Respiratory sinus arrhythmia reactivity moderates within-person associations of daily capitalization with positive affect and relationship quality

Abstract

Respiratory sinus arrhythmia (RSA) has been conceptualized as a biomarker of a neurophysiological system supporting social behaviors. Capitalization, the interpersonal process of sharing positive experiences with close others, has been associated with improved intrapersonal and interpersonal functioning. The present study examined whether RSA moderated the within-person associations of daily capitalization with positive affect and relationship quality. Participants (N = 149) completed an electrocardiogram recording during a resting baseline and a worry induction period, as well as a 14-day daily diary assessment of capitalization, positive affect, and relationship quality. Results indicated that RSA reactivity moderated the within-person effects of daily capitalization on positive affect and relationship quality. On days when they did not capitalize, individuals with higher RSA reactivity experienced lower positive affect and poorer relationship quality than their counterparts with lower RSA reactivity. In contrast, no significant differences were observed between participants with lower and higher RSA reactivity on days when they capitalized. These results provide further evidence that RSA reactivity shapes sensitivity to social context, including one’s responses to the lack of usual capitalization interactions.

Keywords

Capitalization heart rate variability positive affect social baseline theory social functioning respiratory sinus arrhythmia

Social relationships play a pivotal role in one’s health and well-being (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). While past research has mostly focused on social relationships as a source of social support to cope with negative events, recent research has emphasized their role in responding to positive events (Gable, Reis, Impett, & Asher, 2004). Capitalization, defined as the process of disclosing positive personal events to others (Gable et al., 2004; Langston, 1994), is associated with both intrapersonal and interpersonal benefits (Gable & Reis, 2010). However, not everyone benefits equally from capitalization. For example, individuals with low self-esteem or high attachment avoidance benefited less from capitalization than their counterparts with high self-esteem and high attachment security (Gosnell & Gable, 2013; Smith & Reis, 2012). Respiratory sinus arrhythmia (RSA), a marker of parasympathetic functioning, is thought to index a neurophysiological system supporting social engagement behavior (Porges, 2007). Given the evidence for RSA as a biomarker of sensitivity to social context (Muhtadie, Koslov, Akinola, & Mendes, 2015), individual differences in RSA may also impact the capitalization process.

Intrapersonal and interpersonal benefits of capitalization

In everyday life, positive events occur more frequently than negative events (Gable et al., 2004). A common response to positive events is to share them with close others; it is estimated that people share positive events with others on 60–80% of days (Gable et al., 2004). Whereas the goal of traditional social support is to decrease the impact of negative experiences, the aim of capitalization interactions is to enhance positive experiences (Gable & Reis, 2010). The act of sharing positive events is associated with increased positive affect, over and above the positive emotions elicited by the events themselves (Gable et al., 2004; Lambert et al., 2013). In daily diary studies, on days when people share positive events with others, they report greater positive affect compared to days when they do not engage in capitalization (Gable et al., 2004). In an experimental study, individuals randomized to share positive events with a confederate reported greater increases in positive affect, compared to writing about the event, or discussing a neutral event (Lambert et al., 2013).

In addition to its intrapersonal benefits on positive mood, capitalization has been associated with interpersonal benefits such as increased intimacy, connectedness, and relationship quality with close others (Demir, Haynes, & Potts, 2017; Otto, Laurenceau, Siegel, & Belcher, 2015; Pagani et al., 2015; Reis et al., 2010). However, interpersonal factors moderate the effects of capitalization (Peter, Reis, & Gable, 2018). Studies have shown that close others’ responses to the disclosure of positive events influence both the intrapersonal and interpersonal effects of capitalization (Gable et al., 2004; Otto et al., 2015; Reis et al., 2010). Responses to capitalization attempts have been classified into active-constructive (i.e., enthusiastic response from others), passive-constructive (i.e., quiet, understated support), active-destructive (i.e., quashing the event), or passive-destructive responses (i.e., ignoring the event) (Gable et al., 2004). Capitalization attempts that are met with enthusiastic responses from close others lead to increases in positive affect and relationship quality (Gable et al., 2004; Lambert et al., 2013; Reis et al., 2010), while other responses to capitalization are not associated with intrapersonal and interpersonal benefits. Capitalization is thus an interpersonal process that can promote better intrapersonal and interpersonal functioning.

A number of individual characteristics influence the capitalization process. Individuals with low self-esteem perceived less responsiveness to capitalization attempts after a relationship threat (Smith & Reis, 2012). High social anxiety was related to lower engagement in capitalization interactions (Kashdan, Ferssizidis, Farmer, Adams, & McKnight, 2013). Higher attachment avoidance was associated with the perception of fewer active-constructive responses to capitalization from romantic partners and to smaller increases in positive affect following capitalization attempts (Gosnell & Gable, 2013; Hicks & Diamond, 2008; Shallcross, Howland, Bemis, Simpson, & Frazier, 2011). Individuals with high attachment anxiety reported lower relationship satisfaction on days when their partners were less responsive than average to their capitalization attempts (Gosnell & Gable, 2013). Furthermore, although individuals with elevated depressive symptoms were less likely to share positive events with others, they benefited more from capitalization attempts when they did share positive events with others (Hershenberg, Davila, & Leong, 2014). Together, these studies indicate that although capitalization leads to intrapersonal and interpersonal benefits on average, individual characteristics moderate the effects of the capitalization process.

RSA and social functioning

RSA is a marker of parasympathetic functioning that may influence responses to the capitalization process. According to Porges’ polyvagal theory, the mammalian autonomic nervous system evolved to support social engagement behavior (Porges, 2003b, 2007). Vagal-dependent modulation of cardiac activity allowed rapid shifts in energy mobilization that promoted the development of social engagement behaviors in response to stress, instead of the more metabolically costly fight or flight response (Porges, 2003a). The theory suggests that throughout vertebrate evolution, structural and functional connections emerged among brain stem nuclei involved in the neural control of cardiac activity, the striated muscles of the face, and the smooth muscles of the viscera. In mammals engaging in more complex social behaviors, the brain stem nuclei regulating heart rate activity became connected to the soft palate, pharynx, larynx, eyelid, middle ear, and other facial muscles involved in emotional expression and social communication behaviors, allowing for the coordination of physiological and behavioral states supporting social engagement responses (Porges, 2003a).

The polyvagal theory posits that autonomic states constrain the types of social behavior that can be expressed at a given moment. The vagus nerve, linking peripheral physiology and central functions, plays a key role in quickly shifting autonomic states to modulate the repertoire of social and behavioral responses that can be expressed at a given time (Porges, 2003a). Accordingly, RSA has been conceptualized as a biomarker of this neurophysiological system supporting social engagement behavior (Porges, 2007). RSA is calculated from the fluctuations in intervals between consecutive heartbeats that are associated with the respiration cycle. At rest, the combined actions of the sympathetic and parasympathetic branches of the autonomic nervous system regulate cardiac activity. Vagal-dependent parasympathetic output provides tonic and fast-acting inhibitory influences on cardiac activity that are temporarily lifted during the inspiration phase of the respiration cycle, leading to fluctuations in interbeat intervals. RSA, or high-frequency heart rate variability, is thus a marker of vagally mediated parasympathetic output to the sinoatrial node of the heart (Berntson et al., 1997).

Tonic or resting RSA has been related to various markers of social engagement capacities. Higher resting RSA has been associated with more prosocial behavior (Beauchaine et al., 2013), better emotion recognition (Quintana, Guastella, Outhred, Hickie, & Kemp, 2012), greater attachment security (Diamond & Hicks, 2005; Maunder et al., 2012), better acculturation (Doucerain, Deschenes, Aubé, Ryder, & Gouin, 2016), and more positive marital functioning (Diamond, Hicks, & Otter-Henderson, 2011; Smith et al., 2011). Overall, individuals with higher resting RSA present with characteristics that facilitate optimal social functioning.

