Supplemental Materials

Physiological Linkage in Couples and Its Implications for Individual and Interpersonal Functioning: A Literature Review

by A. C. Timmons et al., 2015, Journal of Family Psychology

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/fam0000115


Appendix A

Study Methodology

Article / Physiological Linkage Analyses
Atzil et al. (2012) / Obtained a correlation value representing covariation in each couple’s brain responses and tested whether the mean value across the couples was significantly different than zero.
Berg & Wynne-Edwards (2002) / Obtained a correlation value representing covariation in each couple’s hormones and tested whether the mean value across the couples was significantly different than zero.
Bloch et al. (2014) / Tested the significance of the correlation between females and males in their time to down-regulate their physiology.
Chatel-Goldman et al. / Computed cross-correlations and conducted a cross validation analysis in which they tested whether linkage values were greater in matched versus randomly paired dyads.
Ferrer & Helm (2013) / Used dynamical systems modeling to test whether model fit was significantly better with linkage parameters included, tested if linkage intercepts were significantly different than zero, and tested if there was a significant increase in linkage across tasks.
Hasler & Troxel (2010) / Created difference scores in partners’ sleep onset timing but did not report whether partners had significant linkage in sleep timing. Study was included because they did test whether these scores were significantly associated with other variables (e.g., relationship satisfaction).
Helm et al. (2012) / Used coupled oscillator models to test the significance of position and velocity cross-partner effects.
Helm et al. (2014) / Used an actor partner interdependence model to test whether there were significant partner effects (i.e., females’ physiology at time point one predicting males’ physiology at time point two and vice versa).
Hubler (2013) / Used an actor partner interdependence model to test whether there were significant partner effects (i.e., females’ physiology at time point one predicting males’ physiology at time point two and vice versa).
Laurent & Powers (2007) / Used multilevel modeling and tested whether the tau value was significant.
Levenson & Gottman (1983, 1985) / Used time series to obtain Z scores representing linkage for each person. They did not report whether the sample had significant linkage overall. Study was included because they did test whether these scores were significantly associated with other variables (e.g., marital satisfaction).
Liu et al. (2013) / Used multilevel modeling to test whether the parameter value representing covariation in partners’ physiology was significant.
McAssey et al. (2013) / Used the empirical mode decomposition model and the structural heteroscedastic measurement error model to test whether there was a significant increase in the linkage across tasks or tested whether the slope representing the linear association between partners’ physiology was significant.
Papp et al. (2013) / Used multilevel modeling to test whether the parameter value representing covariation in partners’ physiology was significant.
Reed et al. (2013) / Used multilevel modeling to test whether the parameter value representing covariation in partners’ physiology was significant.
Reuf (2001) / Used time series to obtain Z scores representing linkage for each person. Author did not test whether the sample had significant linkage overall but did report the proportion of significant Z scores (males = .35; females = .33). Study was included because they did test whether these scores were significantly associated with other variables (e.g., empathic accuracy).
Sauder (2001) / Used time series to obtain Z scores representing linkage for each person. Author did not test whether the sample had significant linkage overall. Study was included because they did test whether these scores were significantly associated with other variables (e.g., marital satisfaction).
Saxbe et al. (2014) / Used multilevel modeling to test whether the parameter value representing covariation in partners’ physiology was significant.
Saxbe & Repetti (2010) / Used multilevel modeling to test whether the parameter value representing covariation in partners’ physiology was significant.
Schneiderman et al. (2014) / Tested the significance of the correlation between females’ and males’ hormones.
Schreiber et al. (2006) / Used intra-class correlations to test covariation in cortisol among females and males.
Storey et al. (2000) / Tested the significance of the correlation between females’ and males’ hormones.
Thomsen & Gilbert (1998) / Used time series to obtain Z scores representing linkage for each person. They did not test whether the sample had significant linkage overall, but they did report the mean value of the Z scores (M EDA Z score = 2.84; M HR Z score = 3.29). Study was included because they did test whether these scores were significantly associated with other variables (e.g., marital satisfaction).

