	New content
Personality and Social Psychology Review

Restricted access

Research article

First published online February 26, 2016

Interpersonal Autonomic Physiology: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Richard V. Palumbo [email protected], Marisa E. Marraccini, […], Lisa L. Weyandt, Oliver Wilder-Smith, Heather A. McGee, Siwei Liu, and Matthew S. Goodwin+4View all authors and affiliations

Volume 21, Issue 2

https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868316628405

Abstract

Interpersonal autonomic physiology is defined as the relationship between people’s physiological dynamics, as indexed by continuous measures of the autonomic nervous system. Findings from this field of study indicate that physiological activity between two or more people can become associated or interdependent, often referred to as physiological synchrony. Physiological synchrony has been found in both new and established relationships across a range of contexts, and it correlates with a number of psychosocial constructs. Given these findings, interpersonal physiological interactions are theorized to be ubiquitous social processes that co-occur with observable behavior. However, this scientific literature is fragmented, making it difficult to evaluate consistency across reports. In an effort to facilitate more standardized scholarly approaches, this systematic review provides a description of existing work in the area and highlights theoretical, methodological, and statistical issues to be addressed in future interpersonal autonomic physiology research.

Get full access to this article

View all access and purchase options for this article.

Get Access

Appendices

Appendix A Systematic Literature Review Results.