In addition to influencing social engagement capacity more broadly, RSA moderates affective responses to social interactions. Higher resting RSA was associated with a stronger association between the degree to which daily life events were considered social activities and positive affect (Isgett et al., 2017). Among dating couples, women with higher resting RSA showed a larger within-person association between their partner-reported positive marital interactions and their own positive affect, compared to women with lower RSA (Diamond et al., 2011). Individuals with higher resting RSA also exhibited a stronger association between high social support and fewer depressive symptoms over time (Hopp et al., 2013). Moreover, greater resting RSA at baseline was also associated with larger increases in positive affect and social connectedness over the course of a loving-kindness meditation intervention (Kok et al., 2013). RSA thus appears to modulate the impact of positive social interactions on mood.

RSA reactivity, the phasic change in RSA in response to a challenge, is another measure of vagal regulation (Berntson et al., 1997). Porges (2007) suggests that in the face of stress, vagal withdrawal, leading to a reduction in RSA, is an adaptive process that facilitates rapid energy mobilization to deal with the source of the threat. Exposure to stress tasks, negative emotion inductions, or cognitively demanding tasks are associated with significant RSA suppression or withdrawal (i.e., a significant decrease in RSA compared to a pre-task baseline) during the task (Kreibig, 2010; Mathewson et al., 2010; Shahrestani, Stewart, Quintana, Hickie, & Guastella, 2015). Although Porges argues that increased vagal activity facilitates social engagement behavior, meta-analyses indicate that positive social interaction tasks do not reliably lead to a change in RSA in and of themselves (Shahrestani, Stewart, Quintana, Hickie, & Guastella, 2014; Shahrestani et al., 2015). Nonetheless, RSA reactivity to social and nonsocial tasks has been found to be an independent predictor of a range of psychosocial outcomes, over and above differences in resting RSA (Beauchaine, 2015; Graziano & Derefinko, 2013). Notably, RSA reactivity was more strongly related to social functioning than resting RSA in some studies (Egizio et al., 2008; Muhtadie et al., 2015). The relationship between RSA reactivity and social functioning is complex, however. While some studies report that greater RSA suppression is associated with better social functioning, others studies found less suppression or even RSA augmentation to challenges to be associated with better social outcomes (Beauchaine et al., 2013; Egizio et al., 2008). Muhtadie, Koslov, Akinola, and Mendes (2015) propose that greater decreases in RSA in response to challenging tasks are associated with a greater sensitivity to social context. They showed that individuals with greater RSA reactivity displayed more prosocial behaviors in response to positive social feedback during a stress task, but fewer prosocial behaviors in response to negative social feedback, compared to participants with less RSA reactivity (Muhtadie et al., 2015). RSA reactivity may thus influence how one responds to capitalization interactions.

The present study

The objectives of the present study were to investigate whether individual differences in resting RSA and RSA reactivity would moderate the impact of capitalization on positive affect and relationship quality. To address this question, we conducted an RSA assessment followed by a daily diary study evaluating daily capitalization for 14 consecutive days. Given the positive social context created by capitalization interactions, we hypothesized that resting RSA and greater RSA reactivity during a worry task would moderate the within-person associations between capitalization and intrapersonal and interpersonal functioning, such that higher resting RSA and greater RSA suppression would be associated with stronger associations between daily capitalization and positive affect and relationship quality.

Method

Participants

One hundred and fifty-eight female undergraduate students (age range: 18–29 years), participated in the study in exchange for course credit. Given that sex differences in the associations between RSA reactivity and psychosocial outcomes have been observed in other studies and that there are sex differences in the magnitude of RSA reactivity, only females were included in the present study (Diamond et al., 2011; Diamond, Fagundes, & Cribbet, 2012; El-Sheikh & Erath, 2011). Exclusion criteria included taking medication known to affect cardiac function and smoking more than one cigarette per day. Data from nine participants were excluded due to electrocardiogram (ECG) equipment malfunction during either the resting baseline or the worry induction, leaving a final sample of 149 women (M = 21.75 years, SD = 1.93). The distribution of self-reported ethnicity was 60.1% White/Caucasian, 10.5% Middle Eastern, 7.2% Asian, 5.2% South Asian, 4.6% Black, 2.6% Latino, and 9.8% others. Approximately 43.4% of participants were currently involved in a committed romantic relationship. The Human Research Ethics Committee approved the study, and all participants provided written informed consent prior to participation.

Procedure

Participants individually attended a 45-min laboratory session during which their RSA was assessed at rest and during a worry induction task. This task was selected because it leads to reliable RSA suppression (Gouin, Deschenes, & Dugas, 2014; Gouin et al., 2015) and because RSA reactivity to emotional stress tasks shows stronger associations with adaptive outcomes than RSA reactivity to cognitive tasks (Graziano & Derefinko, 2013). Participants were first fitted with electrodes for the ECG recordings and seated in a comfortable chair. A television screen then prompted the participants to begin a 5-min resting period. Participants were instructed to close their eyes, to breathe normally, and to try to relax as much as possible without falling asleep. Following the resting period, the experimenter reentered the room and prompted the participant to engage in a worry induction task based on the protocol by Hofmann, Schulz, Heering, Muench, and Bufka (2010). Participants were presented with a definition of worry described as “a chain of negative thoughts about something that can have negative consequences for you in the future.” They were then asked to identify the topic that they “tend to worry the most often and the most intensely about” and to worry about this topic for the following 5 min. As a manipulation check, at the end of the worry induction, participants were verbally asked, “Of those five minutes, what percentage of the time did you spend worrying?” The average reported amount of time spent worrying was 81.69% (SD = 14.89).

Participants were asked to avoid strenuous exercise and the consumption of caffeine, alcohol, and tobacco in the 2 hr prior to the laboratory session. Participants remained seated for the duration of the recordings to limit the impact of postural changes on RSA. All laboratory sessions were scheduled between 12 p.m. and 5 p.m. to attenuate the influence of diurnal fluctuations in RSA (Berntson et al., 1997).

Following the laboratory session, participants were asked to complete an electronic daily diary for 14 consecutive days. They answered questions about daily capitalization attempts, perceived responses to capitalization attempts, positive affect, and social relationship quality every evening before going to bed. Participants completed on average 12.45 diaries (SD = 2.09).

Measures

Positive affect

Positive affect was assessed using 4 items selected from the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule–Expanded Form (Watson & Clark, 1999). The question “To what extent have you experienced the following feelings in the past 24 hours?” was followed by 4 items (happy, energetic, at ease, joyful). Participants responded to each item on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = very slightly/not at all to 5 = extremely. Cronbach’s α for this measure was .85 across the daily diary period. Daily positive affect was calculated as the sum of scores on the 4 items, with higher values reflecting greater positive affect.

Relationship quality

Participants indicated to what extent they felt intimacy and connectedness, joy, and stress or tension in their interactions with the following social groups: My partner, My best friend, Other friends, My family, My classmates, or coworkers (adapted from Otto et al., 2015; Zautra, Affleck, Tennen, Reich, & Davis, 2005). Items were rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = not at all to 5 = extremely. Participants could also choose the option “not applicable” when appropriate. Cronbach’s α for this measure was .88 across the daily diary period. The mean rating of relationship intimacy, joy, and tension (reverse coded) across social groups was used as the daily measure of relationship quality, with greater scores indicating greater perceived relationship quality.

