Ana M DiGiovanni, Brett J Peters, Ashley Tudder, Abriana M Gresham, Niall Bolger
{"title":"Physiological synchrony in supportive discussions: An examination of co-rumination, relationship type, and heterogeneity.","authors":"Ana M DiGiovanni, Brett J Peters, Ashley Tudder, Abriana M Gresham, Niall Bolger","doi":"10.1111/psyp.14554","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>During times of stress, we look to close others for support. Social support conversations are critical for relationship maintenance and well-being. Yet, certain ways of talking about problems-such as co-ruminating-can exacerbate stress. Since social support and co-rumination are both dyadic processes, it is important to examine physiological responses during these conversations in a dyadic manner. Little research has examined physiological synchrony of the sympathetic nervous system (SNS) during social support conversations or co-ruminative conversations. The current research capitalizes on an experimental manipulation of co-rumination using a sample of close friends (147 dyads) and romantic partners (113 dyads) to examine physiological covariation in the context of support. Across both samples, dyads exhibited significant physiological covariation in pre-ejection period reactivity (PEP). Contrary to our hypothesis, dyads in the co-rumination condition did not show more covariation. Close friend dyads did, however, exhibit more covariation as compared to romantic dyads. We also found significant variability in physiological covariation across dyads, with a minority of dyads exhibiting negative covariation of PEP reactivity. The homogeneity of the samples limits the generalizability of the findings and highlights the need for more diverse samples in future work. These findings underline the need for further exploration into the mechanisms that contribute to distinct patterns of physiological synchrony, the conditions in which negative synchrony occurs, and what predicts especially strong positive synchrony. This work extends our understanding of physiological synchrony of the sympathetic nervous system during support conversations and emphasizes the importance of considering heterogeneity in physiological processes.</p>","PeriodicalId":20913,"journal":{"name":"Psychophysiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychophysiology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.14554","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/4/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
During times of stress, we look to close others for support. Social support conversations are critical for relationship maintenance and well-being. Yet, certain ways of talking about problems-such as co-ruminating-can exacerbate stress. Since social support and co-rumination are both dyadic processes, it is important to examine physiological responses during these conversations in a dyadic manner. Little research has examined physiological synchrony of the sympathetic nervous system (SNS) during social support conversations or co-ruminative conversations. The current research capitalizes on an experimental manipulation of co-rumination using a sample of close friends (147 dyads) and romantic partners (113 dyads) to examine physiological covariation in the context of support. Across both samples, dyads exhibited significant physiological covariation in pre-ejection period reactivity (PEP). Contrary to our hypothesis, dyads in the co-rumination condition did not show more covariation. Close friend dyads did, however, exhibit more covariation as compared to romantic dyads. We also found significant variability in physiological covariation across dyads, with a minority of dyads exhibiting negative covariation of PEP reactivity. The homogeneity of the samples limits the generalizability of the findings and highlights the need for more diverse samples in future work. These findings underline the need for further exploration into the mechanisms that contribute to distinct patterns of physiological synchrony, the conditions in which negative synchrony occurs, and what predicts especially strong positive synchrony. This work extends our understanding of physiological synchrony of the sympathetic nervous system during support conversations and emphasizes the importance of considering heterogeneity in physiological processes.
在遇到压力时,我们会向亲密的人寻求支持。社会支持对话对于人际关系的维护和幸福至关重要。然而,某些谈论问题的方式(如共同反思)会加剧压力。由于社会支持和共同倾诉都是双向的过程,因此以双向的方式研究这些对话过程中的生理反应非常重要。很少有研究对社会支持对话或共同反省对话期间交感神经系统(SNS)的生理同步性进行研究。目前的研究利用了共同唠叨的实验操作,使用亲密朋友样本(147 对)和恋爱伴侣样本(113 对)来研究支持背景下的生理共变。在这两个样本中,双人在排斥前反应期(PEP)表现出显著的生理共变性。与我们的假设相反,共同辱骂条件下的双亲并没有表现出更多的共变性。然而,与恋爱关系的双人组合相比,亲密朋友的双人组合确实表现出了更多的共变性。我们还发现,不同伴侣间的生理共变性存在显著差异,少数伴侣间的 PEP 反应性呈现负共变性。样本的同质性限制了研究结果的普适性,并强调在未来的工作中需要更多样化的样本。这些发现强调了进一步探索生理同步的不同模式的机制、负同步发生的条件以及预测特别强的正同步的因素的必要性。这项工作扩展了我们对支持对话期间交感神经系统生理同步性的理解,并强调了考虑生理过程异质性的重要性。
期刊介绍:
Founded in 1964, Psychophysiology is the most established journal in the world specifically dedicated to the dissemination of psychophysiological science. The journal continues to play a key role in advancing human neuroscience in its many forms and methodologies (including central and peripheral measures), covering research on the interrelationships between the physiological and psychological aspects of brain and behavior. Typically, studies published in Psychophysiology include psychological independent variables and noninvasive physiological dependent variables (hemodynamic, optical, and electromagnetic brain imaging and/or peripheral measures such as respiratory sinus arrhythmia, electromyography, pupillography, and many others). The majority of studies published in the journal involve human participants, but work using animal models of such phenomena is occasionally published. Psychophysiology welcomes submissions on new theoretical, empirical, and methodological advances in: cognitive, affective, clinical and social neuroscience, psychopathology and psychiatry, health science and behavioral medicine, and biomedical engineering. The journal publishes theoretical papers, evaluative reviews of literature, empirical papers, and methodological papers, with submissions welcome from scientists in any fields mentioned above.