Acting in Unison Stirs Up Aggression

A more tightly knit team, it seems, is a fiercer foe

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Military leaders have long known that marching in unison makes for a tight-knit platoon. Past research by psychologist Scott Wiltermuth of the University of Southern California Marshall School of Business suggests that this cooperation emerges when the group members’ emotions are aligned. Now he finds such synchrony can also encourage aggression, according to a study published in January in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.

Wiltermuth and his colleagues assigned subjects to groups. The researchers gave each group a set of cups and taught them a choreographed cup-moving routine that they would perform later to music. To create an atmosphere of competition, the researchers tasked them with memorizing a list of cities—they would be tested later, and the highest-scoring groups could win $50. Then all participants put on headphones and performed the cup routine in time to the music they heard. In some groups, participants ended up moving the cups in sync with one another; in other groups, each subject heard music with varying beats and could not coordinate with other participants. After completing the cup activity, the researchers told each group they could select the music a different group would hear during its cup-moving routine. One of the options was a loud, aggravating blast of static. Teams that had moved in sync were more likely to choose the noxious noise than those that had been out of sync. A more tightly knit team, it seems, is a fiercer foe.

In a companion study, to be published in Social Influence, Wiltermuth found that members of an in-sync group were also more destructive. The groups were given live pill bugs and told to shoo them into boxes described as “exter­minators” (in reality, the boxes held the bugs unharmed). When prompted by a leader, those that had moved in sync earlier drove 54 percent more insects into the extermination boxes than did out-of-sync control subjects.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Wiltermuth explains that these findings underscore the importance of questioning our actions and those of our leaders. “We are doing things we wouldn’t otherwise do, because we feel an emotional connection to our team,” he says.

This article was published in print as "Emotions in Lockstep."

Daisy Yuhas edits the Scientific American column Mind Matters. She is a freelance science journalist and editor based in Austin, Tex. She is author of the Kids Field Guide to Birds.

More by Daisy Yuhas
SA Mind Vol 23 Issue 2This article was published with the title “Acting in Unison Stirs Up Aggression” in SA Mind Vol. 23 No. 2 (), p. 13
doi:10.1038/scientificamericanmind0512-13b

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe