Zotero Chunk RAG

ences between talking and listening (-2LL  4370.0). Based on
these results, we conclude that Model 6 remains the best model for
the data because the first model gives a difference of 0.6 for three
extra parameters (which would be highly nonsignificant if the
models were nested), and the second fits the data slightly worse.
Therefore, we do not have sufficient evidence from the data to
conclude that the cross-lagged effects change across tasks or
between listening and talking in the conversations.
Morphostatic Versus Morphogenic Processes
Butler and Randall (2013) suggested that coregulation manifests
as a morphostatic process rather than as a morphogenic process.
Following this proposition, average RSA should not change over
time. To test this hypothesis, we conducted a repeated-measures
analysis of variance to examine whether average RSA differs
we first created a variable defined as the product of the partners’
past RSA and relationship satisfaction and then added the new
term to Model 6 (its effect was labeled 4). Results from these
analyses indicate that partners’ levels of relationship satisfaction
moderated the cross-partner effect (4  .08, p  .01). An alter-
native model specification that that allowed the effect to vary
across gender did not improve the fit (2/df  .2, df  1, p 
.65). Accordingly, this pattern of effects suggests that those par-
ticipants with high relationship satisfaction, irrespective of their
gender, showed a stronger link between their RSA levels on a
given occasion and their partners’ RSA at the next occasion.
Discussion
One way in which close relationships may exert positive effects
on health is through social emotion regulation at the level of
physiology (Beckes & Coan, 2011; Coan, 2008; Sbarra & Hazan,
2008). In the current report, we operationalized this process as the
coregulation of RSA among two members of a romantic couple.
We tested the existence of physiological coregulation, change in
RSA as morphostatic versus morphogenic, and the moderating
effects of relationship satisfaction. Compared with resting levels,
men in our sample evidenced a significant increase in RSA when
engaged in discussion with their romantic partner, but such change
was not found for women. During the interaction tasks (but not
baseline) we observed positive cross-partner effects for RSA,
indicating that when one partner had high levels of RSA at a given
occasion, the other partner had reliably higher RSA at the follow-
ing occasion. Relationship satisfaction moderated this depen-
dence—people reporting a higher quality relationship, regardless
of their gender, showed significantly stronger RSA synchrony.
Finally, no differences were apparent for RSA during the conver-
sation tasks, suggesting that RSA manifests, at least in this study,
as a morphostatic rather than a morphogenic process.
Our findings are largely consistent with the perspective on
physiological coregulation proposed by Butler and Randall (2013).
S
ifi
ll
h
h
h
i
d
h
i
h
Coefficients From Best-Fitting Cross-Lagged Panel Model
(Model 6)
Task
Coefficient
Estimate
SE
t
p
Baseline
0m
6.30
.12
50.42
.01
1m
.62
.03
18.88
.01
2m
	.01
.03
	.08
.93
0f
6.50
.13
50.49
.01
1f
.62
.03
18.88
.01
2f
	.01
.03
	.08
.93
Conversation
0m
6.50
.12
52.31
.01
1m
.40
.04
9.09
.01
2m
.09
.03
2.87
.01
0f
6.56
.12
53.30
.01
1f
.53
.04
13.24
.01
2f
.09
.03
2.87
.01
Note.
0  the average RSA throughout the task; 1  the degree of
autocorrelation; 2 quantifies the level of cross-partner correlation; sub-
scripts m and f  male and female, respectively.
ted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.