LINKS BETWEEN PARTNER INTERACTIONS, EMPATHY, AND EVERYDAY PHYSIOLOGICAL SYNCHRONY IN OLDER COUPLES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Romantic partners exhibit dyadic covariation (synchrony) in physiological parameters. This study aims to link everyday cortisol synchrony to daily partner interactions and empathy. We conducted coordinated multilevel analysis using data from two independently collected samples of older couples (Study 1: N = 85 couples, aged 60-87 years; Study 2: N = 77 couples, aged 66-85 years) who completed questionnaires and provided salivary cortisol samples 5 to 7 times daily for 7 days. Cortisol levels were significantly correlated among partners in both studies. Cortisol synchrony was higher when partners were present (Study 1), and when partner interactions involved feeling understood and valued (Study 1) and seeking help or closeness (Study 2). Higher cortisol synchrony was further related to greater empathic accuracy (Study 1) and greater empathy (Study 2). Thus, social bonding processes and the ability to consider other’s thoughts and feelings may be intertwined with physiological synchrony in everyday life.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".