Coordination and Consistency

The model distinguishes coordination among people from consistency across attributes within a person, and examines how those forces interact under explicit meaning and update rules.

In the model developed by Bednar, Bramson, Jones-Rooy, and Page, coordination concerns similarity among people on an attribute, while consistency concerns alignment across attributes within a person. A group can all adopt the same combination of traits without that combination being internally consistent under the model’s meaning rule. Conversely, individuals can each be internally consistent while differing from one another.

The distinction separates two questions: do we match one another, and do the parts of our own pattern fit together? What counts as fitting together requires interpretation. The paper’s simple binary model fixes that meaning in advance; real people can interpret the same behavior differently. Combining the two pressures can slow convergence and sustain diversity under the modeled conditions, rather than simply locking everyone into one unchanging culture.

When to use it

When shared conventions are being confused with internal coherence, or when modeling how both pressures shape collective patterns.

How it can help

Ask separately whether people match one another and whether the parts of a pattern fit together, making the interpretation of consistency explicit.