Neurophysiological regulation of romantic relationships: towards an integrative model linking polyvagal theory, high sensitivity and relational skills  

A Synthesis for Researchers and Clinicians

By Saverio Tomasella, Ph.D. January 2026. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11625.97122

​

Abstract

This article advances an integrative model of romantic relationships, synthesising polyvagal theory (Stephen Porges), high and advantageous sensitivity (Elaine Aron, Michael Pluess), and relational competencies as conceptualised by the Gottman Sound Relationship House. Drawing on contemporary neurophysiological, psychological, and clinical frameworks, the paper conceptualises romantic relationships as dynamic systems shaped by the interplay of autonomic processes, individual differences in sensitivity, and the cultivation of relational skills. Theoretical exposition is followed by practical implications for individuals, couples, and practitioners, with outlining directions for future research. This synthesis aims to provide a nuanced, multidimensional perspective for advancing relational science and clinical practice.

​

Introduction

Romantic relationships are often depicted as the domain of emotion, choice, and interpersonal effort. However, mounting evidence from neuroscience, psychology, and relational studies suggests that these bonds are, in essence, dynamic systems shaped by complex interactions between neurophysiological processes, individual traits, and learned competencies. The polyvagal theory (Porges) offers a compelling framework for understanding the autonomic underpinnings of social engagement, while contemporary sensitivity research (Aron’s high sensitivity, STS and DOES, Pluess’s vantage sensitivity) illuminates individual variability in reactivity and adaptation. The Gottman Sound Relationship House distils decades of empirical study into a practical architecture of relational skills. This article seeks to weave these threads into a coherent tapestry, proposing an integrative model for research and clinical application.

Theoretical Foundations

Polyvagal Theory: Neurophysiological Substrates of Social Engagement

Stephen Porges' polyvagal theory revolutionised understanding of the autonomic nervous system (ANS) by distinguishing three hierarchical subsystems: the ventral vagal complex (supporting social engagement and connection), the sympathetic system (mobilisation, defence), and the dorsal vagal complex (shutdown, withdrawal). These states are not inherently pathological but represent adaptive responses to perceived safety or threat. Social engagement arises when the environment is appraised as safe, allowing the ventral vagal pathways to modulate facial expression, vocal prosody, and receptivity. Conversely, unpredictability or perceived danger triggers sympathetic mobilisation or dorsal withdrawal, impeding connection and fostering relational rupture. Polyvagal theory thus anchors relational dynamics in the neurophysiological choreography of safety, risk, and co-regulation.

​

High Sensitivity: STS, DOES, and Individual Differences

Elaine Aron’s research on high sensitivity describes a trait (sensory processing sensitivity, SPS) present in approximately 30% of the population, characterised by heightened responsivity to sensory, emotional, and social stimuli. Aron delineates sensitivity via the DOES acronym: Depth of processing, Overstimulation, Emotional reactivity and empathy, and Sensory sensitivity. The Highly Sensitive Person Scale (HSPS) measuring individual differences in sensory-processing sensitivity (SPS) further operationalises this trait, enabling nuanced assessment across contexts. Highly sensitive individuals process information more deeply, notice subtleties, and are more affected by environmental and relational unpredictability. These characteristics amplify polyvagal responses: in stable relational contexts, sensitive individuals swiftly access ventral states, but are also prone to rapid mobilisation or withdrawal when safety is compromised.

​

Vantage Sensitivity: Adaptive Potential and Contextual Benefits

Michael Pluess extends the sensitivity paradigm by introducing the concept of vantage sensitivity, positing that high sensitivity can confer adaptive advantages in supportive environments. Rather than viewing sensitivity solely as a vulnerability, Pluess’s research highlights its potential for enhanced learning, creativity, empathy, and relational attunement. The differential susceptibility model underscores that sensitive individuals are not merely more reactive to negative stimuli, but also benefit disproportionately from positive, nurturing contexts. Thus, sensitivity becomes a double-edged reality—amplifying risk in adverse conditions, but fostering flourishing in environments characterised by reliability and support.

​

Gottman’s Sound Relationship House: Relational Competencies as Practices of Co-Regulation

John and Julie Gottman’s Sound Relationship House reveals the empirical wisdom of decades into seven competencies—building love maps (knowledge), fondness and admiration, turning towards bids for connection, positive perspective, conflict management, supporting life dreams, and shared meaning—supported by the pillars of trust and commitment. These competencies are not static attributes but dynamic practices of co-regulation. They facilitate predictability, trust, and engagement, and, crucially, offer stabilising rituals that buffer partners against relational volatility. The model’s architecture enables practitioners to target specific relational processes, fostering happiness and mutual growth.