Reference	Population	Term for physiological synchrony	Statistic of physiological synchrony	Methodology (idiographic or nomothetic)	Null hypothesis tested	Physiological measures
Bachrach, Fontbonne, Joufflineau, and Ulloa (2015)	Other: Dancers and audience	Entrainment	Regression	Both	No	RR
Baker et al. (2015)	Mother–child	Biobehavioral synchrony	Correlation	Nomothetic	No	EDA
Chanel, Kivikangas, and Ravaja (2012)	Teammates	Compliance	Correlation; Weighted coherence	Nomothetic	No	HF-HRV; HF-Resp-Amp; IBI; Resp-Amp; SC; VLF-HRV
Chatel-Goldman, Congedo, Jutten, and Schwartz (2014)	Couples	Physiological coupling	Cross-correlations	Nomothetic	Yes	RVT; PRV; SC
Codrons, Bernardi, Vandoni, and Bernardi (2014)	Other: Student group	Entrainment	Generalized Partial directed coherence	Nomothetic	Yes	RR; HP
Coleman, Greenblatt, and Solomon (1956)	Therapist–client	Physiological relationship	Correlation	Idiographic	No	HR
Creaven, Skowron, Hughes, Howard, and Loken (2014)	Mother–child	Concordance	Multilevel model	Nomothetic	No	HR; RSA
Di Mascio, Boyd, Greenblatt, and Solomon (1955)	Therapist–client	Sociophysiology	Correlation	Idiographic	No	PR
Ebisch et al. (2012)	Mother–child	Synchrony	Correlation	Nomothetic	No	Temp
Elkins et al. (2009)	Teammates	Compliance	Signal matching; Instantaneous derivative matching; Directional agreement; Correlation	Nomothetic	No	IBI; RSA
Feldman, Magori-Cohen, Galili, Singer, and Louzoun (2011)	Mother–child	Biological synchrony	ARIMA model with cross-correlation function	Nomothetic	Yes	IBI
Ferrer and Helm (2013)	Couples	Covariation	Differential equation models	Both	Yes	HR; Resp
Field, Healy, and LeBlanc (1989)	Mother–child	Synchrony	Coherence and cross-coherence	Nomothetic	No	HR
Field et al. (1992)	Other: Friends–acquaintances	Coherence	Coherence	Nomothetic	No	HR
Gates, Gatzke-Kopp, Sandsten, and Blandon (2015)	Couples	Linkage	Cross-correlation	Nomothetic	No	RSA
Ghafar-Tabrizi (2008)	Mother–child	Linkage	Bivariate time-series analysis	Both	No	HR; FPA
Goldstein, Field, and Healy (1989)	Other: Friends–acquaintances	Concordance	Repeated-measures ANOVA	Nomothetic	No	HR
Guastello, Pincus, and Gunderson (2006)	Other: Classmates	Linkage	Linear regression; Nonlinear regression	Both	No	SC
Ham and Tronick (2009)	Mother–child	Concordance	Windowed correlation of slope	Nomothetic	No	SC
Helm, Sbarra, and Ferrer (2012)	Couples	Covariation	Coupled oscillator models	Nomothetic	Yes	HR; Resp
Helm, Sbarra, and Ferrer (2014)	Couples	Synchrony	Cross-lagged panel models	Both	No	RSA
Henning, Armstead, and Ferris (2009)	Teammates	Compliance	Cross-correlation	Nomothetic	No	HRV
Henning, Boucsein, and Gil (2001)	Teammates	Compliance	Cross-correlation; Weighted cross-coherence	Nomothetic	No	HRV; RR; SC
Henning and Korbelak (2005)	Teammates	Compliance	Cross-correlation	Nomothetic	No	IBI
Hill-Soderlund et al. (2008)	Mother–child	Physiological Attunement	General linear model with repeated-measures and time-varying covariates	Nomothetic	No	RSA
Järvelä, Kivikangas, Kätsyri, and Ravaja (2013)	Teammates	Linkage	Cross-correlation; Weighted cross-coherence	Nomothetic	No	IBI; HF-HRV; SCR; SCL
Kaplan, Burch, Bloom, and Edelberg (1963)	Other: Classmates	Covariation	Correlation	Nomothetic	No	SCR
Konvalinka et al. (2011)	Other: Familial vs. non-familial	Synchronized arousal	Cross-recurrence quantification analysis	Both	No	HR
Kraus and Mendes (2014)	Other: Mock businessmen	Affect contagion	Lagged correlation	Nomothetic	No	PEP
Levenson and Gottman (1983)	Couples	Linkage	Bivariate time-series analysis	Nomothetic	No	HR; PTT; SCL; ACT^a; Physiological index (HR; PTT; SCL; ACT^a)
Liu, Zhou, Palumbo, and Wang (in press)	Couples	Linkage	Dynamic correlation	Nomothetic	Yes	SC
Lunkenheimer et al. (2015)	Mother–child	Synchrony	Multilevel coupled autoregressive model	Both	No	RSA
Manini et al. (2013)	Mother–child	Attunement	Correlations; Cross-correlations	Both	No	Temp
Marci (2006)	Other: Audience members	Emotional engagement	Proprietary analysis not divulged	Unspecified	No	Physiological index (SC; HR; RR; ACT^a)
Marci, Ham, Moran, and Orr (2007)	Therapist–client	Concordance	Windowed correlation of slope	Nomothetic	Yes	SCL
Marci and Orr (2006)	Therapist–client	Concordance	Windowed correlation of slope	Nomothetic	No	SCL
McAssey, Helm, Hsieh, Sbarra, and Ferrer (2013)	Couples	Synchrony	Structural heteroscedastic measurement-error model; Empirical mode decomposition	Both	Yes	HR; RR; TI
McFarland (2001)	Other: Friends	Synchrony	Cross-correlation	Nomothetic	Yes	RR
Messina et al. (2013)	Therapist–client	Concordance	Windowed correlation of slope	Both	No	SCL
Mitkidis, McGraw, Roepstorff, and Wallot (2015)	Other: randomly paired students	Synchrony	Cross-recurrence quantification analysis	Both	No	HR
Montague, Xu, and Chiou (2014)	Teams	Compliance	Signal matching; Instantaneous derivative matching; Directional agreement; Cross-correlation; Weighted coherence	Nomothetic	Yes	IBI; HF-HRV; LF-HRV; SC
Moore (2009)	Mother–child	None	Correlation	Nomothetic	No	RSA
Moore et al. (2009)	Mother–child	Synchrony	Correlation	Nomothetic	No	HP; RSA
Morgan, Gunes, and Bryan-Kinns (2015)	Other: Musicians	Physiological linkage	Percentage of matched slope	Nomothetic	No	HR
Muller and Lindenberger (2011)	Other: Choir members	Synchrony	Wavelet coherence; Granger causality (multivariate autoregressive model)	Both	No	HRV; Resp
Noy, Levit-Binun, and Golland (2015)	Other: Experts at joint improvisation	Synchrony	Correlation	Nomothetic	No	HR
Quer, Daftari, and Rao (in press)	Other: Groups meditating	Entrainment	Wavelet coherence	Idiographic	No	HF-HRV; LF-HRV; VLF-HR; RR
Reed, Randall, Post, and Butler (2013)	Couples	Linkage	Longitudinal multilevel dyadic model	Nomothetic	Yes	BP; IBI; SC
Robinson, Herman, and Kaplan (1982)	Therapist–client	Concordance	Correlation; Discrete categorizations of SCR	Nomothetic	No	SCR; FST
Shearn, Spellman, Straley, Meirick, and Stryker (1999)	Other: Friends–strangers	Shared physiology	Correlations	Nomothetic	No	SC; Blush
Silver and Parente (2004)	Other: Strangers	Shared physiological reaction	Correlation	Nomothetic	No	SC
Strang, Funke, Russell, Dukes, and Middendorf (2014)	Teammates	Physio-behavioral coupling	cross-correlation, cross-recurrence quantification analysis, and cross-fuzzy entropy	Both	Yes	IBI
Stratford, Lal, and Meara (2009)	Therapist–client	Concordance	Windowed correlation of slope	Nomothetic	No	SC
Stratford, Lal, and Meara (2012)	Therapist–client	Concordance	Windowed correlation of slope	Nomothetic	No	SC
Suveg, Shaffer, and Davis (2016)	Mother–child	Synchrony	Cross-correlation	Nomothetic	No	IBI
Thomsen and Gilbert (1998)	Couples	Linkage	Bivariate time-series analysis	Nomothetic	No	HR; SC
Van Puyvelde et al. (2015)	Mother–child	Synchrony	Difference score	Nomothetic	No	RSA
Vickhoff et al. (2013)	Other: Choir singers	Inter-individual synchronization	Cross-coherence	Both	No	HRV
Walker, Muth, Switzer, and Rosopa (2013)	Teammates	Compliance	Regressions and correlations	Nomothetic	No	Physiological index (RSA; PEP; LVET)
Waters, West, and Mendes (2014)	Mother–child	Covariation	Growth curve model	Nomothetic	No	HR; VC
Woltering, Lishak, Elliott, Ferraro, and Granic (2015)	Mother–child	Synchrony	Structural heteroscedastic measurement-error model	Nomothetic	No	HR

Note. RR = respiration rate; EDA = electrodermal activity; HF-HRV = high-frequency heart rate variability; HF-Resp-Amp = high-frequency respiration amplitude; IBI = interbeat interval; Resp-Amp = respiration amplitude; SC = skin conductance; VLF-HRV = very-low-frequency heart rate variability; RVT = respiration volume time; PRV = pulse rate variability; HP = heart period; HR = heart rate; RSA = respiratory sinus arrhythmia; PR = pulse rate; Temp = facial temperature; ARIMA = autoregressive integrated moving average model; Resp = respiration; FPA = finger pulse amplitude; ANOVA = analysis of variance; HRV = heart rate variability; SCR = skin conductance response; SCL = skin conductance level; PEP = pre-ejection period; PTT = pulse transmission time; ACT = somatic movement; TI = thoracic impedance; LF-HRV = low-frequency heart rate variability; BP = blood pressure; FST = finger skin temperature; Blush = facial blushing; LVET = left ventricular ejection time; VC = ventricle contractility.