Appendix B

Participant Characteristics

Article / N (Couples) / Agea (Years) / Relationship Type / Children / Relationship Length (Years)
Atzil et al. (2012) / 15 / 22-37; M = 29.3; SD = 3.5 / Married / Yes / Not reported
Berg & Wynne-Edwards (2002) / 9 / Fs: 27-36; Mdn =31
Ms: 27-43; Mdn = 33 / Not reported / Before and after birth of child / Not reported
Bloch et al. (2014) / 82 middle aged
74 older adult / Middle aged: M = 44.0; SD = 3.0
Older: 62.1; SD = 3.0 / Married / 96% of sample / Middle aged: M = 21.7; SD = 3.4
Older: M = 40.7; SD = 3.6
Chatel-Goldman et al. (2014) / 14 / Fs: M = 25.4; SD = 3.5
Ms: M = 26.1; SD = 3.7 / Romantic relationship
( 6 months) / Not reported / .5-5; M = 2.9
Ferrer & Helm (2013); Helm et al. (2012, 2014)b / 32 / 18-59; M = 30.3; SD =11.9 / Not reported / Not reported / 1.5-34.8; M = 8.2; SD = 8.6
Hasler & Troxel (2010) / 29 / 18-45 / Co-sleeping
(6 months-10 years) / No / Not reported
Hubler (2013)c / 72 / Fs: M =23.9; SD = 4.7
Ms: M = 24.2; SD = 4.0 / Committed relationship / 30.6% of the sample / M = 3.7; SD = 3.3
Laurent & Powers (2007) / 199 / 18-21
Fs: M = 19.4; SD = .8
Ms: M = 19.1; SD = .8 / Romantic relationship
( 2 months) / Not reported / .2- > than 3
Levenson & Gottman (1983) / 30 / Not reported / Married / Not reported / Not reported
Levenson & Gottman (1985) / 19 / Not reported / Married / Not reported / Not reported
Liu et al. (2013) / 19 / Fs: M = 39.1; SD = 9.4
Ms: M = 41.4; SD = 9.1 / Married or cohabitating / 79% of sample / Living together or married M = 12.0;
SD = 11.7
McAssey et al. (2013) / 4 / 26-32 / Exclusively dating or married / Not reported / .7-5.9; M = 3.6; SD = 2.2
Papp et al. (2013) / 47 / Fs: M = 43; SD = 6
Ms: M = 45; SD = 7 / Married / Yes / Living together
M = 15; SD = 7
Reed et al. (2013) / 44 / 19-69; M = 31.7;
SD = 12.7 / Committed relationship
( 6 weeks) / Not reported / .25-39; M = 6.2; SD = 7.2
Reuf (2001) / 149 / 40-70 / Married / Not reported / M = 30.1 years
Sauder (2001) / 30 / 20-74; M = 34.7; SD = 12.4 / Married / 0-6 children / 1-53.3; M = 9.0; SD = 12.7
Saxbe et al. (2014) / 103 / Not reported / Not reported / Yes / Not reported
Saxbe & Repetti (2010) / 30 / Fs: 28-50; Ms: 32-58; Mdn = 41 / Cohabitating / Yes / Married 3-18; Mdn = 13
Schneiderman et al. (2014) / 60 couples and 40 singles / Fs: M = 22.8; SD = 4.5;
Ms: M = 25.0; SD = 8.8
(for couples) / Romantic relationship
(1.5-3 months) / Not reported / .1-.3; M = .2; SD = .1
Schreiber et al. (2006) / Sample 1: 221
Sample 2: 74 / Sample 1: Fs: 25-49;
M = 35.0; SD = 3.9; Ms: 26-57; M = 36.9; SD = 4.1
Sample 2: Fs: 26-50; M = 38; SD = 4.5 Ms: 27-58; M = 40.4; SD = 5.2 / Not reported / Yes / Not reported
Storey et al. (2000) / 34 / 25-40 / Not reported / Before and/or after childbirth / Not reported
Thomsen & Gilbert (1998) / 32 / 20-35; M = 25.8; SD = 4.2 / Married / Not reported / Married M = 3.3;
SD = 2.6

Note. aFs = females; Ms = males. bMultiple studies using the same sample. cStudy analyses included multiple samples sizes. Demographic information is reported for the largest sample used to examine the main study hypotheses.