​

Towards an Integrative Model: Relationships as Dynamic Neuroaffective Systems

Integrating polyvagal theory, sensitivity constructs, and Gottman’s relational competencies yields a multidimensional model wherein relationships are conceived as neuroaffective ecosystems. The quality of a partnership depends on the capacity of both individuals to maintain neurophysiological states conducive to social engagement, to adapt to amplified sensitivity needs, and to enact relational practices that build trust, predictability, and shared meaning.

1. Neurophysiological Substrate: The ventral vagal state is foundational, supporting curiosity, availability, creativity, and flexibility. Polyvagal dynamics provide a physiological lens for understanding moments of connection, conflict, and withdrawal.

2. Sensitivity as Amplifier: High and vantage sensitivity intensify relational processes. Sensitive partners perceive relational signals more acutely, respond rapidly to breaches of trust, and experience deeper engagement when stability prevails.

3. Relational Competencies as Co-Regulation: Gottman’s skills function as stabilising rituals, transforming individual states into shared relational safety. Competencies such as admiration, connection, and negotiation serve as levers for restoring ventral engagement and buffering against sympathetic or dorsal shifts.

This dynamic systems perspective posits that relationships are not simply the sum of two individuals, but emergent phenomena arising from the interplay of neurophysiology, sensitivity, and skillful interaction. The integrative model invites researchers and clinicians to attend to the granular rhythms of interaction, the physiological markers of safety, and the relational practices that foster blossoming fulfilment.

​

Clinical and Practical Implications

For Individuals (Especially Highly Sensitive)

• Previsibilty and Rhythm: Highly sensitive individuals thrive in predictable, gently paced environments. Therapeutic interventions should prioritise slow transitions, regular pauses, and explicit rituals of connection.

• Rituals of Stability: Daily check-ins, transition rituals (e.g., after work), and repair practices help maintain ventral engagement and buffer against overstimulation.

• Self-Awareness and Dialogue: Encouraging individuals to articulate their physiological states (“I feel activated”, “I need to slow down”) fosters self-regulation and invites partners into co-regulatory dialogue.

For Couples

• Co-Regulation as Central Objective: Therapeutic work should focus on helping couples recognise autonomic states, repair ruptures rapidly, and engage in rituals that restore trust and availability.

• Responsive Adaptation: Partners should learn to identify and respond to one another’s sensitivity thresholds, adapting rhythm and intensity to preserve mutual availability and confidence.

• Reliability over Security: The goal is not perfect safety, but reliable engagement—coherence, continuity, and commitment to connection and respect.

For Practitioners

• Assessment of Autonomic States: Practitioners should evaluate relational interactions through the lens of autonomic state shifts, identifying triggers and supporting ventral recovery.

• Sensitivity Profiling: Mapping individual sensitivity profiles enables tailored interventions, reducing overload and enhancing engagement.

• Ritual Construction: Supporting couples in developing stabilising rituals—daily emotional sharing, transitions, reconciliation—builds predictability and trust.

Illustration: Couple in Therapy

Consider the case of a couple in therapy: Lili, who would shut down and withdraw emotionally during disagreements, and Stuart, who was very anxious and needed frequent reassurance and displays of affection. Both are very sensitive, attentive to details, nuances and subtleties. Lili is particularly perfectionist, which can make her harsh, while Stuart seeks authenticity, is very empathetic and experiences intense emotions. When his wife withdrew, Stuart tended to get angry and escalate conflicts in an attempt to regain some intimacy. To no avail, as Lili withdrew even more... As the sessions progress, they discover that their rhythms, sensitivities and ways of reacting are different. Through therapy, Lili and Stuart learned to recognise their physiological (polyvagal) dynamics and regulate their emotions together. What helped them most in the beginning was the ability to identify each other's triggers, intentionally pausing to check in on each other during tense moments. Then, they also practised listening attentively and communicating respectfully to negotiate conflicts more constructively. Finally, they incorporated reconciliation rituals, such as planned moments of reconnection and affirmative conversations after crises. Over time, these therapeutic interventions helped them create a more balanced and reliable relationship.

​

Research Directions

Future empirical studies should test the integrative model across diverse populations, employing multimodal assessment (physiological, behavioural, and self-report) to track the interplay of neurophysiological states, sensitivity traits, and relational competencies. Longitudinal designs can elucidate how shifts in relational rituals or environmental predictability affect outcomes for highly sensitive individuals and couples. Intervention research could examine the efficacy of specific co-regulatory practices and rituals in buffering against relational volatility, especially for those with heightened sensitivity. The development of sensitivity-adapted relational interventions, and the use of polyvagal-informed therapeutic modalities, offer promising avenues for advancing both science and clinical practice.