ACT is a behavioral measure, but was used as part of an index of physiology.

Appendix B Results by Physiological Measure: Cardiac Activity.

Source	Measure	Context	Finding	Results
Coleman, Greenblatt, and Solomon (1956)	HR	General	S	Significant correlations found between client and therapist HR.
Creaven, Skowron, Hughes, Howard, and Loken (2014)	HR	General	S	Positive concurrent PS between mother and child HR was observed during the resting condition.
		Between	S	Magnitudes of PS in HR significantly greater in the maltreating group. When a child maltreating mother displayed lower relative HR, her child displayed lower HR. Conversely, higher maternal HR was associated with higher child HR in non-maltreating dyads.
		Moderator	S	Mother–child PS in HR was moderated by mothers’ average HR, such that mothers with greater HR elevations had lower PS, and those with lower average HR had greater PS.
Ferrer and Helm (2013)	HR	Within	S	Change across tasks (baseline, gazing, and imitation) was significant for some participants, although on average it was not.
		Typology	S	Negative PS was found, such that when parameters for one partner decreased, the other partner’s increased. Positive PS in HR was found in more than half of the dyads.
		PsychoSoc		Females’ PS in HR during the imitation task was related to daily affect, suggesting that females’ physiology adjusted to their male partners’ in this task similarly to adjustments in response to their partners’ daily affect.
Field et al. (1992)	HR	Between	NS	No statistically significant difference in PS between friend and acquaintance dyads.
Field, Healy, and LeBlanc (1989)	HR	Between	NS	No significant differences in PS magnitudes across depressed and non-depressed dyads.
Ghafar-Tabrizi (2008)	HR	Between	S	In the high-conflict group when daughters led the conversation, daughter’s HR predicted mother’s HR significantly better than when mothers led the conversation.
		Within	NS	Equivalent levels of PS demonstrated across varied conversation topics.
			S	When daughters led the conversation, their HR predicted the mother’s HR better than mother’s HR predicted daughter’s, and vice versa.
		PsychoSoc	S	Levels of felt and preferred arousal were associated with the magnitude of PS during dyadic interaction.
Goldstein, Field, and Healy (1989)	HR	Between	S	Greater PS for friends vs. acquaintance dyads. During pre-play baseline, friends showed significantly greater PS than acquaintances.
	Helm, Sbarra, and Ferrer (2012)		NS	No significant differences in PS between friend and acquaintance dyads during play period.
	HR	Within	S	Different patterns of PS were found in couples across baseline, gazing, and imitation tasks.
		Typology	S	Patterns suggesting both positive and negative PS present in couples during baseline and gazing tasks, but only negative PS was observed during imitation task.
		PsychoSoc	S	Higher anxiety and avoidance were associated with greater magnitudes of PS in couples during the imitation task, but not during the baseline or gazing tasks.
			NS	Neither relationship length or satisfaction was related to couples’ PS in HR.
Konvalinka et al. (2011)	HR	Between	S	PS was found between fire walkers and familial spectators during ritual fire walking, but not between fire walkers and non-familial spectators.
Levenson and Gottman (1983)	HR	Within	NS	PS in HR was not detected when couples were discussing neutral or conflict topics.
Levenson and Gottman (1983)		PsychoSoc	NS	PS in HR was not predictive of marital satisfaction, affect, or affect reciprocity.
McAssey, Helm, Hsieh, Sbarra, and Ferrer (2013)	HR	Within	S	No PS during baseline, and significant PS for some couples during gazing and imitation task. No significant results were seen in randomly paired participant data.
Mitkidis, McGraw, Roepstorff, and Wallot (2015)	HR	Between	S	PS was significantly greater in student dyad groups that played an economic trust game (public goods game) following a joint cooperative task, compared with groups who did not play the trust game.
Mitkidis, McGraw, Roepstorff, and Wallot (2015)		Within	S	In the group that played the public goods game, PS was positively associated with expectations of returns but not of investments (i.e., mock money they thought they would get back, vs. mock money they would invest). The authors concluded that PS could be viewed as a proxy measure of trust.
Morgan, Gunes, and Bryan-Kinns (2015)	HR	General	NS	No PS was detected between drummers’ HR.
Noy, Levit-Binun, and Golland (2015)	HR	General	S	Significant PS in HR was found between dyads mirroring each other’s movements. PS was significantly, positively correlated with behavioral synchrony, and heart rate.
Noy, Levit-Binun, and Golland (2015)		PsychoSoc	S	Significant positive correlation found between PS in HR and dyads’ self-reported experiences of togetherness.
Stratford, Lal, and Meara (2009)	HR	Within	S	Patterns of EEG during high PS differed across therapy sessions.
Stratford, Lal, and Meara (2012)	HR	Within	S	Patterns of EEG during high PS differed across therapy sessions.
Thomsen and Gilbert (1998)	HR	General	S	PS was detected in couples’ HR when discussing a conflict topic, but results varied across dyads
Woltering, Lishak, Elliott, Ferraro, and Granic (2015)	HR	Within	S	PS in HR observed between mother–child dyads during positive and negative discussions. More than twice the magnitude of PS observed during the last vs. first topic, suggesting increased attempts at repair.
			NS	PS in HR between mother–child dyads associated with behavioral synchrony during negative, but not positive, discussion.
		Group	NS	No difference in mother–child PS in HR between children with typical and atypical self-regulation during discussions.
		PsychoSoc	S	Increased PS significantly predicted the degree of “repair” in mother–child relationship following a negative discussion, for both children with and without self-regulation issues.
