrated that individuals from specific social groups can influence their perceptions of outgroup members by simply imagining verbal interactions with them [43]. Similarly, our study suggests that imagining synchronous walking increases affiliation between self and others. However, as with intergroup verbal contact, there are several barriers that often prevent individuals from engaging in nonverbal (e.g., motor) interaction, such as isolation and physical impairment. Our research indicates that at least some of the benefits of physical interaction might be possible without a requirement for physical contact. Further research will be needed to determine the limitations of imagination paradigms in delivering some of these benefits. Nonetheless, our findings suggest that individuals need only imagine synchronous group movement in order to experience the affiliative effects.

This research sought to examine the effects of imagined synchrony with unspecified others, i.e. who are neither in-group nor outgroup members. A clear advantage of imagination paradigms is that only the relevant aspects of imagined co-actors’ behaviours need be provided. This reduces the risks posed by extraneous factors (e.g., from co-actors’ physical appearance). However, in some respects this begs the question: What characteristics do participants imagine? Future research may wish examine this question with a view to determining which factors are more likely to be imagined when no details about the characteristics of the imagined crowd are provided.

In order to further align our findings with contemporary physical social synchrony research, future investigations may consider testing the effects of imagined synchrony with specified others. For example, recent work suggests that actual [55] and imagined coordination [49] affect relationships across group boundaries. Indeed, it is suggested that both actual and imagined coordinated walking might influence self-other perspectives even for co-actors who are members of outgroups [48]. Determining whether the same effects hold true for imagined synchrony as seem to be present following physical synchrony would provide further evidence that imagined synchrony recruits the same neural regions as actual synchrony.

To expand on our findings, future research may wish to focus on whether imagined synchrony interventions can be used to improve the sense of social connectedness for individuals experiencing loneliness and social isolation, as well as those who are unable to physically coordinate with others. The effects of imagined synchrony and the value of imagined synchrony paradigms should also be compared with the prevailing form of imagined social intervention, imagined contact (i.e., imagined verbal interaction; see above), in which individuals imagine having a positive (e.g., pleasant) interaction with outgroup members. Comparing the outcomes of imagined coordination and imagined contact would help us better understand the relative effectiveness and degree of overlap in between these imagination tasks.

This study has demonstrated that imagined synchrony can lead to increased levels of affiliation with an imagined crowd. Our results have added to previous research by revealing that deindividuation mediates the influence of imagined coordination on affiliation. In reproducing the affiliative effects of physical coordination, our research has also demonstrated the feasibility of conducting studies of this nature online, outside of the lab.

Supporting information

S1 File

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Chloe Lannen for her help in editing the final manuscript.

Data Availability

The data underlying this study are available on OSF (https://osf.io/dtcq7/).