Capitalization

Capitalization was assessed using 2 items in the daily diary. Participants were asked if someone had (1) “allowed you to share positive thoughts, feelings, or events during the day?” to assess for capitalization attempts. Subsequently, participants were asked if someone (2) “was excited about something positive that happened to you?” to assess for perceived active-constructive responses to capitalization attempts (Gable et al., 2004). Each of these items began with the stem, “Thinking about your social interactions today, which of the following individuals (check all that apply)…” followed by the options: My partner, My best friend, Other friends, My family, My classmates or coworkers, and No one. Each endorsed option was scored as 1, except for the option No one, which was scored as 0. Following past literature, we used a dichotomous variable to compare days with and without capitalization (Gable et al., 2004).¹

RSA measurement

Participants were fitted with three ECG snap electrodes in a lead II configuration. Data were collected using an ECG amplifier module within a Mindware BioNex 8-slot chassis (MindWare Technologies Ltd, Gahanna, Ohio, USA). Data acquisition was conducted at a sampling rate of 1000 Hz. Interbeat intervals were recorded continuously during the 5-min resting period and the 5-min worry induction, as described above. RSA data were analyzed using the MindWare RSA Analysis software, Version 3.1 (MindWare Technologies Ltd). Recording artifacts were identified using an automated algorithm and were visually screened and corrected when necessary. Less than 1% of beats were edited for each participant, except for nine participants who were excluded due to problematic recording during one or both of the tasks. RSA was extracted using a fast Fourier transform to compute the natural log of the .15 to .40-Hz frequency band of each 30-s epoch within each task, to isolate vagal-dependent parasympathetic influences on the heart. The resting RSA and the worry induction RSA were calculated by averaging the RSA value for all 30-s epochs within each task. RSA reactivity was computed by subtracting the worry period RSA from resting baseline RSA (Calkins, Graziano, & Keane, 2007). Greater values indicated larger RSA reactivity or larger decreases in RSA during the worry induction.

Statistical analysis

Data analysis was conducted using hierarchical linear modeling to account for the hierarchical structure (i.e., days nested within person) and the nonindependence of these intensive longitudinal data (i.e., each participant provided up to 14 days of daily diary data) (Bolger & Laurenceau, 2013). To examine the within-person effects of capitalization, dichotomous variables documenting the occurrence of capitalization attempts and perceived active-constructive responses to capitalization attempts were included at level 1 (Bolger & Laurenceau, 2013). All models included resting RSA and RSA reactivity at level 2 to examine their between-person main effects. To examine the moderating effect of resting RSA and RSA reactivity on the within-person association between capitalization and positive affect and relationship quality, a cross-level interaction using grand-mean-centered predictors was included in the model. The interaction effect was probed using a simple slope analysis, as suggested by Bauer and Curran (2005). A random effect was specified for the intercept and the slope of the dichotomous capitalization effects. The pseudo-R² method was used to quantify the proportion of the random effects variance that is explained by the addition of the cross-level interaction of interest (Snijders & Bosker, 1999). To account for the serial dependency of the daily diary data, a first-order auto-regressive covariance structure was also included in the model (Affleck, Zautra, Tennen, & Armeli, 1999). Missing data at level 1 were handled using restricted maximum likelihood estimation. Days into the study (centered at Day 1), as well as day of the week (i.e., weekday versus weekend), were additional covariates to account for the linear effect of time and weekend-related changes in positive affect and relationship quality. In accordance with prior studies, we focused on same day effects rather than lagged effects of capitalization (Otto et al., 2015). Statistical analyses were conducted using SAS PROC MIXED, version 9.4 (Cary, North Carolina, USA).

Results

Similar to prior research, participants shared positive experiences with others on 86% of days. They reported active-constructive responses to their capitalization attempts (i.e., enthusiastic responses from others) on 69% of days. Pearson’s correlations among the main study variables are found in Table 1.

Table 1.
Pearson’s correlations among the main study variables.

1 2 3 4 5 6

RSA at rest (1) —

RSA reactivity (2) .41 —

Capitalization attempts (3) .03 −.02 —

Active-constructive response to capitalization (4) .01 .02 .75 —

Positive affect (5) .08 .02 .52 .54 —

Relationship quality (6) .06 −.02 .47 .48 .66** —

M (SD) 6.84 (1.04) .28 (.71) 2.06 (.86) 1.45 (.81) 7.63 (3.56) 1.98 (0.52)

Note. RSA = respiratory sinus arrhythmia. The continuous capitalization attempts and active-constructive responses to capitalization variables represent the number of people with whom the respondents engaged in capitalization.

**p < .01.

Associations of daily capitalization with positive affect and perceived relationship quality

Two hierarchical linear models examined the within-person associations of capitalization attempts with positive affect and relationship quality. In both models, there was a significant weekend effect such that participants reported greater positive affect, β (SE) = 0.58 (0.15), t = 4.17, p < .001, 95% confidence interval (CI) [.30, .86], and greater relationship satisfaction, β (SE) = 0.08 (0.02), t = 4.00, p < .001, 95% CI [.06, .14], during weekends, compared to weekdays. Furthermore, there was a significant linear decrease in positive affect over the course of the daily diary period, β (SE) = −0.10 (0.02), t = 5.68, p < .001, 95% CI [−.14, −.07]. This was driven by positive affect on Day 1 being statistically higher than positive affect during the rest of the daily diary period. In contrast, there was no linear change in perceived relationship quality over time, β (SE) = −0.003 (0.003), t = 1.10, p = .24, 95% CI [−.01, .002].

Replicating prior research, hierarchical linear modeling revealed within-person effects of capitalization attempts on daily positive affect, β (SE) = 2.40 (0.25), t = 9.75, p < .001, 95% CI [1.92, 2.86], and on relationship quality, β (SE) = .49 (0.04), t = 12.73, p < .001, 95% CI [.41, .56]. This indicates that on days when participants reported capitalization attempts, they reported greater positive affect and higher relationship quality, compared to days without capitalization attempts. Furthermore, there were significant random effects for the within-person effects of capitalization on positive affect, π = 1.30 (SE = 0.77), p = .04, 95% CI [.53, 6.64], and perceived relationship quality, π = 0.04 (SE = 0.02), p = .02, 95% CI [.02, .13], indicating significant variability in the within-person effects of capitalization attempts on intrapersonal and interpersonal functioning.

Two hierarchical linear models examined the within-person associations of perceived active-constructive responses to capitalization with positive affect and relationship quality. Active-constructive responses to capitalization were associated with greater daily positive affect, β (SE) = 1.75 (0.18), t = 9.72, p < .001, 95% CI [1.40, 2.11], and relationship quality, β (SE) = 0.27 (0.03), t = 9.42, p < .001, 95% CI [.22, .33]. There were also significant random effects for the effects of active-constructive responses to capitalization for both positive affect, π = 0.89 (SE = 0.53), p = .04, 95% CI [.36, 4.71], and relationship quality, π = 0.03 (SE = 0.01), p = .003, 95% CI [.02, .08], indicating significant variability in the within-person effects of perceived active-constructive responses to capitalization.

RSA as a moderator of the effects of capitalization

Mean RSA was 6.84 (SD = 1.04) during the resting baseline and 6.55 (SD = 0.84) during the worry induction. Hierarchical linear modeling indicated that there was a significant reduction in RSA from the resting baseline to the worry induction, β (SE) = −0.29 (0.05), t = −5.03, p < .001, 95% CI [−.40, −.18]. Furthermore, there was a significant random effect for the change in RSA during the worry induction, π = 0.07 (SE = 0.03), p = .01, 95% CI [.57, .89], indicating significant individual differences in the RSA response to the worry task. Resting RSA was positively correlated with RSA reactivity to the worry induction (r = .41, p < .001), indicating that participants with higher resting RSA tended to show larger decreases in RSA during the worry task.