Creaven, Skowron, Hughes, Howard, and Loken (2014)	HR/RSA	General	S	PS was observed in mother HR and child RSA over time.
Creaven, Skowron, Hughes, Howard, and Loken (2014)		Moderator	S	Higher resting maternal HR was associated with significantly lower PS in mother HR and child RSA.
Waters, West, and Mendes (2014)	HR/VC	General	S	Significant PS was found between infant HR and mother VC.
Waters, West, and Mendes (2014)		Within	S	PS between infant HR and mother VC was found in the negative and positive stress conditions, but not the neutral condition. PS increased over time in negative stress condition, but not positive or neutral conditions.
Di Mascio, Boyd, Greenblatt, and Solomon (1955)	PR	General	S	PS of pulse rate fluctuations found between patient and doctor during a psychiatric interview.
Di Mascio, Boyd, Greenblatt, and Solomon (1955)		Typology	S	Pulse rates observed to vary together or inversely, labeled concordance and discordance (i.e., positive and negative PS).
Chatel-Goldman, Congedo, Jutten, and Schwartz (2014)	PRV	General	NA	Significance of PS between couples’ pulse rate variability was not tested.
		Within	NS	No significant differences in PS of pulse rate variability when couples could or could not touch each other.
		PsychoSoc	NS	No significant correlations between empathy scores and PS in pulse rate variability found.
Levenson and Gottman (1983)	PTT	Within	NS	PS in PTT was not detected when couples were discussing neutral or conflict topics.
Levenson and Gottman (1983)		PsychoSoc	NS	PS in PTT was not predictive of marital satisfaction, affect, or affect reciprocity.
Ghafar-Tabrizi (2008)	FPA	Between	S	PS was stronger during conflict than pleasant conversation for the high-conflict group only.
Ghafar-Tabrizi (2008)		PsychoSoc	S	Levels of preferred, but not felt, arousal were associated with the strength of PS in finger pulse amplitude during dyadic interaction.
Reed, Randall, Post, and Butler (2013)	BP	PsychoSoc	S	At low levels of negative influence, PS in BP was significantly negative, but at high levels of negative influence, BP was unsynchronized. When demand behaviors were not present, PS in BP was significantly negative, while during demand behaviors, PS was positive. When withdraw behaviors were not present, PS in BP was negative. When withdraw behaviors were present, PS was significantly positive.
McAssey, Helm, Hsieh, Sbarra, and Ferrer (2013)	TI	Within	S	Significant increase in PS in thoracic impedance from baseline to the gazing and in-sync tasks for some couples.
Chanel, Kivikangas, and Ravaja (2012)	IBI	General	S	Teammates’ PS in IBI positive and significantly different from zero.
		Within	S	Teammates’ PS in IBI higher during competitive vs. cooperative play.
		PsychoSoc	NS	No self-report gaming experience constructs were significantly related to PS in IBI.
Elkins et al. (2009)	IBI	Between	NS	Trend-level differences in mean PS in IBI found between teams with high and low performance, but did not reach significance.
Feldman, Magori-Cohen, Galili, Singer, and Louzoun (2011)	IBI	General	S	Statistically significant levels of PS in IBI were found during face-to-face interactions between mothers and infants.
Feldman, Magori-Cohen, Galili, Singer, and Louzoun (2011)		Moderator	S	Time periods involving vocal synchrony, affect synchrony, or the co-occurrence of vocal and affect synchrony between mothers and infants were significantly related to increased PS in IBI.
Henning and Korbelak (2005)	IBI	General	S	There was a small significant effect indicating that PS in IBI predicted some measures of team performance.
Järvelä, Kivikangas, Kätsyri, and Ravaja (2013)	IBI	General	S	PS present among team members.
		Within	S	PS highest during competitive conditions without a computerized opponent.
		Moderator	S	Previous experience with the game minimized conditional differences in PS.
		PsychoSoc	S	Increased empathy and understanding between players associated with increased PS in IBI.
Montague, Xu, and Chiou (2014)	IBI	Within	S	PS in teammates’ IBI was higher during team trials than during baseline.
Montague, Xu, and Chiou (2014)			NS	A number of metrics of team performance and experience were not correlated with PS in IBI.
Reed, Randall, Post, and Butler (2013)	IBI	General	NS	PS in IBI was not observed during couples’ conversations.
Reed, Randall, Post, and Butler (2013)		PsychoSoc	NS	PS in IBI was not observed and not significantly different across contexts of couples’ conversations.
Strang, Funke, Russell, Dukes, and Middendorf (2014)	IBI	General	NS	PS in IBI was not significantly greater than PS from randomly paired dyads.
Suveg, Shaffer, and Davis (2016)	IBI	General	S	PS was detected between mothers’ and their children during a joint task.
			NS	PS was not detected between mothers and their children during a silent baseline.
		Moderator	S	Family risk moderated the relationship between physiological and behavioral synchrony between mothers and their children. Higher risk families showed a negative association between behavioral and physiological synchrony. Family risk moderated the relation between PS and child self-regulation. High-risk children had a negative relation between self-regulation and PS.
			NS	There were no moderating effects between behavioral and physiological synchrony or child-self-regulation in low-risk families.
		Within	S	PS in IBI was equal during high and low arousal, in both high- and low-risk dyads.
		Between	S	PS was negatively correlated with behavioral synchrony in high-risk families.
Henning, Armstead, and Ferris (2009)	HRV	Within	S	Teammates’ PS in HRV negatively associated with ratings for team productivity.
			NS	Teammates’ PS in HRV not significantly associated with ratings of individual participation, workload, or effort for decisions.
