Partner influence and in-phase versus anti-phase physiological linkage in romantic couples

Rebecca G. Reed, Ashley Randall, Jessica H. Post, Emily A. Butler

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

42 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Between-partner physiological linkage can be in-phase (changes in unison), or anti-phase (changes in opposite directions). In the context of conversation we predicted that in-phase linkage would occur when partners exert strong influence on each other; anti-phase linkage would occur due to the behavioral coordination of turn taking. To test this, blood pressure, inter-beat interval, and skin conductance were recorded from 44 heterosexual couples while they discussed how they influence each other's health-related behaviors. Partner influence was assessed in two ways: 1) partners' global perceptions of how they try to influence each other's health; and 2) behavioral manifestations of influence, specifically demand-withdraw behavior. As predicted, both measures of partner influence moderated physiological linkage of blood pressure such that at low levels of influence linkage was "anti-phase" and at high levels linkage was "in-phase." Several alternative hypotheses were ruled out; the effects were not due to relationship conflict, emotional experience, or simply the pattern of blood pressure over time. These results suggest that partner influence may be driving physiological linkage, which may be one avenue through which partners can affect each other's health.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)309-316
Number of pages8
JournalInternational Journal of Psychophysiology
Volume88
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 2013

Fingerprint

Blood Pressure
Health
Heterosexuality
Skin
Direction compound
Conflict (Psychology)

Keywords

  • Demand-withdraw
  • Health
  • Influence
  • Physiological linkage
  • Romantic relationships

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Neuroscience(all)
  • Physiology (medical)
  • Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology

Cite this

Partner influence and in-phase versus anti-phase physiological linkage in romantic couples. / Reed, Rebecca G.; Randall, Ashley; Post, Jessica H.; Butler, Emily A.

In: International Journal of Psychophysiology, Vol. 88, No. 3, 06.2013, p. 309-316.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Reed, Rebecca G. ; Randall, Ashley ; Post, Jessica H. ; Butler, Emily A. / Partner influence and in-phase versus anti-phase physiological linkage in romantic couples. In: International Journal of Psychophysiology. 2013 ; Vol. 88, No. 3. pp. 309-316.
@article{d96a2216e2be4d5b946f710f0e3c83c4,
title = "Partner influence and in-phase versus anti-phase physiological linkage in romantic couples",
abstract = "Between-partner physiological linkage can be in-phase (changes in unison), or anti-phase (changes in opposite directions). In the context of conversation we predicted that in-phase linkage would occur when partners exert strong influence on each other; anti-phase linkage would occur due to the behavioral coordination of turn taking. To test this, blood pressure, inter-beat interval, and skin conductance were recorded from 44 heterosexual couples while they discussed how they influence each other's health-related behaviors. Partner influence was assessed in two ways: 1) partners' global perceptions of how they try to influence each other's health; and 2) behavioral manifestations of influence, specifically demand-withdraw behavior. As predicted, both measures of partner influence moderated physiological linkage of blood pressure such that at low levels of influence linkage was {"}anti-phase{"} and at high levels linkage was {"}in-phase.{"} Several alternative hypotheses were ruled out; the effects were not due to relationship conflict, emotional experience, or simply the pattern of blood pressure over time. These results suggest that partner influence may be driving physiological linkage, which may be one avenue through which partners can affect each other's health.",
keywords = "Demand-withdraw, Health, Influence, Physiological linkage, Romantic relationships",
author = "Reed, {Rebecca G.} and Ashley Randall and Post, {Jessica H.} and Butler, {Emily A.}",
year = "2013",
month = "6",
doi = "10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2012.08.009",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "88",
pages = "309--316",
journal = "International Journal of Psychophysiology",
issn = "0167-8760",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Partner influence and in-phase versus anti-phase physiological linkage in romantic couples

AU - Reed, Rebecca G.

AU - Randall, Ashley

AU - Post, Jessica H.

AU - Butler, Emily A.

PY - 2013/6

Y1 - 2013/6

N2 - Between-partner physiological linkage can be in-phase (changes in unison), or anti-phase (changes in opposite directions). In the context of conversation we predicted that in-phase linkage would occur when partners exert strong influence on each other; anti-phase linkage would occur due to the behavioral coordination of turn taking. To test this, blood pressure, inter-beat interval, and skin conductance were recorded from 44 heterosexual couples while they discussed how they influence each other's health-related behaviors. Partner influence was assessed in two ways: 1) partners' global perceptions of how they try to influence each other's health; and 2) behavioral manifestations of influence, specifically demand-withdraw behavior. As predicted, both measures of partner influence moderated physiological linkage of blood pressure such that at low levels of influence linkage was "anti-phase" and at high levels linkage was "in-phase." Several alternative hypotheses were ruled out; the effects were not due to relationship conflict, emotional experience, or simply the pattern of blood pressure over time. These results suggest that partner influence may be driving physiological linkage, which may be one avenue through which partners can affect each other's health.

AB - Between-partner physiological linkage can be in-phase (changes in unison), or anti-phase (changes in opposite directions). In the context of conversation we predicted that in-phase linkage would occur when partners exert strong influence on each other; anti-phase linkage would occur due to the behavioral coordination of turn taking. To test this, blood pressure, inter-beat interval, and skin conductance were recorded from 44 heterosexual couples while they discussed how they influence each other's health-related behaviors. Partner influence was assessed in two ways: 1) partners' global perceptions of how they try to influence each other's health; and 2) behavioral manifestations of influence, specifically demand-withdraw behavior. As predicted, both measures of partner influence moderated physiological linkage of blood pressure such that at low levels of influence linkage was "anti-phase" and at high levels linkage was "in-phase." Several alternative hypotheses were ruled out; the effects were not due to relationship conflict, emotional experience, or simply the pattern of blood pressure over time. These results suggest that partner influence may be driving physiological linkage, which may be one avenue through which partners can affect each other's health.

KW - Demand-withdraw

KW - Health

KW - Influence

KW - Physiological linkage

KW - Romantic relationships

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84884140321&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84884140321&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2012.08.009

DO - 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2012.08.009

M3 - Article

VL - 88

SP - 309

EP - 316

JO - International Journal of Psychophysiology

JF - International Journal of Psychophysiology

SN - 0167-8760

IS - 3

ER -