​

Conclusion

The integration of polyvagal theory, high and vantage sensitivity, and Gottman’s relational model marks a significant advance in the conceptualisation of romantic relationships. By framing partnerships as dynamic neuroaffective systems, this approach foregrounds the interplay of physiological safety, individual differences, and relational skill. Sensitive individuals, with their amplified reactivity and adaptive potential, offer a privileged lens for observing these dynamics. The proposed model provides a robust scaffold for research, clinical innovation, and educational practice, inviting ongoing refinement and empirical validation. Ultimately, a stable, reliable, and creative relationship is an ecosystem where two nervous systems remain available to one another, fostering mutual growth and flourishing.

​

References

• Porges, S. W. (2011). The Polyvagal Theory: Neurophysiological Foundations of Emotions, Attachment, Communication, and Self-Regulation. W. W. Norton & Company.

• Porges, S. W. (2025). Polyvagal theory: A journey from physiological observation to neural innervation and clinical insight. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 19.

• Porges, S.W. (2025). Polyvagal theory: Current status, clinical applications, and future directions. Clinical Neuropsychiatry, 22(3).

• Aron, E. N. (1997). The Highly Sensitive Person: How to Thrive When the World Overwhelms You. Broadway Books.

• Aron, E. N., & Aron, A. (1997). Sensory-Processing Sensitivity and Its Relation to Introversion and Emotionality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(2), 345–368.

• Elaine N. Aron, Chapter 6 - Clinical assessment of sensory processing sensitivity, in Bianca P. Acevedo, The Highly Sensitive Brain, Academic Press, 2020, 135-164.

• Kathy A. Smolewska, Scott B. McCabe, Erik Z. Woody (2006), A psychometric evaluation of the Highly Sensitive Person Scale: The components of sensory-processing sensitivity and their relation to the BIS/BAS and “Big Five”, Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 40, Issue 6, 1269-1279.

• Pluess, M. (2015). Individual Differences in Environmental Sensitivity. Child Development Perspectives, 9(3), 138–143.

• Pluess, M., & Boniwell, I. (2015). Sensory-Processing Sensitivity predicts treatment response to a school-based depression prevention program: Evidence of Vantage Sensitivity. Personality and Individual Differences, 82(0), 40-45.

• Pluess, M., & Belsky, J. (2013). Vantage Sensitivity: Individual Differences in Response to Positive Experiences. Psychological Bulletin, 139(4), 901-916.

• Greven, C. U., Lionetti, F., Booth, C., et al. (2019). Sensory Processing Sensitivity in the Context of Environmental Sensitivity: A Critical Review and Development of Research Agenda. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 98, 287–305.

• Gottman, J. M., & Gottman, J. S. (2015). 8 Dates: Essential Conversations for a Lifetime of Love. Workman Publishing.

• Gottman, J. M., & Silver, N. (1999). The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work. Orion.

• Diamond, L. M., & Hicks, A. M. (2005). Attachment Style, Current Relationship Security, and Negative Mood Regulation in a Sample of Married Couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22(4), 499–518.

Saverio Tomasella, Doctor of Clinical Psychology (Psychopathology), psychoanalyst, researcher, writer, founder of the Observatory of Sensitivity and World Sensitivity Day.

​

​

Co‑Regulation and High Sensitivity: The Neurobiology of Connection in Sensitive Lives

​

Introduction: Sensitivity as a Relational Phenomenon

High sensitivity, whether described through the scientific construct of Sensory Processing Sensitivity (SPS) or the more popular term Highly Sensitive Person (HSP), is often framed as an individual trait. Yet sensitivity is fundamentally relational. It emerges, develops, expresses itself within the dynamic interplay between the individual and their environment. Sensitive nervous systems do not simply react more intensely; they perceive more, process more deeply, and depend more profoundly on the quality of relational signals that surround them.

This article explores how co‑regulation, as described in contemporary polyvagal‑informed neuroscience, provides the missing link between sensitivity and wellbeing. It reframes sensitivity not as fragility but as a biologically adaptive strategy that thrives in environments rich in attunement, safety, and connection.

​

1. The Sensitive Nervous System: Depth, Responsivity, and Vulnerability

Research on SPS highlights four core features:

• Depth of processing;

• Emotional reactivity and empathy;

• Susceptibility to overstimulation;

• Sensitivity to subtle stimuli.

From a polyvagal perspective, these features reflect a nervous system that is highly tuned to social and environmental cues. Sensitive individuals detect micro‑signals of safety and danger that others may overlook. This heightened responsivity is not a flaw; it is an evolutionary strategy that supports careful observation, nuanced perception, and relational attunement.