		PsychoSoc	S	Teammates’ PS in HRV negatively associated with ratings for quality of communication, and ability to work together.
Henning, Boucsein, and Gil (2001)	HRV	Within	S	PS in HRV a significant predictor of some measures of team performance.
Henning, Boucsein, and Gil (2001)			NS	Teammates’ PS in HRV not significantly correlated with team behavioral coordination.
Muller and Lindenberger (2011)	HRV	Within	S	PS in HRV was significantly stronger during singing than during rest. Directed positive PS where physiological changes in the conductor were followed by choir members.
Vickhoff et al. (2013)	HRV	Within	S	PS in choir members’ HRV was detected during the hymn and mantra singing.
Vickhoff et al. (2013)			NS	PS in choir members’ HRV was not detected during silent baselines, or when members were humming.
Chanel, Kivikangas, and Ravaja (2012)	HF-HRV	Within	NS	Teammates’ PS in HF-HRV at the home and at the lab not significantly different.
			S	Teammates’ PS in HF-HRV significantly higher for cooperative play as compared with competitive play.
		PsychoSoc	S	Teammates’ PS in HF-HRV was positively associated with social negative feelings.
Järvelä, Kivikangas, Kätsyri, and Ravaja (2013)	HF-HRV	General	S	PS in HF-HRV was present among team members.
Järvelä, Kivikangas, Kätsyri, and Ravaja (2013)		PsychoSoc	S	PS in HF-HRV was positively associated with self-report ratings of perceived comprehension and negatively with behavioral involvement.
Montague, Xu, and Chiou (2014)	HF-HRV	Within	S	PS in teammates’ HF-HRV during difficult team virtual tasks and when technology was unreliable was significantly higher than in other conditions. Also, PS in HF-HRV was negatively correlated with teams’ trust in the technology.
Montague, Xu, and Chiou (2014)			NS	A number of measures of team performance were not significantly correlated with teams’ PS in HF-HRV.
Quer, Daftari, and Rao (in press)	HF-HRV	Within	S	Group-level PS in HF-HRV was detected in groups meditating, chanting, and performing breathing exercises.
Montague, Xu, and Chiou (2014)	LF-HRV	Within	NS	A number of measures of team performance and experience were not significantly correlated with teams’ PS in LF-HRV.
Quer, Daftari, and Rao (in press)	LF-HRV	Within	S	Group-level PS in LF-HRV was detected in groups meditating, chanting, and performing breathing exercises.
Chanel, Kivikangas, and Ravaja (2012)	VLF-HRV	Within	S	Teammates’ PS in VLF-HRV significantly higher at home than in the lab.
Quer, Daftari, and Rao (in press)	VLF-HRV	Within	S	Group-level PS in VLF-HRV was detected in groups meditating, chanting, and performing breathing exercises.
Creaven, Skowron, Hughes, Howard, and Loken (2014)	RSA	General	NS	No significant PS in mother and child RSA.
Creaven, Skowron, Hughes, Howard, and Loken (2014)		Moderator	NS	Maltreatment status not a significant moderator of mother–child PS in RSA.
Elkins et al. (2009)	RSA	Between	S	Teammates in high- and low-performance groups had significantly different levels of PS in RSA.
Gates, Gatzke-Kopp, Sandsten, and Blandon (2015)	RSA	PsychoSoc	S	PS in RSA was significantly and positively correlated with self-reported marital conflict.
Helm, Sbarra, and Ferrer (2014)	RSA	General	S	Results indicated that PS in RSA was significantly different from zero.
		Within	S	PS in RSA significantly increased from the baseline to the conversation tasks, and that high RSA in one partner led to higher RSA in the other partner.
			NS	Couples’ PS in RSA did not significantly differ by conversation type.
		Typology	S	Results indicated that PS followed a morphostatic pattern (i.e., bidirectional interdependence around a stable arousal level).
		PsychoSoc	S	PS was significantly stronger in couples with higher quality relationships.
Hill-Soderlund et al. (2008)	RSA	General	NS	No significant findings of PS in RSA between mothers and infants during the strange situation paradigm.
Hill-Soderlund et al. (2008)		PsychoSoc	NS	No significant findings of PS in RSA between mothers and infants during the strange situation paradigm with attachment status as an interaction term.
Lunkenheimer et al. (2015)	RSA	General	S	Models of PS explained over 30% of variance in mothers’ and children’s RSA across lab-based tasks.
Lunkenheimer et al. (2015)		Moderator	S	PS between mother and child RSA was negative when children’s problem behaviors were high, but positive when low.
Moore (2009)	RSA	General	NS	Correlations between mothers’ and their infants’ RSA change scores during the still-face paradigm were not statistically significant.
Moore et al. (2009)	RSA	General	NS	PS in RSA was not detected between mother–infant dyads during a quiet, still 2-min baseline.
Walker, Muth, Switzer, and Rosopa (2013)	RSA	Within	NS	PS in teammates’ RSA not a significant predictor of team errors.
Codrons, Bernardi, Vandoni, and Bernardi (2014)	HP	Within	NS	PS in HP was not observed between groups of 10 people sitting still and quiet, or swinging their arms while in silence, listening to music, or listening to a metronome.
Moore et al. (2009)	HP	General	S	A moderate, significant correlation between mother–infant’s HP was detected during a quiet, still 2-min baseline.
Kraus and Mendes (2014)	PEP	Between	S	Results indicated low-status partners’ PEP was positively synchronized with high-status partners’ PEP at a 30-s lag during mock negotiations, suggesting high-status partners led the interaction.
Van Puyvelde et al. (2015)	RSA	Within	S	Mother–infant RSA synchronized during different maternal breathing paces until infants were 2 months.
Van Puyvelde et al. (2015)			NS	Mother–infant RSA did not synchronize during different maternal breathing paces when infants were 3 months.
Walker, Muth, Switzer, and Rosopa (2013)	PEP	Within	NS	PS in teammates’ PEP not a significant predictor of team errors.
Walker, Muth, Switzer, and Rosopa (2013)	LVET	Within	NS	PS in teammates’ LVET not a significant predictor of team errors.

