TABLE 5.

Correlations between synchrony and interaction quality for each participant.

Participant and video type	Synchrony and Affective Engagement			Synchrony and Flow of the Interaction
	Spearman’s Rho	n	Sig.	Spearman’s Rho	n	Sig.
Hans leading + following	0.019	15	0.947
Hans open-ended dance + interactivea	0.496	14	0.072	0.634*	14	0.015
Karl leading + following	0.104	14	0.724
Karl open-ended dance + interactivea	0.246	14	0.397	0.425	14	0.130
Lukas leading + following	0.122	17	0.642
Lukas open-ended dance + interactivea	0.357	17	0.160	0.393	17	0.119
Julia leading + following	0.493	6	0.321
Julia open-ended dance + interactivea	0.883*	6	0.020	0.985**	6	<0.001
Anna leading + following	−0.660	7	0.107
Anna open-ended dance + interactivea	0.413	10	0.236	0.619	10	0.057

Correlations were calculated using spearman’s rho. The structured leading and following segments, and the less structured and interactive segments, were combined to increase the n for each correlation. Flow of the interaction was not scored in the following and leading video segments. For the 12 videos with two participants paired with each other, one video of each type was randomly assigned to each of the two participants to avoid using the scores from the same video twice.

^aVideo clips selected for the most interactive behaviors in the 30-s segment of the leading, following, or open-ended dance based on a predefined list of interactive behaviors.

*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.