Results of the hierarchical linear models testing whether RSA moderated the within-person associations between capitalization attempts and daily positive affect and relationship quality are found in Table 2. There was no significant main effect of resting RSA and no significant interaction between resting RSA and capitalization. However, there was a significant main effect of RSA reactivity on positive affect and relationship quality, such that greater RSA reactivity was associated with lower positive affect and poorer relationship quality on average. In addition, there was a significant cross-level interaction between RSA reactivity and capitalization. Simple slope analyses indicated that on days when participants reported capitalization attempts, RSA reactivity was not significantly associated with daily positive affect and relationship quality. However, on days without capitalization attempts, greater RSA reactivity was related to lower daily positive affect and relationship quality. The interaction explained 27.21% of the random effect of capitalization attempts on daily positive affect and 29.27% of the random effect of capitalization attempts on daily relationship quality. Figures 1 and 2 depict the interactions between RSA reactivity and capitalization, predicting daily positive affect and relationship quality, respectively.

Table 2.
Hierarchical linear modeling of the within-person effects of daily capitalization attempts.

Positive affect Relationship quality

Fixed effects β (SE) t 95% CI β (SE) t 95% CI

Level 1—Within-person

Intercept 5.60 (.35) 16.02 [4.91, 6.29] 1.44 (.05) 26.69 [1.33, 1.55]

Days into the study −.11 (.02) −5.96 [−.15, −.07] −.002 (.002) −1.20 [−.008, .002]

Weekdays (0) versus weekend (1) .62 (.14) 4.31 [.33, .90] .10 (.02) 5.16 [.06, .14]

Within-person effect of capitalization 2.31 (.25) 9.31 [1.82, 2.80] .47 (.04) 11.93*** [.39, .55]

Level 2—Between-person

RSA at rest .40 (.31) 1.30 [−.21, 1.02] .08 (.05) 1.57 [−.02, 19]

RSA reactivity −1.10 (.50) −2.20* [−2.09, −.11] −.17 (.08) −2.03* [−.34, .004]

Cross-level interactions

Capitalization Attempts × RSA at Rest −.14 (.29) −.49 [−.72, .44] −.06 (.04) 1.38 [−.15, .03]

Capitalization Attempts × RSA Reactivity 1.13 (.47) 2.42* [.21, 2.07] .16 (.07) 2.16* [.01, .30]

Random effects Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE)

Intercept 2.84 (.99) .12 (.03)*

Slope (capitalization attempts) 1.07 (.76) .04 (.02)*

Auto-regressive structure .21 (.03)* .16 (.03)*

Residuals 7.62 (.29)* .14 (.005)*

Note. RSA = respiratory sinus arrhythmia; SE = standard error; CI = confidence interval.

p < .05; p < .01; p < .001.

Figure 1.
RSA reactivity moderates the within-person association between daily capitalization attempts and positive affect. Positive affect for individuals with low and high RSA reactivity is depicted as a function of days with and without capitalization attempts. Low and high RSA reactivity were determined using one standard deviation below and above the mean of RSA reactivity. p values represent the significance of the simple slopes. RSA: respiratory sinus arrhythmia.

Figure 2.
RSA reactivity moderates the within-person association between daily capitalization attempts and perceived relationship quality. Perceived relationship quality for individuals with low and high RSA reactivity is depicted as a function of days with and without capitalization attempts. Low and high RSA reactivity were determined using one standard deviation below and above the mean of RSA reactivity. p values represent the significance of the simple slopes. RSA: respiratory sinus arrhythmia.

A similar pattern of results was found in hierarchical linear models testing whether RSA reactivity moderated the within-person associations between perceived active-constructive responses to capitalization and daily positive affect and relationship quality. As indicated in Table 3, there was no significant main effect of resting RSA nor a significant interaction between resting RSA and active-constructive responses predicting daily positive affect and relationship quality. However, the interaction between RSA reactivity and active-constructive responses to capitalization significantly predicted daily positive affect and was marginally associated with daily relationship quality. On days without active-constructive responses to capitalization, greater RSA reactivity was related to lower positive affect and marginally associated with less daily relationship quality, whereas RSA reactivity was not associated with daily positive affect and relationship quality on days when participants reported active-constructive responses to capitalization. The interaction explained 18.47% of the random effect of response to capitalization on daily positive affect. Figure 3 illustrates the interaction between RSA reactivity and active-constructive responses to capitalization predicting positive affect.

Table 3.
Hierarchical linear modeling of the within-person effects of perceived active-constructive responses to capitalization.

Fixed effects Positive affect Relationship quality

β (SE) t 95% CI β (SE) t 95% CI

Level 1—Within-person

Intercept 6.46 (.32) 20.35 [5.83, 7.09] 1.67 (.05) 33.23 [1.58, 1.78]

Days into the study −0.11 (.02) −5.98 [.34, .90] −.004 (.002) −1.42 [.06, .14]

Weekdays (0) versus weekend (1) .62 (.14) 4.35 [−.15, −.07] .10 (.02) 5.13 [−.009, .001]

Active-constructive responses to capitalization 1.70 (.18) 9.28 [1.33, 2.06] .27 (.03) 9.07*** [.21, .32]

Level 2—Between-person

RSA at rest .41 (.27) 1.54 [−.11, .93] .01 (.05) .24 [−.08, .10]

RSA reactivity −.81 (.43) −1.88^† [−1.66, .04] −.11 (.08) −1.45 [−.26, .04]

Cross-level interactions

Active-Constructive Responses to Capitalization × RSA at Rest −.13 (.22) −.58 [−.56, .31] .03 (.04) .75 [−.04, .10]

Active-Constructive Responses to Capitalization × RSA Reactivity .88 (.36) 2.41* [.16, 1.60] .09 (.06) 1.62^† [−.02, .21]

Random effects Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE)

Intercept 3.91 (.81)* .16 (.03)*

Slope (active–constructive responses) .85 (.54) .03(.01)

Auto-regressive structure .23(.03)* .18(.03)*

Residuals 7.60 (.30)* .14 (.005)***

Note. RSA = respiratory sinus arrhythmia; SE = standard error; CI = confidence interval.

^†p < .10; p < .05; p < .01; p < .001.

Figure 3.
RSA reactivity moderates the within-person association between daily active-constructive responses to capitalization and positive affect. Positive affect for individuals with low and high RSA reactivity is depicted as a function of days with and without active-constructive responses to capitalization. Low and high RSA reactivity were determined using one standard deviation below and above the mean of RSA reactivity. p values represent the significance of the simple slopes. RSA: respiratory sinus arrhythmia.

Unique effects of active-constructive responses to capitalization attempts

The current study did not assess the occurrence of positive events per se. Therefore, it is possible that the effects of capitalization were due to the greater occurrence of positive events rather than the sharing of positive events. Likewise, it is possible that individuals are more likely to engage in capitalization on days when they interact with more people. To address these issues, additional hierarchical linear models were run with continuous variables coding for the number of people with whom positive events were shared, and the number of people interacted with overall as covariates, a dichotomous active-constructive responses to capitalization variable as a within-person main effect, and an interaction between RSA reactivity and the within-person effects of perceived active-constructive responses to capitalization.