Note. HR = heart rate; General = tested for presence of PS; S = statistically significant; PS = physiological synchrony; Between = tested for differences in PS across groups; Moderator = tested whether a variable moderated PS; Within = tested difference of PS across conditions within groups; Typology = tested for a specific type of PS; PsychoSoc = tested whether PS was associated with a psychosocial construct; NS = statistically non-significant; RSA = respiratory sinus arrhythmia; VC = ventricle contractility; PTT = pulse transmission time; FPA = finger pulse amplitude; BP = blood pressure; TI = thoracic impedance; IBI = interbeat interval; HRV = heart rate variability; HF-HRV = high-frequency heart rate variability; LF-HRV = low-frequency heart rate variability; VLF-HRV = very-low-frequency heart rate variability; HP = heart period; PEP = pre-ejection period; LVET = left ventricular ejection time.

Appendix C Results by Physiological Measure: Electrodermal Activity.

Source	Measure	Context	Finding	Results
Baker et al. (2015)	SC	Moderator	S	Strength of PS in SC was negatively associated with autism severity. More severe diagnosis was associated with lower PS.
Chanel, Kivikangas, and Ravaja (2012)	SC	General	S	PS in SC significantly different from zero.
		PsychoSoc	S	Positive affect during gaming experience positively associated with PS in SC.
			NS	Other psychosocial results non-significant.
Chatel-Goldman, Congedo, Jutten, and Schwartz (2014)	SC	General	S	PS in SC of couples beyond what was accounted for in data from random dyads.
		Within	S	Touch significantly increased couples’ PS in SC.
		PsychoSoc	NS	No main effects of empathy state on PS in SC.
			S	Negative correlation between “splitting emotions” and PS, as well as empathy and PS with touch, indicating touch had a stronger influence on PS between partners who were less empathic.
Guastello, Pincus, and Gunderson (2006)	SC	General	S	Significant levels of PS in SC between dyads during all conversation types.
Guastello, Pincus, and Gunderson (2006)		Between	S	No statistically significant difference in PS between groups having different conversations.
Ham and Tronick (2009)	SC	Within	NS	Positive PS in SC between mothers and infants approached significance during the still-face paradigm when infants displayed negative behaviors. PS in SC not significantly related to engagement behaviors between mother and infant during normal interaction.
Ham and Tronick (2009)			S	When mothers engaged in soothing of infants during reengagement, greater positive PS occurred in relation to behavioral synchrony.
Henning, Boucsein, and Gil (2001)	SC	Within	S	PS in SC was a significant predictor for some measures of team performance.
Henning, Boucsein, and Gil (2001)			NS	PS in SC not predictive of team coordination.
Liu, Zhou, Palumbo, and Wang (in press)	SC	Within	S	Significant PS was detected in couples’ SC when participants were quietly seated face-to-face. PS during this condition was significantly greater than when couples were seated back-to-back.
Liu, Zhou, Palumbo, and Wang (in press)			NS	PS was not detected in couples’ SC when participants were quietly seated back-to-back.
Reed, Randall, Post, and Butler (2013)	SC	General	NS	PS in SC not observed during couples’ conversations.
Reed, Randall, Post, and Butler (2013)		PsychoSoc	NS	PS in SC not observed and not significantly different across contexts of couples’ conversations.
Shearn, Spellman, Straley, Meirick, and Stryker (1999)	SC	Between	S	Significant PS in SC between performers and friends, but not between friends and strangers or strangers and performers.
Silver and Parente (2004)	SC	General	S	Significant PS in SC between pairs of strangers conversing for the first time.
Stratford, Lal, and Meara (2009)	SC	Within	S	PS in SC increased from Therapy Sessions 1 to 4. Highest PS in SC between therapists and clients recorded during Session 4. Patterns of EEG accompanying peak PS in SC differed across therapy sessions.
Stratford, Lal, and Meara (2012)	SC	Within	S	During peak PS in SC between therapists and clients, frontal site showed significantly lower EEG beta activity during Therapy Session 6 compared with 3.
Thomsen and Gilbert (1998)	SC	General	S	PS was detected in couples’ SC when discussing a conflict topic, but results were varied across dyads. Husbands’ SC was a significantly better predictor of wives’ SC than vice versa.
Järvelä, Kivikangas, Kätsyri, and Ravaja (2013)	SCL	General	S	PS in SCL significantly higher than zero among team members.
		Within	NS	PS in SCL not significantly different in cooperative/competitive conditions or including computer/non-computer players.
		PsychoSoc	NS	PS in SCL not significantly related to teammates’ emotional or behavioral self-report items.
Levenson and Gottman (1983)	SCL	Within	NS	PS in SCL not detected when couples discussing neutral or conflict topics.
Levenson and Gottman (1983)		PsychoSoc	NS	PS in SCL not predictive of marital satisfaction, affect, or affect reciprocity.
Marci, Ham, Moran, and Orr (2007)	SCL	PsychoSoc	S	PS in SCL significantly and positively correlated with patient ratings of therapist empathy. Patients and therapists showed significantly more solidarity and positive regard when PS in SCL was high.
Marci and Orr (2006)	SCL	Within	S	PS in SCL significantly higher between interviewer and patient during neutral than during emotionally distant condition.
Marci and Orr (2006)		PsychoSoc	S	Patient ratings of interviewer empathy significantly higher in neutral than in emotionally distant condition.
Messina et al. (2013)	SCL	Between	S	Significant differences in PS between the three groups (therapists, psychologists, and non-therapists) at Lag 0. PS in SCL with pseudo-patients was significantly higher with psychologists compared with therapists. At Lag 3, psychologists showed lower PS than therapists.
Messina et al. (2013)		PsychoSoc	S	PS in SCL between pseudo-patients and therapists was significantly correlated with empathy perceived by the pseudo-patients at 3- and 4-s lags.
Järvelä, Kivikangas, Kätsyri, and Ravaja (2013)	SCR	General	S	PS in SCR significantly higher than zero among team members.
		Within	NS	PS in SCR not significantly different in cooperative/competitive conditions or with computer/non-computer players.
		PsychoSoc	NS	PS in SCR not significantly related to teammates’ emotional or behavioral self-report items.
Kaplan, Burch, Bloom, and Edelberg (1963)	SCR	Between	S	PS in SCRs significantly more likely to occur in dyads who liked or disliked each other (as opposed to neutral rating).
Robinson, Herman, and Kaplan (1982)	SCR	PsychoSoc	S	Therapist–client PS using SCR 1 (small but rapid skin conductance responses) and SCR 3 (large amplitude and short latency responses) significantly correlated with empathy.
Robinson, Herman, and Kaplan (1982)			NS	Therapist–client PS using SCR 2 (responses of fairly large amplitude and long latency) and the composite measure (SCR 1, 2, and 3) of SCR types not significantly correlated with empathy.