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Le Bon G. (1895) The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Cannavale F., Scarr H., & Pepitone A. (1970). Deindividuation in the small group: Further evidence. Journal of personality and social psychology,16(1), 141. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0029837 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Reicher S. D., Spears R., & Postmes T. (1995). A social identity model of deindividuation phenomena. European review of social psychology,6(1), 161–198. doi: 10.1080/14792779443000049 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.McNeill W. H. (1995). Keeping together in time. Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Cross L., Turgeon M., & Atherton G. (2019a). How moving together binds us together: The social consequences of interpersonal entrainment and group processes. Open Psychology, 1(1), 273–302. doi: 10.1515/psych-2018-0018 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Mogan R., Fischer R., & Bulbulia J. A. (2017). To be in synchrony or not? A meta-analysis of synchrony’s effects on behavior, perception, cognition and affect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 72, 13–20. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2017.03.009 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Rennung M., & Göritz A. S. (2016). Prosocial consequences of interpersonal synchrony. Zeitschrift für Psychologie. doi: 10.1027/2151-2604/a000252 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Vicaria I. M., & Dickens L. (2016). Meta-analyses of the intra-and interpersonal outcomes of interpersonal coordination. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 40(4), 335–361. doi: 10.1007/s10919-016-0238-8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Hove M.J., & Risen J. L. (2009). It’s all in the timing: Interpersonal synchrony increases affiliation. Social Cognition, 27(6), 949–961. doi: 10.1521/soco.2009.27.6.949 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Good A., Choma B., & Russo F. A. (2017). Movement Synchrony Influences Intergroup Relations in a Minimal Groups Paradigm. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 39(4), 231–238. doi: 10.1080/01973533.2017.1337015 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Reddish P., Fischer R., & Bulbulia J. (2013). Let’s Dance Together: Synchrony, Shared Intentionality and Cooperation. PLoS ONE 8(8): e71182. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0071182 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Pearce E., Launay J., van Duijn M., Rotkirch A., David-Barrett T., & Dunbar R. I. (2016). Singing together or apart: The effect of competitive and cooperative singing on social bonding within and between sub-groups of a university Fraternity. Psychology of music, 44(6), 1255–1273. doi: 10.1177/0305735616636208 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Wiltermuth S., & Heath C. (2009). Synchrony and cooperation. Psychological Science, 20(1), 1–5. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02253.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Cross L., Michael J., Wilsdon L., Henson H., Atherton G, (2020) Still want to help: Entrainments effects on helping behaviour after a 24-hour delay. Acta Psychologica. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2020.103062 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Wiltermuth S. (2012a). Synchrony and destructive obedience. Social Influence, 7(2), 78–89. doi: 10.1080/15534510.2012.658653 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Wiltermuth S. (2012b). Synchronous activity boosts compliance with requests to aggress. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1), 453–456. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2011.10.007 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Cross L., Atherton G., & Sebanz N. (2021). Intentional synchronisation affects automatic imitation and source memory. Scientific reports, 11(1), 1–12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Woolhouse M. H., & Lai R. (2014). Traces across the body: influence of music-dance synchrony on the observation of dance. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 8:965. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00965 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Woolhouse M. H., Tidhar D., & Cross I. (2016). Effects on inter-personal memory of dancing in time with others. Frontiers in psychology, 7. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00167 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Turner J. C., Hogg M. A., Oakes P. J., Reicher S. D., & Wetherell M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorisation theory. Basil Blackwell. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Cross L., Wilson A. D., Golonka S. (2019b). I’ll just watch: The prosocial consequences of coordinated rhythmic movement towards non-movers. The Journal of Social Psychology. 1–15, doi: 10.1080/00224545.2019.1623161 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Lakens D., & Stel M. (2011). If they move in sync, they must feel in sync: Movement synchrony leads to attributions of rapport and entitativity. Social Cognition, 29(1), 1–14. doi: 10.1521/soco.2011.29.1.1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Karremans J., Van Lange P., & Holland R. (2005). Forgiveness and Its Associations With Prosocial Thinking, Feeling, and Doing Beyond the Relationship With the Offender. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(10), 1315–1326. doi: 10.1177/0146167205274892 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Kühnen U., & Hannover B. (2000). Assimilation and contrast in social comparisons as a consequence of self‐construal activation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30(6), 799–811. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Utz S. (2004). Self-construal and cooperation: Is the interdependent self more cooperative than the independent self?. Self and Identity, 3(3), 177–190. doi: 10.1080/13576500444000001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Cohen E. E., Ejsmond-Frey R., Knight N., & Dunbar R. I. (2010). Rowers’ high: behavioural synchrony is correlated with elevated pain thresholds. Biology letters, 6(1), 106–108. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2009.0670 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Hardwick R.M., Caspers S., Eickhoff S.B., & Swinnen S.P. (2018). Neural correlates of action: Comparing meta-analyses of imagery, observation, and execution. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 94, 31–44. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.08.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Kilintari M., Narayana S., Babajani-Feremi A., Rezaie R., & Papanicolaou A. C. (2016). Brain activation profiles during kinesthetic and visual imagery: An fMRI study. Brain research, 1646, 249–261. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2016.06.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Pilgramm S., de Haas B., Helm F., Zentgraf K., Stark R., Munzert J. et al. (2016). Motor imagery of hand actions: decoding the content of motor imagery from brain activity in frontal and parietal motor areas. Human brain mapping, 37(1), 81–93. doi: 10.1002/hbm.23015 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Fadiga L., & Craighero L. (2004). Electrophysiology of action representation. Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology, 21(3), 157–169. doi: 10.1097/00004691-200405000-00004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Jeannerod M. (2001). Neural simulation of action: a unifying mechanism for motor cognition. NeuroImage, 14(1), S103–S109. doi: 10.1006/nimg.2001.0832 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Bird E. I. (1984). EMG quantification of mental rehearsal. Percept. Mot. Skills 59, 899–906. doi: 10.2466/pms.1984.59.3.899 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Vesper C., Knoblich G., & Sebanz N. (2014). Our actions in my mind: motor imagery of joint action. Neuropsychologia, 55,115–121. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2013.05.024 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Afrouzeh M., Sohrabi E., Haghkhan A., Rowshani F., and Goharrokhi S. (2015). Effectiveness of PETTLEP imager on performance of passing skill in volleyball. J. Sports Med. Phys. Fitness 55, 30–36. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Guillot A., Di Rienzo F., Pialoux V., Simon G., Skinner S., and Rogowski I. (2015). Implementation of motor imagery during specific aerobic training session in young tennis players. PLoS One 10:e0143331. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0143331 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Guillot A., & Collet C. (2008). Construction of the motor imagery integrative model in sport: a review and theoretical investigation of motor imagery use. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 1(1), 31–44. doi: 10.1080/17509840701823139 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Coffman D. D. (1990). Effects of mental practice, physical practice, and knowledge of results on piano performance. Journal of Research in Music Education, 38(3), 187–196. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Clark L. V. (1960). Effect of mental practice on the development of a certain motor skill. Res. Q. 31, 560–569. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Driskell J.E., Copper C., & Moran A. (1994). Does mental practice enhance performance? Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(4), 481. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Suinn R. (1972). Behaviour rehearsal training for ski racers. Behaviour Therapy, 3, 519. doi: 10.1016/S0005-7894(72)80191-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Vandell R., Davis R., & Clugston H. (1943). The function of mental practice in the acquisition of motor skills. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 14, 31–38. doi: 10.1080/00221309.1943.10544442 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Latané B., & Darley J. M. (1969). Bystander "Apathy". American Scientist, 57(2), 244–268. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Crisp R.J., & Turner R.N. (2009). Can imagined interactions produce positive perceptions?: Reducing prejudice through simulated social contact. American Psychologist, 64(4), 231. doi: 10.1037/a0014718 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Crisp R. J., & Turner R. N. (2010). Have confidence in contact. American Psychologiust. doi: 10.1037/a0018437 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Crisp R. J., & Turner R. N. (2012a). Imagined intergroup contact. Advances in intergroup contact, 6, 135–151. [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Crisp R. J., & Turner R. N. (2012b). The imagined contact hypothesis. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 46, pp. 125–182). Academic Press. 10.1016/B978-0-12-394281-4.00003-9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Cross L., Atherton G., Wilson A. D., & Golonka S. (2017). Imagined steps: Mental simulation of coordinated rhythmic movements effects on pro-sociality. Frontiers in psychology, 8, 1798. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01798 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Atherton G., Sebanz N., & Cross L. (2019). Imagine All The Synchrony: The effects of actual and imagined synchronous walking on attitudes towards marginalised groups. PloS one, 14(5). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0216585 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Atherton G., & Cross L., (2021). Walking in my shoes: Imagined coordination’s effects on attitudes towards refugees. Psychological Studies. [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Crossey, B. P. (2018). Getting our act together: an exploration of the mechanisms responsible for the affiliative changes evoked by interpersonal movement (Doctoral dissertation, University of Birmingham).
  • 51.Hutter R. R., Wood C., & Turner R. N. (2013). Individuation moderates impressions of conflicting categories for slower processors. Social Psychology. doi: 10.1027/1864-9335/a000108 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Faul F., Erdfelder E., Lang A. G., & Buchner A. (2007). G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior research methods, 39(2), 175–191. doi: 10.3758/bf03193146 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Durkheim E. (1912). (1965). The elementary forms of the religious life. New York: Free Press. [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Herrera E. (2018). Masculinity, violence, and deindividuation in Argentine soccer chants: the sonic potentials of participatory sounding-in-synchrony. Ethnomusicology, 62(3), 470–499. doi: 10.5406/ethnomusicology.62.3.0470 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Cross L., Turgeon M., & Atherton G. (2019c). Moving with the in-crowd: Cooperation and interpersonal entrainment in in-vs. outgroups. Current Psychology, 1–8. doi: 10.1007/s12144-019-00283-0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Sebastian Wallot