For the positive affect model, there was no main effect of the number of people interacted with, β (SE) = −0.06 (0.08), t = −0.77, p > .250, 95% CI [−.22, .10], but there was a significant within-person effect of sharing positive events, β (SE) = 0.56 (0.07), t = 7.35, p < .001, 95% CI [.41, .71], a significant within-person effect of active-constructive responses to capitalization, β (SE) = 1.19 (0.19), t = 6.25, p < .001, 95% CI [.81, 1.57], and a significant interaction between RSA reactivity and active-constructive responses to capitalization, β (SE) = 0.78 (0.32), t = 2.43, p = .02, 95% CI [.14, 1.42]. Similarly, in the relationship quality model, there was a significant within-person effect of the number of people interacted with, β (SE) = −0.04 (0.01), t = −4.10, p < .001, 95% CI [−.06, −.02], a significant within-person effect of sharing positive events, β (SE) = 0.11 (0.01), t = 11.70, p < .001, 95% CI [.11, .15], a significant within-person effect of active-constructive responses to capitalization, β (SE) = 0.16 (0.02), t = 5.64, p < .001, 95% CI [.10, .22], and a significant interaction between RSA reactivity and active-constructive responses to capitalization, β (SE) = 0.11 (0.05), t = 2.31, p = .02, 95% CI [.02, .21]. The interaction explained 17.20% of the random effect of capitalization responses. Simple slope analyses indicated that greater RSA reactivity was marginally associated with lower relationship quality on days when participants reported no active-constructive responses to capitalization. However, no significant association between RSA reactivity and relationship quality was found on days when they reported active-constructive responses to capitalization. Figure 4 depicts the interaction between RSA reactivity and active-constructive responses to capitalization predicting relationship quality.

Figure 4.
RSA reactivity moderates the within-person association between daily active-constructive responses to capitalization and relationship quality. Perceived relationship quality for individuals with low and high RSA reactivity is depicted as a function of days with and without active-constructive responses to capitalization. Low and high RSA reactivity were determined using one standard deviation below and above the mean of RSA reactivity. p values represent the significance of the simple slopes. RSA: respiratory sinus arrhythmia.

Does RSA predict daily capitalization?

In secondary analyses, we tested whether resting RSA or RSA reactivity predicted daily capitalization attempts or perceived active-constructive responses to capitalization. Results indicated that resting RSA predicted neither capitalization attempts, β (SE) = 0.02 (0.02), t = 1.48, p = .14, 95% CI [−.13, .19], nor active-constructive responses to capitalization, β (SE) = 0.001 (0.02), t = 0.04, p > .250, 95% CI [−.05, .05]. Likewise, RSA reactivity did not predict capitalization attempts, β (SE) = −0.03 (0.03), t = −1.45, p = .15, 95% CI [−.29, .24], or active-constructive responses to capitalization, β (SE) = −0.004 (0.04), t = −0.10, p > .250, 95% CI [−.09, .08].

Discussion

Capitalization is the interpersonal process of sharing positive experiences with close others that results in greater positive affect and relationship quality. The present findings indicate that RSA reactivity, a marker of vagal-dependent parasympathetic activity, moderated the within-person associations between daily capitalization and intrapersonal and interpersonal functioning. On days when they did not capitalize, individuals with higher RSA reactivity experienced less positive affect and poorer relationship quality than their counterparts with lower RSA reactivity. In contrast, there was no significant difference between individuals with higher and lower RSA reactivity on days when they capitalized or perceived active-constructive responses to capitalization. These results suggest that individuals with higher RSA reactivity may be more susceptible to the relative loss of positive social feedback that comes with the absence of usual capitalization interactions.

As we hypothesized, greater RSA reactivity moderated the impact of capitalization on positive affect and perceived relationship quality. However, in contrast to our hypothesis, greater RSA reactivity was not associated with enhanced intrapersonal and interpersonal benefits of capitalization. Instead, higher RSA reactivity was associated with responses to the relative lack of usual capitalization interactions. These findings resonate with the social baseline theory postulating that social proximity or social relationships characterized by shared goals, interdependence, and trust represent the norm or the “baseline” in our species (Beckes & Coan, 2011). Deviation from this baseline signals the need to marshal personal resources in order to prepare to cope with the extra demands of facing future stressors alone. In this model, it is the relative absence of positive social relationships that leads to poor psychosocial outcomes rather than the presence of positive relationships being associated with better adjustment (Beckes & Coan, 2011). Muhtadie et al. (2015) propose that individuals with higher RSA reactivity are more sensitive to their social environment. They showed that individuals with greater RSA reactivity were more accurate at detecting subtle emotional and social cues. Given their greater attunement to social relationships, individuals with high RSA reactivity may notice slight day-to-day variations in social interaction quality. They thus may be more negatively impacted by these transient deviations from their social baseline. A similar pattern of findings has been observed with attachment anxiety. Individuals with high attachment anxiety reported less relationship satisfaction on days when their partners were less responsive than usual to their capitalization attempts, while they did not differ from their counterparts with low attachment anxiety on days when their partner was more responsive than usual (Gosnell & Gable, 2013). Whereas individuals with high attachment anxiety may be hypervigilant to changes in the capitalization process with their partners (Shallcross et al., 2011), individuals with high RSA reactivity may be simply more aware of subtle changes in their social interactions than participants with low RSA reactivity. Both processes may lead to a greater sensitivity to the relative loss of social resources associated with the absence of the usual capitalization interactions.

According to polyvagal theory, greater RSA reactivity indicates that one’s autonomic nervous system can rapidly shift internal physiological states to enable social engagement behavior when the environment is perceived as safe (Porges, 2003a, 2007). Polyvagal theory also highlights that RSA reactivity indexes afferent influences from the peripheral organs of the social engagement system to central networks modulating social behavior. That is, engagement in social interactions can trigger changes in autonomic functioning. From this perspective, capitalization interactions may promote calm physiological states. Given that individuals with high RSA reactivity may be more physiologically regulated by others (Porges, 2003a, 2007), they may also be more vulnerable to the lack of positive social interactions with close others that help them regulate their stress physiology.

RSA reactivity is a measure of vagal regulation. However, the functional consequences of greater RSA reactivity are debated. Some argue that vagal withdrawal represents an adaptive process facilitating energy mobilization to stress (Berntson et al., 1997; Porges, 2007), while others have noted that excessive RSA reactivity to emotional stressors is associated with risk for psychopathology (Beauchaine, 2015). Empirically, greater RSA reactivity has been associated with both positive and negative social outcomes (Beauchaine et al., 2013; Egizio et al., 2008). In a meta-analysis, higher RSA reactivity was associated with better social functioning among healthy children, but it was related to poorer social functioning for children with, or at risk of, psychopathology (Graziano & Derefinko, 2013). If we assume that these at-risk children are more likely to be exposed to negative social environments, these results would fit with the enhanced sensitivity to the social context hypothesis (Muhtadie et al., 2015). However, a synthesis of this literature is complicated by methodological differences across studies. While RSA reactivity is fairly stable across a range of cognitive and stress tasks (Muhtadie et al., 2015), some studies suggest that the association between RSA reactivity and psychosocial outcomes may vary as a function of the task used to elicit RSA reactivity (Fortunato, Gatzke-Kopp, & Ram, 2013; Rottenberg, Salomon, Gross, & Gotlib, 2005). Future studies should test whether the type of task used to elicit RSA reactivity influences its association with capitalization outcomes in different social contexts characterized by the absence of positive relationships, the presence of positive relationships, and the presence of negative relationships. Moreover, some authors argue that RSA recovery, that is, the extent to which RSA returns to baseline values after a challenge, may also influence psychosocial outcomes (Cui et al., 2015). More research is needed to compare the predictive value of RSA reactivity and RSA recovery.

In the present study, RSA reactivity, but not resting RSA, moderated the impact of capitalization. Meta-analyses have highlighted that the association between resting RSA and adaptive functioning is higher in clinical, compared to community samples (Graziano & Derefinko, 2013; Shahrestani et al., 2015). Healthy undergraduate students may represent a group with a restricted range of RSA, thereby diminishing the likelihood of observing a significant association between resting RSA and capitalization. Furthermore, while studies have linked resting RSA with social functioning, other studies have shown that RSA reactivity was more strongly associated than resting RSA with social functioning (Egizio et al., 2008; Muhtadie et al., 2015; Simon & Nath, 2004).