Note. SC = skin conductance; Moderator = tested whether a variable moderated PS; S = statistically significant; PS = physiological synchrony; General = tested for presence of PS; PsychoSoc = tested whether PS was associated with a psychosocial construct; Within = tested difference of PS across conditions within groups; NS = statistically non-significant; Between = tested for differences in PS across groups; EEG = electroencephalograph; SCL = skin conductance level; SCR = skin conductance response.

Appendix D Results by Physiological Measure: Respiration.

Source	Measure	Context	Finding	Results
Ferrer and Helm (2013)	Resp	General	S	PS observed between couples across all conditions, but substantial differences in synchrony parameters across couples.
		Within	NS	Coregulation not significantly different from zero at baseline. PS parameters did not differ by gender.
			S	PS parameters changed across conditions, but differed substantially across couples.
				PS increased from baseline through imitation task, indicating individuals adjusted their respiration more as a function of their partners’ breathing than their own.
		PsychoSoc	S	Females’ PS in respiration during imitation task related to daily affect, suggesting females’ physiology adjusted to their male partners’ in this task similar to adjustments in response to their partners’ daily affect.
Helm, Sbarra, and Ferrer (2012)	Resp	PsychoSoc	NS	Anxiety did not effect PS in respiration in any task. Length in the relationship not related to any cross-partner associations.
Helm, Sbarra, and Ferrer (2012)			S	Higher avoidance associated with reduced PS in respiration during resting and gazing tasks, but associated with increased PS for males during imitation task. Relationship satisfaction associated with different patterns of PS in respiration across tasks and genders.
Muller and Lindenberger (2011)	Resp	Within	S	Magnitudes of PS in respiration were higher during singing than during rest. Directed positive PS where physiological changes in the conductor were followed by choir members.
Chanel, Kivikangas, and Ravaja (2012)	Resp-Amp	General	S	PS in respiration amplitude significantly different from zero.
		Within	NS	No significant differences between cooperative and competitive play in respiration amplitude.
		Typology	S	PS positive for most participants, but negative for others.
		PsychoSoc	NS	No gaming experience self-report constructs significant covariates with PS in respiration amplitude.
Chanel, Kivikangas, and Ravaja (2012)	HF-Resp-Amp	Within	S	PS in high-frequency respiration amplitude higher for competitive than for cooperative play.
Chanel, Kivikangas, and Ravaja (2012)		PsychoSoc	S	PS in high-frequency respiration amplitude positively correlated with social empathy self-evaluations.
Bachrach, Fontbonne, Joufflineau, and Ulloa (2015)	RR	General	S	PS found between RR of audience members and dancers during a music-free, slow-paced, live dance performance.
		PsychoSoc	S	PS between RR of audience members and dancers was positively and significantly associated with audience members’ self-reported attention to their own and the dancers’ breathing.
			NS	PS between RR of audience members and dancers was not significantly associated with audience members’ appreciation for the performance.
Codrons, Bernardi, Vandoni, and Bernardi (2014)	RR	Within	S	PS in 10-person groups was found during a still, silent baseline, and when swinging their arms while listening to music.
Codrons, Bernardi, Vandoni, and Bernardi (2014)			NS	PS was not significant in 10-person groups when swinging their arms in silence or while listening to a metronome.
Henning, Boucsein, and Gil (2001)	RR	Within	S	Teammates’ PS in RR a significant predictor of some performance measures.
Henning, Boucsein, and Gil (2001)			NS	Teammates’ PS in RR not a significant predictor of team behavioral coordination.
McAssey, Helm, Hsieh, Sbarra, and Ferrer (2013)	RR	Within	S	PS in RR significantly increased from baseline to in-sync task for all four couples, but only for one couple during the gazing task.
McFarland (2001)	RR	General	S	Friends’ PS in RR differed significantly in comparison with randomly selected simulated dyads.
Chatel-Goldman, Congedo, Jutten, and Schwartz (2014)	RVT	General	NA	Significance of PS between couples’ respiration volume time was not tested.
		Within	NS	No significant differences in PS of respiration volume time when couples could or could not touch each other.
		PsychoSoc	NS	No significant correlations found between empathy scores and PS in respiration volume time.

