Group‐level physiological synchrony and individual‐level anxiety predict positive affective behaviors during a group decision‐making task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Joint performance can lead to the synchronization of physiological processes among group members during a shared task. Recently, it has been shown that synchronization is indicative of subjective ratings of group processes and task performance. However, different methods have been used to quantify synchronization, and little is known about the effects of the choice of method and level of analysis (individuals, dyads, or triads) on the results. In this study, participants performed a decision-making task in groups of three while physiological signals (heart rate and electrodermal activity), positive affective behavior, and personality traits were measured. First, we investigated the effects of different levels of analysis of physiological synchrony on affective behavior. We computed synchrony measures as (a) individual contributions to group synchrony, (b) the average dyadic synchrony within a group, and (c) group-level synchrony. Second, we assessed the association between physiological synchrony and positive affective behavior. Third, we investigated the moderating effects of trait anxiety and social phobia on behavior. We discovered that the effects of physiological synchrony on positive affective behavior were particularly strong at the group level but nonsignificant at the individual and dyadic levels. Moreover, we found that heart rate and electrodermal synchronization showed opposite effects on group members' display of affective behavior. Finally, trait anxiety moderated the relationship between physiological synchrony and affective behavior, perhaps due to social uncertainty, while social phobia did not have a moderating effect. We discuss these results regarding the role of different physiological signals and task demands during joint action.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".