CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 7Attachment and Relationship DynamicsMental Health Research TopicsAction Observation and Synchronization

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 20 of the 20 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Measuring physiological influence in dyads: A guide to designing, implementing, and analyzing dyadic physiological studies

Thorson, Katherine R., West, Tessa Victoria, mendes, wendy berry·2017·PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints)
DOI 10.31234/osf.io/9ndkf
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Scholars across domains in psychology, physiology, and neuroscience have long been interested in the study of shared physiological experiences between people. Recent technological and analytic advances allow researchers to examine new questions about how shared physiological experiences come about. Yet, comprehensive guides that address the theoretical, methodological, and analytic components of studying these processes are lacking. The goal of this paper is to provide such a guide. We begin by addressing basic theoretical issues in the study of shared physiological states by presenting five guiding theoretical principles for making psychological inferences from physiological influence—the extent to which one dyad member’s physiology predicts the other dyad member’s physiology at a future time point. Second, keeping theoretical and conceptual concerns at the forefront, we outline considerations and recommendations for designing, implementing, and analyzing dyadic psychophysiological studies. In so doing, we discuss the different types of physiological measures one could use to address different theoretical questions. Third, we provide three illustrative examples in which we estimate physiological influence, using the stability and influence model. We conclude by providing detail about power analyses for the model and by comparing the strengths and limitations of this model to pre-existing models.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.31234/osf.io/9ndkf

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Within a day, there are emergent influences that shape acute stress processes - phenomena such as stress contagion that are not mediated through conscious perception.

    “For example, we know that within a day, there are emergent influences that shape acute stress processes – phenomena such as stress contagion that are not mediated through conscious perception (Palumbo et al., 2017; Thorson et al., 2017).”

    From More than a feeling: A unified view of stress measurement for population science (2018) · cites this paper as Thorson et al., 2017

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Thorson, K. R., West, T. V., & mendes, W. B.
Affiliations
  • New York University (US)
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
Corresponding author
Thorson, Katherine R.
ORCID
Venue
PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints)
Publisher
Center for Open Science
Published
2017-09-11
DOI
10.31234/osf.io/9ndkf
OpenAlex
W4246291847
Cited by
7
References
20
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (acceptedVersion)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Action Observation and Synchronization
Keywords
power analysis, physiological measures

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review