Note. Resp = respiration; General = tested for presence of PS; S = statistically significant; PS = physiological synchrony; Within = tested difference of PS across conditions within groups; NS = statistically non-significant; PsychoSoc = tested whether PS was associated with a psychosocial construct; Resp-Amp = respiration amplitude; Typology = tested for a specific type of PS; HF-Resp-Amp = high-frequency respiration amplitude; RR = respiration rate; RVT = respiration volume time.

Appendix E Results by Physiological Measure: Thermal Measures.

Source	Measure	Context	Finding	Results
Ebisch et al. (2012)	Temp	General	S	Significant correlations between facial temperature of mothers and their children.
Manini et al. (2013)	Temp	General	S	Significant PS in facial temperature between women and children.
		Between	S	PS in mother–child group significantly higher during experiential condition than mother–other-child group. PS significantly higher and cross-correlation lags shorter between mothers and their own vs. other child dyads.
		Within	S	Significant differences in PS between mother–child dyads during neutral vs. experimental conditions.
			NS	No significant differences in PS across conditions in the mother–other-child group.
Shearn, Spellman, Straley, Meirick, and Stryker (1999)	Blush	Between	S	PS in blushing between performers and friends, but not between friends and strangers or strangers and performers.
Robinson, Herman, and Kaplan (1982)	FST	PsychoSoc	NS	PS in finger skin temperature of the counselor–client dyads not significantly correlated with empathy.

Note. Temp = facial temperature; General = tested for presence of PS; S = statistically significant; PS = physiological synchrony; Between = tested for differences in PS across groups; Within = tested difference of PS across conditions within groups; NS = statistically non-significant; FST = finger skin temperature; PsychoSoc = tested whether PS was associated with a psychosocial construct.

Appendix F Results by Physiological Measure: Indexes of Measures.

Source	Measures	Context	Finding	Results
Levenson and Gottman (1983)	HR; PTT; SCL; ACT^a	Within	S	PS detected when couples discussing conflict topics.
			NS	PS not detected when couples discussing neutral topics.
		PsychoSoc		Couples’ PS during arguments accounted for 60% of variance in marital satisfaction.
Marci (2006)	SC; HR; RR; ACT^a	Within	S	Arousal levels significantly different when commercials viewed in positive (i.e., during a highly rated show) and neutral (i.e., shown alone) contexts; both PS and arousal patterns changed when viewed during less positive context (i.e., a poorly rated show).
			NS	Patterns of PS not significantly different when commercials viewed in positive (i.e., during a highly rated show) and neutral (i.e., shown alone) contexts.
Walker, Muth, Switzer, and Rosopa (2013)	LVET; PEP; RSA	Within	S	An index of PS significantly predicted team errors, but only accounted for a small proportion of variance in team error.

Note. HR = heart rate; PTT = pulse transmission time; SCL = skin conductance level; ACT = somatic movement; Within = tested difference of PS across conditions within groups; S = statistically significant; PS = physiological synchrony; NS = statistically non-significant; PsychoSoc = tested whether PS was associated with a psychosocial construct; SC = skin conductance; RR = respiration rate; LVET = left ventricular ejection time; PEP = pre-ejection period; RSA = respiratory sinus arrhythmia.

ACT is a measure of somatic movement, but was used as part of an index of physiology.

References

Adler H. M. (2002). The sociophysiology of caring in the doctor-patient relationship. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 17, 883-890.

Abstract

Get full access to this article

Appendices

References

Cite article

Cite article

Download to reference manager

Share

Share this article

Share with email

Share on social media

Share access to this article

Information

Published In

Keywords

Rights and permissions

Authors

Affiliations

Notes

Metrics

Journals metrics

Article usage*

Altmetric

Articles citing this one

Figures & Media

Tables

Access options

Sign in

View options

PDF/EPUB

Full Text

Also from Sage

Article usage^*