Limitations of the current study include the sample of mostly Caucasian, young undergraduate females, which restricts the generalizability of the results. Given gender differences in emotional expression and the tendency of older adults to focus on positive experiences (Mather & Carstensen, 2005), these results should be replicated in more representative samples including men and individuals of varying age groups. Because more important events are more likely to be shared (Gable et al., 2004), future studies should also assess both the occurrence and the importance of positive events. Given the correlational nature of the study, the directionality of the relationship between capitalization and intrapersonal and interpersonal functioning cannot be determined; it is possible that greater positive affect or perceived relationship quality on a given day leads to greater capitalization and that RSA reactivity moderates this effect. Furthermore, although a daily diary method allows for the examination of within-person associations between daily capitalization and positive affect, it does not speak to the longer-term impact of capitalization. Past research has shown that greater capitalization predicted better relationship satisfaction over time (Gable, Gonzaga, & Strachman, 2006; Horn, Milek, Brauner, & Maercker, 2017; Kashdan et al., 2013). An important future direction will be to examine whether RSA reactivity moderates the impact of capitalization on global appraisals of relationship quality over time. Future studies should thus replicate these results in the context of longitudinal studies.

In summary, RSA reactivity moderated capitalization outcomes, a specific interpersonal process fostering positive affect and better relationship quality. Individuals with higher RSA reactivity were more sensitive to the lack of usual capitalization interactions than participants with less RSA reactivity. This study provides further evidence that individual differences in RSA reactivity shape how individuals respond to the relative loss of social resources.

Supplemental material

Supplemental_material - Respiratory sinus arrhythmia reactivity moderates within-person associations of daily capitalization with positive affect and relationship quality

Supplemental_material for Respiratory sinus arrhythmia reactivity moderates within-person associations of daily capitalization with positive affect and relationship quality by Jean-Philippe Gouin, Warren C. Caldwell, Sasha L. MacNeil and Charlotte M. Roddick in Journal of Social and Personal Relationships

	1	2	3	4	5	6
RSA at rest (1)	—
RSA reactivity (2)	.41**	—
Capitalization attempts (3)	.03	−.02	—
Active-constructive response to capitalization (4)	.01	.02	.75**	—
Positive affect (5)	.08	.02	.52**	.54**	—
Relationship quality (6)	.06	−.02	.47**	.48**	.66**	—
M (SD)	6.84 (1.04)	.28 (.71)	2.06 (.86)	1.45 (.81)	7.63 (3.56)	1.98 (0.52)

	Positive affect	Relationship quality
Level 1—Within-person
Intercept	5.60 (.35)	16.02**	[4.91, 6.29]	1.44 (.05)	26.69**	[1.33, 1.55]
Days into the study	−.11 (.02)	−5.96**	[−.15, −.07]	−.002 (.002)	−1.20	[−.008, .002]
Weekdays (0) versus weekend (1)	.62 (.14)	4.31**	[.33, .90]	.10 (.02)	5.16**	[.06, .14]
Within-person effect of capitalization	2.31 (.25)	9.31**	[1.82, 2.80]	.47 (.04)	11.93***	[.39, .55]
Level 2—Between-person
RSA at rest	.40 (.31)	1.30	[−.21, 1.02]	.08 (.05)	1.57	[−.02, 19]
RSA reactivity	−1.10 (.50)	−2.20*	[−2.09, −.11]	−.17 (.08)	−2.03*	[−.34, .004]
Cross-level interactions
Capitalization Attempts × RSA at Rest	−.14 (.29)	−.49	[−.72, .44]	−.06 (.04)	1.38	[−.15, .03]
Capitalization Attempts × RSA Reactivity	1.13 (.47)	2.42*	[.21, 2.07]	.16 (.07)	2.16*	[.01, .30]
Random effects	Estimate (SE)	Estimate (SE)
Intercept	2.84 (.99)**	.12 (.03)***
Slope (capitalization attempts)	1.07 (.76)	.04 (.02)*
Auto-regressive structure	.21 (.03)***	.16 (.03)***
Residuals	7.62 (.29)***	.14 (.005)***

Fixed effects	Positive affect	Relationship quality
Level 1—Within-person
Intercept	6.46 (.32)	20.35**	[5.83, 7.09]	1.67 (.05)	33.23**	[1.58, 1.78]
Days into the study	−0.11 (.02)	−5.98**	[.34, .90]	−.004 (.002)	−1.42	[.06, .14]
Weekdays (0) versus weekend (1)	.62 (.14)	4.35**	[−.15, −.07]	.10 (.02)	5.13**	[−.009, .001]
Active-constructive responses to capitalization	1.70 (.18)	9.28**	[1.33, 2.06]	.27 (.03)	9.07***	[.21, .32]
Level 2—Between-person
RSA at rest	.41 (.27)	1.54	[−.11, .93]	.01 (.05)	.24	[−.08, .10]
RSA reactivity	−.81 (.43)	−1.88^†	[−1.66, .04]	−.11 (.08)	−1.45	[−.26, .04]
Cross-level interactions
Active-Constructive Responses to Capitalization × RSA at Rest	−.13 (.22)	−.58	[−.56, .31]	.03 (.04)	.75	[−.04, .10]
Active-Constructive Responses to Capitalization × RSA Reactivity	.88 (.36)	2.41*	[.16, 1.60]	.09 (.06)	1.62^†	[−.02, .21]
Random effects	Estimate (SE)	Estimate (SE)
Intercept	3.91 (.81)***	.16 (.03)***
Slope (active–constructive responses)	.85 (.54)	.03(.01)**
Auto-regressive structure	.23(.03)***	.18(.03)***
Residuals	7.60 (.30)***	.14 (.005)***

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

Charlotte M. Roddick is now affiliated with University of British Columbia (Vancouver, Canada).

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was funded by a grant from the Canada Research Chair Secretariat.

Open research statement

As part of IARR’s encouragement of open research practices, the authors have provided the following information: This research was not pre-registered. The data used in the research are available. The data can be obtained by emailing jp.gouin@concordia.ca.

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Note

References

Affleck

Zautra

Tennen

Armeli

(1999). Multilevel daily process designs for consulting and clinical psychology: A preface for the perplexed. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 746–754. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.67.5.746

Bauer

D. J.

Curran

P. J.

(2005). Probing interactions in fixed and multilevel regression: Inferential and graphical techniques. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 40, 373–400. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr4003_5

Baumeister

R. F.

Leary

M. R.

(1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497

Beauchaine

T. P.

(2015). Respiratory sinus arrhythmia: A transdiagnostic biomarker of emotion dysregulation and psychopathology. Current Opinion in Psychology, 3, 43–47. doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.01.017

Beauchaine

T. P.

Gatzke-Kopp

Neuhaus

Chipman

Reid

M. J.

Webster-Stratton

(2013). Sympathetic- and parasympathetic-linked cardiac function and prediction of externalizing behavior, emotion regulation, and prosocial behavior among preschoolers treated for ADHD. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 81, 481–493. doi:2013-11000-001 [pii]10.1037/a0032302

Beckes

Coan

J. A.

(2011). Social baseline theory: The role of social proximity in emotion and economy of action. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5, 976–988. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2011.00400.x

Berntson

G. G.

Bigger

J. J.

Eckberg

D. L.

Grossman

Kaufmann

P. G.

Malik

… van der Molen

M. W.

(1997). Heart rate variability: Origins, methods, and interpretive caveats. Psychophysiology, 34, 623–648. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.1997.tb02140.x

Bolger

Laurenceau

J. P.

(2013). Intensive longitudinal research methods: An introduction to diary and experience sample research. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Calkins

S. D.

Graziano

P. A.

Keane

S. P.

(2007). Cardiac vagal regulation differentiates among children at risk for behavior problems. Biological Psychology, 74, 144–153. doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2006.09.005

10.

