In and out of synchrony—Behavioral and physiological dynamics of dyadic interpersonal coordination

Abstract

Interpersonal synchrony, the temporal coordination of actions, emotions, thoughts and physiological processes, is a widely studied ubiquitous phenomenon. Research has already established that more synchrony is not always more beneficial, especially in the fields of emotional and physiological synchrony. Despite this fact, the dominant tone in the literature is that behavioral interpersonal synchrony is a pro‐social phenomenon, and hence, in social contexts, more behavioral synchrony is generally considered better. In accordance with that tone, the naturally occurring dynamics of moving in and out of synchrony have rarely been studied or considered as an adaptive state. In the present article, we aim to present a new model of interpersonal synchrony, based on the existing literature assessing synchrony as well as the ideas of complex dynamical systems. At the core of our model is the idea that two tendencies exist simultaneously, one to synchronize with others and another to move out of synchrony and act independently. We suggest that an adaptive interpersonal system is a flexible one, able to continuously adjust itself to the social context. We suggest that the concept of meta‐stability might be a marker of such a flexible interpersonal system. Moreover, the model considers both behavioral and physiological aspects in order to provide a more extensive account. We present research implications of the model, as well as a demonstration of the model's applicability to data, and provide code researchers can use to analyze their own data in these methods. Finally, we discuss future directions in detail.

Forms and Functions of Affective Synchrony

“…It allows dyads to co-regulate each other, learn appropriate emotional responses, engage in empathy-related simulation processes, and strengthen their bonds. And as with other forms of interpersonal synchrony, affective synchrony is most adaptive when dyads flexibly synchronize at relevant moments in an interaction (Mayo & Gordon, 2020).…”

“…But even functional behaviors can be dysfunctional if they are insensitive to context. Constant, perfect synchrony is maladaptive (Mayo & Gordon, 2020). After all, if partners perfectly matched each other, they would be unable to benefit from having two brains and bodies rather than one.…”

“…Indeed, synchrony tends to occur less than half of the time in a functioning dyad (Feniger-Schaal et al, 2016;Noy et al, 2011). Mayo and Gordon (2020) refer to dyadic synchrony as a "meta-stable" phenomenon, meaning the dyad does not stably maintain a constant synchronous state, but rather the flexible ability to alternate between synchronous and independent behavior. We have already seen evidence that dyads calibrate their affective synchrony to fit the demands of the interaction (Zhao et al, under review).…”

Body synchrony in triadic interaction

“…A general observation here is that synchrony varies rather widely across an interaction, suggesting interaction partners form a more loosely coupled system than may be assumed from average analysis (cf. [ 49 , 50 ]).

Figure 3.

…”

Concordance in parent and offspring cortico-basal ganglia white matter connectivity varies by parental history of major depressive disorder and early parental care

“…As mammals, our brain develops through the process of ‘biobehavioral synchrony’, the on-going exchanges of behavioral, hormonal and physiological signals between parent and offspring during social contact (Feldman, 2012). In humans, concordance in parent–offspring physiological processes is based not only on proximity and touch, as seen in other mammals ( Curley and Champagne, 2016 ), but also on shared empathic experiences, social understanding and perspective-taking, and has been suggested as a potential mechanism underlying human social bonding ( Creaven et al , 2014 ; Ebisch et al , 2012 ; Feldman et al , 2010 , 2011 ; Mayo and Gordon, 2020 ; van Bakel and Riksen-Walraven, 2008 ).…”