13 Apr 2021

PONE-D-21-02076

Lost in the crowd: Imagining walking in synchrony with a crowd increases affiliation and deindividuation

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Cross,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the concerns and suggestions of the reviewers, particularly revising the introduction and discussion sections of the manuscript, and provide additional statistical information on the measures used in this paper.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 28 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Sebastian Wallot, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

3. Please change "female” or "male" to "woman” or "man" as appropriate, when used as a noun (see for instance https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/gender )

4. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Dear editor,

I have now reviewed the paper entitled “Lost in the crowd: Imagining walking in synchrony with a crowd increases affiliation and deindividuation”. In the paper, authors asked participants to imagine walking in a crowd in either in coordination or in an uncoordinated manner. They compared the impact of imagined synchronous and non-synchronous movement in a crowd on affiliation and deindividuation. Overall, the paper is well-written and easy to follow. The theoretical background is presented well and the research is grounded on previous work clearly. The methodology followed in the study is capable of answering the research questions stated in the paper. Results and discussion sections are organized comprehensively.

I have few concerns regarding some aspects of the paper:

1. The main starting point of the paper is that in real-life group synchrony might be influenced by cultural primers such as beliefs, ideologies and dressing. In order to control the impact of cultural confounds on group synchrony, authors conducted an online experiment and asked participants to imagine walking in a crowd. In the paper, authors claim that such experimental design would not be confounded by cultural aspects. In the experiment, participants were asked to imagine themselves walking in a crowd. Researchers did not specify a specific crowd. Thus, participants were free to imagine themselves in any kind of group. In one way, this design might considered as a rigorous approach to avoid confounds about group culture. In other way, it can be seen as a limitation: What if the participants considered the groups they are affiliated most when imagining walking in coordination or not? For example, a participant from an army background might have imagined walking with soldiers, a doctor might have imagined walking with other doctors, and so on. I wonder asking participants to imagine walking with “complete strangers” in a crowd would have been a better approach to answer the research questions stated in the paper?

2. In terms of self-reported instruments, authors do not present any statistical findings regarding the validity and/or reliability of those instruments. I am not much familiar with this field. Thus, I wonder if it is OK to ignore the reliability/validity of scales in this line of research?

3. In the Discussion authors claim that “…imagined synchrony interventions can be used to improve the sense of social connectedness for individuals experiencing loneliness and social isolation, and those who are unable to physically coordinate.” I think authors should present some strong arguments/evidence on this practical implication. As far as I know, social relatedness is about seeing one’s self as part of a specific social group (e.g. family, tribe, and team). How can one deal with social loneliness by imagining being in synch with a group that has no cultural relevance to him/her? How can a social system exist without common cultural features? I understand authors point in exploring how synchrony manifests itself when cultural features are somehow wiped out. However, I am not sure the current findings are applicable to the real-life settings where cultural norms and features have inevitable components of groups.

Reviewer #2: The authors investigate whether imaging walking in synchrony with a crowd promotes in the participants feelings of deindividuation and affiliation with the crowd compared to imaging walking asynchronously, as well as whether individuation mediates the effect of imagined synchrony on affiliation.

In contrast with a large part of the studies available in the literature, the study focuses on the embodied elements of deindividuation rather than on the cognitive elements, and it tackles the interesting issue of whether imagined synchrony produces the same effect as physical synchronous actions with respect to feelings of deindividuation and affiliation.

It is the first study to show the positive effect of imagining walking in synchrony on affiliation and, as the authors suggests, it opens paths to future (online) research developments on important topics, including social connectedness and the reduction of prejudicial attitudes. Because of this it can be considered of high relevance and originality. Because of this, I recommend it for publication.

However, some minor revisions might contribute to the quality of the manuscript.

• In the introductory section, the authors go from discussing contemporary research on deindividuation and coordination to the theorizing of McNeill (1995) and Durkheim (1912) to then go back to the contemporary research. I would suggest restructuring the section following a chronological order to facilitate the reading.

• Still in the introductory section, the discussion of what it means for crowds to have “personalities” could also be better organized, as the concerning content of the first page seems to eb partially repeated on page 4 and 5.

• In the discussion, the authors claim that “it is important to point out that even though deindividuation may affect affiliation, and affiliation increases pro-sociality, deindividuation does not necessarily always lead to prosocial outcomes.” As the discussion goes, it seems to be suggested that deindividuation promotes feelings of affiliation toward the in-group while potentially leading to even anti-social behaviors toward the out-group. Thus, the important point would be that deindividuation promotes affiliation toward the in-group but not (necessarily) toward out-groups. This point could be better clarified by the authors.

• The cited paper authored by Herrera (2018) is missing in the references.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Muhterem Dindar

Reviewer #2: Yes: Flavia Felletti

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Decision Letter 1

Sebastian Wallot

18 Jun 2021

Lost in the crowd: Imagining walking in synchrony with a crowd increases affiliation and deindividuation

PONE-D-21-02076R1

Dear Dr. Cross,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Sebastian Wallot, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Dear editor,

The reviewers have addressed my points sufficiently. I have no further comments. To me, the manuscript can be accepted for publication in PlosONE. I would like to congratulate authors for their interesting work.

Regards,

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Muhterem Dindar

Reviewer #2: Yes: Flavia Felletti

Acceptance letter

Sebastian Wallot

16 Jul 2021

PONE-D-21-02076R1

Lost in the crowd: Imagining walking in synchrony with a crowd increases affiliation and deindividuation

Dear Dr. Cross:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Sebastian Wallot

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE


Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

RESOURCES