However, this same depth of processing increases vulnerability to dysregulation when the environment is chaotic, unpredictable, or emotionally unavailable. The sensitive system is not weak—it is permeable. It absorbs the tone of the relational field.

​

2. Co‑Regulation: The Biological Imperative of Connection

Co‑regulation refers to the reciprocal exchange of autonomic signals between individuals. Through facial expression, tone of voice, posture, and presence, humans continuously influence one another’s physiological state.

For HSPs, co‑regulation is not optional. It is the primary stabilizing force that anchors their nervous system in safety.

Sensitive individuals:

• calm more quickly in the presence of attuned others

• experience misattunement more swiftly and intensely

• internalize relational safety more deeply

• are disproportionately affected by relational rupture

This explains why sensitive people often describe themselves as “sponges,” “mirrors,” or “tuning forks.” Their nervous system is built to resonate.

​

3. Differential Susceptibility: Why Environment Matters More for HSPs

The theory of differential susceptibility proposes that sensitive individuals are more affected by both negative and positive environments. Co‑regulation is the mechanism that makes this possible.

In unsafe or unpredictable environments:

• the sensitive system shifts rapidly into sympathetic vigilance or dorsal withdrawal

• chronic misattunement leads to loneliness, shame, and self‑protection

• overstimulation becomes a daily experience

In safe, attuned environments:

• sensitive individuals flourish

• creativity, empathy, and insight expand

• emotional depth becomes a resource

• stability grows through repeated experiences of co‑regulated safety

Sensitivity is therefore not a liability, it is a context‑dependent strength.

​

4. Loneliness, Solitude, and the Autonomic Landscape of Sensitivity

The distinction between loneliness and solitude is crucial for understanding the inner life of HSPs.

Loneliness

Loneliness is a state of autonomic protection. It arises when the nervous system perceives disconnection, even in the presence of others. For sensitive individuals, loneliness is often the residue of chronic misattunement—relationships where their depth was unseen or misunderstood.

Solitude

Solitude is a ventral vagal state of chosen aloneness. It is restorative, creative, and grounding. Sensitive individuals often seek solitude not to escape others but to digest the emotional and sensory richness of their experiences.

Therapeutic work helps clients shift from protective isolation to restorative solitude by strengthening their capacity for co‑regulated safety.

​

5. Trauma and Sensitivity: When Co‑Regulation Fails

Trauma can be understood as a chronic disruption of co‑regulation. For HSPs, this disruption cuts deeper.

Because sensitive individuals process relational cues more intensely, traumatic environments leave stronger autonomic imprints:

• hypervigilance

• collapse

• difficulty trusting connection

• oscillation between longing and withdrawal

Healing requires more than cognitive insight. It requires relational experiences that restore safety at the autonomic level.

​

6. The Therapist as a Regulating Other for Sensitive Clients

In therapy, the clinician’s presence becomes a regulating force. For HSPs, this is especially transformative.

A therapist’s attuned presence:

• stabilizes the client’s autonomic state

• models ventral vagal functioning

• provides predictable relational rhythms

• supports the internalization of self‑regulation

Therapy becomes a relational ecosystem where sensitivity is not pathologized but honored as a pathway to depth and connection.

​

7. Nature, Rhythm, and Embodied Safety

Sensitive individuals often find profound regulation in nature. Natural environments offer:

• gentle sensory input

• rhythmic patterns

• non‑judgmental presence

• a sense of belonging

These experiences function as non‑human co‑regulators, expanding the therapeutic palette beyond interpersonal relationships.

Practices such as mindful walking, forest bathing, breathwork, and contemplative observation help sensitive individuals cultivate internal safety and widen their window of tolerance.

​

Conclusion: Sensitivity as a Pathway to Connection

Co‑regulation reveals the true nature of high sensitivity: a relationally attuned nervous system designed for depth, empathy, and meaning.

When sensitive individuals receive consistent experiences of safety—through relationships, therapy, nature, and embodied practices—their sensitivity becomes: a source of wisdom, a foundation for creativity, a catalyst for compassion and a pathway to profound connection.

Sensitivity is not something to manage or overcome; it is a gift that unfolds in the presence of safety and reliable relationships.

Bibliography

Porges, S. W. (2011). The Polyvagal Theory: Neurophysiological Foundations of Emotions, Attachment, Communication, and Self-Regulation. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

Aron, E. N. (1996). The Highly Sensitive Person: How to Thrive When the World Overwhelms You. New York: Broadway Books.

Pluess, M. (2015). Sensitivity: A Special Issue of Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews. Oxford: Elsevier.