| Literature DB >> 31877832 |
Andrea Bizzego1, Atiqah Azhari2, Nicola Campostrini1, Anna Truzzi3, Li Ying Ng2, Giulio Gabrieli2, Marc H Bornstein4,5, Peipei Setoh2, Gianluca Esposito1,2.
Abstract
The mere copresence of another person synchronizes physiological signals, but no study has systematically investigated the effects of the type of emotional state and the type of relationship in eliciting dyadic physiological synchrony. In this study, we investigated the synchrony of pairs of strangers, companions, and romantic partners while watching a series of video clips designed to elicit different emotions. Maximal cross-correlation of heart rate variability (HRV) was used to quantify dyadic synchrony. The findings suggest that an existing social relationship might reduce the predisposition to conform one's autonomic responses to a friend or romantic partner during social situations that do not require direct interaction.Entities:
Keywords: dyads; emotion; heart rate variability; physiological synchrony; relationship
Year: 2019 PMID: 31877832 PMCID: PMC7017247 DOI: 10.3390/bs10010011
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Behav Sci (Basel) ISSN: 2076-328X
Figure 1Data analysis: (A) Pipeline for the processing of the electrocardiogram (ECG) signal with the four main steps and the final result with the real and surrogate inter-beat interval (IBI) series signal for one subject and stimulus. (B) Three types of physiological synchrony and computation schemes, with the output distribution of the measures.
Figure 2Distribution of the three types of physiological synchrony for each group of relationship and stimulus.
Results of the Mann–Whitney tests to compare between surrogate, stimulus, and copresence synchrony for each type of stimulus and type of relationship: Original p-values are reported. The results that remain significant after the correction for multiple hypotheses are in bold.
| Emotion | Relationship | Surrogate vs Stimulus | Stimulus vs Copresence | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| U |
| U |
| ||
| EMBARRASS | Strangers | 17341 | 1313 | ||
| Friends | 30042 |
| 2576 | ||
| Lovers | 15920 |
| 1892 | ||
| SAD | Strangers | 12707 |
| 1571 | |
| Friends | 27963 |
| 2356 | ||
| Lovers | 10629 |
| 2274 | ||
| FEAR | Strangers | 14581 | 1083 |
| |
| Friends | 31537 | 2663 | |||
| Lovers | 20119 | 1869 | |||
| CALMNESS | Strangers | 11565 |
| 1215 | |
| Friends | 32648 | 2489 | |||
| Lovers | 16037 |
| 1308 |
| |
| ROMANCE | Strangers | 11285 |
| 1233 | |
| Friends | 30897 |
| 1972 |
| |
| Lovers | 16660 |
| 1584 | ||
| PRIDE | Strangers | 14944 | 1064 |
| |
| Friends | 27676 |
| 2760 | ||
| Lovers | 17289 |
| 2054 | ||
Results of the Mann–Whitney tests to compare the distribution of the copresence synchrony between the different relationship groups.
| Emot. | Strangers vs Friends | Friends vs Lovers | Strangers vs Lovers | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| U |
| U |
| U |
| |
| EMBARRASS | 187 | 218 | 170 | |||
| SAD | 190 | 195 | 183 | |||
| FEAR | 176 | 190 | 120 | |||
| CALMNESS | 149 | 160 | 188 | |||
| ROMANCE | 214 | 204 | 174 | |||
| PRIDE | 169 | 170 | 116 | |||