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.

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