Cui

Morris

A. S.

Harrist

A. W.

Larzelere

R. E.

Criss

M. M.

Houltberg

B. J.

(2015). Adolescent RSA responses during an anger discussion task: Relations to emotion regulation and adjustment. Emotion, 15, 360–372. doi:10.1037/emo0000040

11.

Demir

Haynes

Potts

S. K.

(2017). My friends are my estate: Friendship experiences mediate the relationship between perceived responses to capitalization attempts and happiness. Journal of Happiness Studies, 18, 1161–1190. doi:10.1007/s10902-016-9762-9

12.

Diamond

L. M.

Fagundes

C. P.

Cribbet

M. R.

(2012). Individual differences in adolescents’ sympathetic and parasympathetic functioning moderate associations between family environment and psychosocial adjustment. Developmental Psychology, 48, 918–931. doi:10.1037/a0026901

13.

Diamond

L. M.

Hicks

A. M.

Otter-Henderson

K. D.

(2011). Individual differences in vagal regulation moderate associations between daily affect and daily couple interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 731–744. doi:10.1177/0146167211400620

14.

Diamond

L. M.

Hicks

A. M.

(2005). Attachment style, current relationship security, and negative emotions: The mediating role of physiological regulation. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22, 499–518. doi:10.1177/0265407505054520

15.

Doucerain

Deschenes

S. S.

Aubé

Ryder

A. G.

Gouin

J. P.

(2016). Respiratory sinus arrhythmia is prospectively associated with early trajectories of acculturation among new international students. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 47, 421–440. doi:10.1177/0022022115624015

16.

Egizio

V. B.

Jennings

J. R.

Christie

I. C.

Sheu

L. K.

Matthews

K. A.

Gianaros

P. J.

(2008). Cardiac vagal activity during psychological stress varies with social functioning in older women. Psychophysiology, 45, 1046–1054. doi:PSYP698 [pii] 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2008.00698.x

17.

El-Sheikh

Erath

S. A.

(2011). Family conflict, autonomic nervous system functioning, and child adaptation: State of the science and future directions. Development and Psychopathology, 23, 703–721. doi:10.1017/S0954579411000034

18.

Fortunato

C. K.

Gatzke-Kopp

L. M.

Ram

(2013). Associations between respiratory sinus arrhythmia reactivity and internalizing and externalizing symptoms are emotion specific. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience, 13, 238–251. doi:10.3758/s13415-012-0136-4

19.

Gable

S. L.

Gonzaga

G. C.

Strachman

(2006). Will you be there for me when things go right? Supportive responses to positive event disclosures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 904–917. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.91.5.904

20.

Gable

S. L.

Reis

H. T.

(2010). Good news! Capitalizing on positive events in an interpersonal context. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 195–257. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(10)42004-3

21.

Gable

S. L.

Reis

H. T.

Impett

E. A.

Asher

E. R.

(2004). What do you do when things go right? The intrapersonal and interpersonal benefits of sharing positive events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 228–245. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.87.2.228

22.

Gosnell

C. L.

Gable

S. L.

(2013). Attachment and capitalizing on positive events. Attachment and Human Development, 15, 281–302. doi:10.1080/14616734.2013.782655

23.

Gouin

J. P.

Deschenes

S. S.

Dugas

M. J.

(2014). Respiratory sinus arrhythmia during worry forecasts stress-related increases in psychological distress. Stress, 17, 416–422. doi:10.3109/10253890.2014.949666

24.

Gouin

J. P.

Wenzel

Boucetta

O’Byrne

Salimi

Dang-Vu

T. T.

(2015). High-frequency heart rate variability during worry predicts stress-related increases in sleep disturbances. Sleep Medicine, 16, 659–664. doi:10.1016/j.sleep.2015.02.001

25.

Graziano

Derefinko

(2013). Cardiac vagal control and children’s adaptive functioning: A meta-analysis. Biological Psychology, 94, 22–37. doi:S0301-0511(13)00114-2 [pii] 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2013.04.011

26.

Hershenberg

Davila

Leong

S. H.

(2014). Depressive symptoms in women and the preference and emotional benefits of discussing positive life events. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 33, 767–788. doi:10.1521/jscp.2014.33.9.767

27.

Hicks

A. M.

Diamond

L. M.

(2008). How was your day? Couples’ affect when telling and hearing daily events. Personal Relationships, 15, 205–228. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2008.00194.x

28.

Hofmann

S. G.

Schulz

S. M.

Heering

Muench

Bufka

L. F.

(2010). Psychophysiological correlates of generalized anxiety disorder with or without comorbid depression. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 78, 35–41. doi:S0167-8760(10)00013-9 [pii]10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2009.12.016

29.

Hopp

Shallcross

A. J.

Ford

B. Q.

Troy

A. S.

Wilhelm

F. H.

Mauss

I. B.

(2013). High cardiac vagal control protects against future depressive symptoms under conditions of high social support. Biological Psychology, 93, 143–149. doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2013.01.004

30.

Horn

A. B.

Milek

Brauner

Maercker

(2017). Less positive sharing in the couple mediates the link between depression and relationship quality: A dyadic longitudinal study. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 36, 535–553. doi:10.1521/jscp.2017.36.7.535

31.

Isgett

S. F.

Kok

B. E.

Baczkowski

B. M.

Algoe

S. B.

Grewen

K. M.

Fredrickson

B. L.

(2017). Influences of oxytocin and respiratory sinus arrhythmia on emotions and social behavior in daily life. Emotion, 17, 1156–1165. doi:10.1037/emo0000301

32.

Kashdan

T. B.

Ferssizidis

Farmer

A. S.

Adams

L. M.

McKnight

P. E.

(2013). Failure to capitalize on sharing good news with romantic partners: Exploring positivity deficits of socially anxious people with self-reports, partner-reports, and behavioral observations. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 51, 656–668. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2013.04.006

33.

Kok

B. E.

Coffey

K. A.

Cohn

M. A.

Catalino

L. I.

Vacharkulksemsuk

Algoe

S. B.

… Fredrickson

B. L.

(2013). How positive emotions build physical health: Perceived positive social connections account for the upward spiral between positive emotions and vagal tone. Psychological Science, 24, 1123–1132. doi:10.1177/0956797612470827

34.

Kreibig

S. D.

(2010). Autonomic nervous system activity in emotion: A review. Biological Psychology, 84, 394–421. doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2010.03.010

35.

Lambert

N. M.

Gwinn

A. M.

Baumeister

R. F.

Strachman

Washburn

I. J.

Gable

S. L.

Fincham

F. D.

(2013). A boost of positive affect: The perks of sharing positive experiences. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30, 24–43. doi:10.1177/0265407512449400

36.

Langston

C. A.

(1994). Capitalizing on and coping with daily-life events: Expressive responses to positive events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1112–1125. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.67.6.1112

37.

Mather

Carstensen

L. L.

(2005). Aging and motivated cognition: The positivity effect in attention and memory. Trends in Cognitive Science, 9, 496–502. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2005.08.005

38.

Mathewson

K. J.

Jetha

M. K.

Drmic

I. E.

Bryson

S. E.

Goldberg

J. O.

Hall

G. B.

… Schmidt

L. A.

(2010). Autonomic predictors of Stroop performance in young and middle-aged adults. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 76, 123–129. doi:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2010.02.007

39.

Maunder

R. G.

Nolan

R. P.

Hunter

J. J.

Lancee

W. J.

Steinhart

A. H.

Greenberg

G. R.

(2012). Relationship between social support and autonomic function during a stress protocol in ulcerative colitis patients in remission. Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, 18, 737–742. doi:10.1002/ibd.21794

40.

Muhtadie

Koslov

Akinola

Mendes

W. B.

(2015). Vagal flexibility: A physiological predictor of social sensitivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109, 106–120. doi:10.1037/pspp0000016

41.

Otto

A. K.

Laurenceau

J. P.

Siegel

S. D.

Belcher

A. J.

(2015). Capitalizing on everyday positive events uniquely predicts daily intimacy and well-being in couples coping with breast cancer. Journal of Family Psychology, 29, 69–79. doi:10.1037/fam0000042

42.

Pagani

A. F.

Donato

Parise

Iafrate

Bertoni

Schoebi

(2015). When good things happen: Explicit capitalization attempts of positive events promote intimate partners’ daily well-being. Family Science, 6, 119–128. doi:10.1080/19424620.2015.1082013

43.

Peters

B. J.

Reis

H. T.

Gable

S. L.

(2018). Making the good even better: A review and theoretical model of interpersonal capitalization. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 12, 1–19. doi:10.1111/spc3.12407

44.

Porges

S. W.

(2003a). The polyvagal theory: Phylogenetic contributions to social behavior. Physiology and Behavior, 79, 503–513.

45.

Porges

S. W.

(2003b). Social engagement and attachment: A phylogenetic perspective. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1008, 31–47.

46.

Porges

S. W.

(2007). The polyvagal perspective. Biological Psychology, 74, 116–143. doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2006.06.009

47.

Quintana

D. S.

Guastella

A. J.

Outhred

Hickie

I. B.

Kemp

A. H.

(2012). Heart rate variability is associated with emotion recognition: Direct evidence for a relationship between the autonomic nervous system and social cognition. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 86, 168–172. doi:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2012.08.012

48.

Reis

H. T.

Smith

S. M.

Carmichael

C. L.

Caprariello

P. A.

Tsai

F. F.

Rodrigues

Maniaci

M. R.

(2010). Are you happy for me? How sharing positive events with others provides personal and interpersonal benefits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 311–329. doi:10.1037/a0018344

49.

Rottenberg

Salomon

Gross

J. J.

Gotlib

I. H.

(2005). Vagal withdrawal to a sad film predicts subsequent recovery from depression. Psychophysiology, 42, 277–281. doi:PSYP289 [pii]10.1111/j.1469-8986.2005.00289.x

50.

Shahrestani

Stewart

E. M.

Quintana

D. S.

Hickie

I. B.

Guastella

A. J.

(2014). Heart rate variability during social interactions in children with and without psychopathology: A meta-analysis. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 55, 981–989. doi:10.1111/jcpp.12226

51.

Shahrestani

Stewart

E. M.

Quintana

D. S.

Hickie

I. B.

Guastella

A. J.

(2015). Heart rate variability during adolescent and adult social interactions: A meta-analysis. Biological Psychology, 105, 43–50. doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2014.12.012

52.

Shallcross

S. L.

Howland

Bemis

Simpson

J. A.

Frazier

(2011). Not “capitalizing” on social capitalization interactions: The role of attachment insecurity. Journal of Family Psychology, 25, 77–85. doi:10.1037/a0021876

53.

Simon

R. W.

Nath

L. E.

(2004). Gender and emotion in the United States: Do men and women differ in self-reports of feelings and expressive behavior? American Journal of Sociology, 109, 1137–1176. doi:10.1086/382111

54.

Smith

S. M.

Reis

H. T.

(2012). Perceived responses to capitalization attempts are influenced by self-esteem and relationship threat. Personal Relationships, 19, 367–385. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2011.01367.x

55.

Smith

T. W.

Cribbet

M. R.

Nealey-Moore

J. B.

Uchino

B. N.

Williams

P. G.

Mackenzie

Thayer

J. F.

(2011). Matters of the variable heart: Respiratory sinus arrhythmia response to marital interaction and associations with marital quality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 103–119. doi:2010-21677-001 [pii] 10.1037/a0021136

56.

Snijders

T. A. B.

Bosker

R. J.

(1999). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced modeling. London: Sage.

57.

Watson

Clark

L. A.

(1999). The PANAS-X: Manual for the positive and negative affect schedule-expanded form. Retrieved from https://www2.psychology.uiowa.edu/faculty/clark/panas-x.pdf

58.

Zautra

A. J.

Affleck

G. G.

Tennen

Reich

J. W.

Davis

M. C.

(2005). Dynamic approaches to emotions and stress in everyday life: Bolger and Zuckerman reloaded with positive as well as negative affects. Journal of Personality, 73, 1511–1538. doi:10.1111/j.0022-3506.2005.00357.x

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.28 MB

	Positive affect			Relationship quality
Fixed effects	β (SE)	t	95% CI	β (SE)	t	95% CI
Level 1—Within-person
Intercept	5.60 (.35)	16.02**	[4.91, 6.29]	1.44 (.05)	26.69**	[1.33, 1.55]
Days into the study	−.11 (.02)	−5.96**	[−.15, −.07]	−.002 (.002)	−1.20	[−.008, .002]
Weekdays (0) versus weekend (1)	.62 (.14)	4.31**	[.33, .90]	.10 (.02)	5.16**	[.06, .14]
Within-person effect of capitalization	2.31 (.25)	9.31**	[1.82, 2.80]	.47 (.04)	11.93***	[.39, .55]
Level 2—Between-person
RSA at rest	.40 (.31)	1.30	[−.21, 1.02]	.08 (.05)	1.57	[−.02, 19]
RSA reactivity	−1.10 (.50)	−2.20*	[−2.09, −.11]	−.17 (.08)	−2.03*	[−.34, .004]
Cross-level interactions
Capitalization Attempts × RSA at Rest	−.14 (.29)	−.49	[−.72, .44]	−.06 (.04)	1.38	[−.15, .03]
Capitalization Attempts × RSA Reactivity	1.13 (.47)	2.42*	[.21, 2.07]	.16 (.07)	2.16*	[.01, .30]
Random effects	Estimate (SE)			Estimate (SE)
Intercept	2.84 (.99)**			.12 (.03)***
Slope (capitalization attempts)	1.07 (.76)			.04 (.02)*
Auto-regressive structure	.21 (.03)***			.16 (.03)***
Residuals	7.62 (.29)***			.14 (.005)***

Fixed effects	Positive affect			Relationship quality
	β (SE)	t	95% CI	β (SE)	t	95% CI
Level 1—Within-person
Intercept	6.46 (.32)	20.35**	[5.83, 7.09]	1.67 (.05)	33.23**	[1.58, 1.78]
Days into the study	−0.11 (.02)	−5.98**	[.34, .90]	−.004 (.002)	−1.42	[.06, .14]
Weekdays (0) versus weekend (1)	.62 (.14)	4.35**	[−.15, −.07]	.10 (.02)	5.13**	[−.009, .001]
Active-constructive responses to capitalization	1.70 (.18)	9.28**	[1.33, 2.06]	.27 (.03)	9.07***	[.21, .32]
Level 2—Between-person
RSA at rest	.41 (.27)	1.54	[−.11, .93]	.01 (.05)	.24	[−.08, .10]
RSA reactivity	−.81 (.43)	−1.88^†	[−1.66, .04]	−.11 (.08)	−1.45	[−.26, .04]
Cross-level interactions
Active-Constructive Responses to Capitalization × RSA at Rest	−.13 (.22)	−.58	[−.56, .31]	.03 (.04)	.75	[−.04, .10]
Active-Constructive Responses to Capitalization × RSA Reactivity	.88 (.36)	2.41*	[.16, 1.60]	.09 (.06)	1.62^†	[−.02, .21]
Random effects	Estimate (SE)			Estimate (SE)
Intercept	3.91 (.81)***			.16 (.03)***
Slope (active–constructive responses)	.85 (.54)			.03(.01)**
Auto-regressive structure	.23(.03)***			.18(.03)***
Residuals	7.60 (.30)***			.14 (.005)***