Department of Psychology, New York University.
Department of Psychiatry, University of California, San Francisco.
Psychol Methods. 2018 Dec;23(4):595-616. doi: 10.1037/met0000166. Epub 2017 Dec 28.
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 occur. Yet comprehensive guides that address the theoretical, methodological, and analytic components of studying these processes are lacking. The goal of this article 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 with preexisting models. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).
学者们在心理学、生理学和神经科学等领域长期以来一直对研究人与人之间共享的生理体验感兴趣。最近的技术和分析进展使研究人员能够研究关于共享生理体验如何发生的新问题。然而，缺乏全面的指南来解决研究这些过程的理论、方法和分析组成部分。本文的目的是提供这样的指南。我们首先通过提出从生理影响中得出心理推论的五个指导理论原则来解决共享生理状态研究中的基本理论问题——一个对偶成员的生理在未来的时间点上预测另一个对偶成员的生理的程度。其次，我们在理论和概念方面保持领先地位，概述了设计、实施和分析对偶心理生理学研究的注意事项和建议。在这样做的过程中，我们讨论了用于解决不同理论问题的不同类型的生理测量。第三，我们使用稳定性和影响模型提供了三个说明性示例，在这些示例中我们估计了生理影响。最后，我们提供了有关该模型的功效分析的详细信息，并比较了该模型与现有模型的优缺点。（PsycINFO 数据库记录（c）2018 APA，保留所有权利）。
