| Literature DB >> 31604966 |
Laura Galbusera1,2, Michael T M Finn3,4, Wolfgang Tschacher5, Miriam Kyselo6.
Abstract
The social benefits of interpersonal synchrony are widely recognized. Yet, little is known about its impact on the self. According to enactive cognitive science, the human self for its stability and regulation needs to balance social attunement with disengagement from others. Too much interpersonal synchrony is considered detrimental for a person's ability to self-regulate. In this study, 66 adults took part in the Body-Conversation Task (BCT), a dyadic movement task promoting spontaneous social interaction. Using whole-body behavioural imaging, we investigated the simultaneous impact of interpersonal synchrony (between persons) and intrapersonal synchrony (within a person) on positive affect and self-regulation of affect. We hypothesized that interpersonal synchrony's known tendency to increase positive affect would have a trade-off, decreasing a person's ability to self-regulate affect. Interpersonal synchrony predicted an increase in positive affect. Consistent with our hypothesis, it simultaneously predicted a weakening in self-regulation of affect. Intrapersonal synchrony, however, tended to oppose these effects. Our findings challenge the widespread belief that harmony with others has only beneficial effects, pointing to the need to better understand the impact of interaction dynamics on the stability and regulation of the human self.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31604966 PMCID: PMC6789117 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-50960-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Two examples of behavioural imaging data during the BCT. A single frame of data is shown in the full outline of the individuals in a dyad, shown with 10 seconds of previous data (300 frames). (a) An imaging sample from dyad #32. (b) An imaging sample from dyad #29.
Figure 2The 11 limb segments tracked in behavioural imaging. This figure also illustrates the T-Pose assumed by participants at the beginning of each recording.
Relationships among individual and dyad-level synchrony and movement variables with confidence intervals.
| Variable | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Intrapersonal synchrony | ||||||||
| 2. Interpersonal synchrony (Dyad) | 0.83** | |||||||
| [0.74, 0.90] | ||||||||
| 3. Other’s intrapersonal synchrony | 0.71** | 0.83** | ||||||
| [0.56, 0.81] | [0.74, 0.90] | |||||||
| 4. Velocity | −0.25* | −0.09 | −0.09 | |||||
| [−0.46, −0.01] | [−0.32, 0.16] | [−0.32, 0.16] | ||||||
| 5. Dyad’s velocity | −0.18 | −0.10 | −0.18 | 0.90** | ||||
| [−0.41, 0.06] | [−0.43, 0.25] | [−0.41, 0.06] | [0.85, 0.94] | |||||
| 6. Other’s velocity | −0.09 | −0.09 | −0.25* | 0.63** | 0.90** | |||
| [−0.32, 0.16] | [−0.32, 0.16] | [−0.46, −0.01] | [0.46, 0.76] | [0.85, 0.94] | ||||
| 7. SD | −0.16 | −0.10 | −0.01 | 0.80** | 0.67** | 0.41** | ||
| [−0.39, 0.08] | [−0.33, 0.15] | [−0.25, 0.24] | [0.68, 0.87] | [0.51, 0.78] | [0.19, 0.60] | |||
| 8. Dyad’s SD | −0.10 | −0.12 | −0.10 | 0.73** | 0.81** | 0.73** | 0.83** | |
| [−0.33, 0.15] | [−0.44, 0.24] | [−0.33, 0.15] | [0.59, 0.82] | [0.64, 0.90] | [0.59, 0.82] | [0.74, 0.89] | ||
| 9. Other’s SD | −0.01 | −0.10 | −0.16 | 0.41** | 0.67** | 0.80** | 0.38** | 0.83** |
| [−0.25, 0.24] | [−0.33, 0.15] | [−0.39, 0.08] | [0.19, 0.60] | [0.51, 0.78] | [0.68, 0.87] | [0.15, 0.57] | [0.74, 0.89] |
All correlations were calculated with the Pearson method. Where correlations involve two dyad-level variables, df = 31; for all other pairs, df = 64. “Velocity” indicates average total velocity per frame. “SD” indicates average of the limb segment-wise standard deviations of velocity. Values in square brackets indicate the 95% confidence interval for each correlation. The confidence interval is a plausible range of population correlations that could have caused the sample correlation[69]. *Indicates p < 0.05. **Indicates p < 0.01.
Figure 3Fixed effects of synchrony on post-BCT positive affect and difficulties with modulation of affect. These depict synchrony fixed effects of two multilevel linear mixed effects models. Not pictured are control variables of each model: pre-BCT values of respective dependent variable and the random effect of dyad assignment. Positive affect refers to the PA subscale of Positive and Negative Affect Scale and Modulate (difficulties) refers to the Modulate subscale of State-Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale, scored so that higher values indicate more difficulties with self-regulation of affect. Blue (circle) indicates effects at the individual-level intrapersonal synchrony step. Orange (square) indicates effects at the dyad-level interpersonal synchrony step (full main effects model). 95% confidence distribution is provided for each effect.
Figure 4Relationships of interpersonal synchrony with positive affect and modulation difficulties accounting pre-BCT scores on respective measures, random effects of dyad, and the effect of intrapersonal synchrony.
Full linear mixed effects model testing trade-off hypothesis of difficulties in self-regulation in affect.
|
|
| Modulate (difficulties) Post-BCT | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| Intercept | 0 | −0.12–0.12 | 1 | 0 | −0.12–0.12 | 1 | 0 | −0.12–0.12 | 1 | 0.02 | −0.13–0.16 | 0.829 | |
| Modulate (difficulties) Pre-BCT | 0.9 | 0.80–1.01 | <0.001 | 0.91 | 0.79–1.02 | <0.001 | 0.89 | 0.78–1.00 | <0.001 | 0.789 | 0.89 | 0.78–1.00 | <0.001 |
| Intrapersonal synchrony | 0.01 | −0.12–0.13 | 0.923 | −0.18 | −0.38–0.02 | 0.086 | 0.073 | −0.17 | −0.38–0.03 | 0.092 | |||
| Interpersonal synchrony | 0.23 | 0.02–0.43 |
| 0.185 | 0.25 | 0.02–0.47 |
| ||||||
| Interaction of Intra- and interpersonal synchrony | −0.02 | −0.11–0.07 | 0.681 | ||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
| σ2 | 0.17 | 0.17 | 0.15 | 0.15 | |||||||||
| τ00 | 0.05Dyad | 0.05 Dyad | 0.05 Dyad | 0.06 Dyade | |||||||||
| ICC | 0.22 Dyad | 0.22 Dyad | 0.26 Dyad | 0.28 Dyad | |||||||||
| Observations | 66 | 66 | 66 | 66 | |||||||||
| Marginal R2/Conditional R2 | 0.794/0.839 | 0.792/0.837 | 0.802/0.854 | 0.800 / 0.855 | |||||||||
R2 were computed using standardized generalized variance approach[70]. Test of trade-off hypothesis in bold. 95% CI reported.
Figure 5Setting of the Body-Conversation Task (BCT). Each participant could move in a semi-elliptical space of 2.5 m width and 1.65 m depth. Cameras were placed at a 1.6 m distance from the ellipsis and at a 5.7 m distance from each other. They were oriented at 80° to the vertical and at 1.25 m height from the ground.