Most people know the experience: one person walks into a room and you relax; another conversation leaves you tense or “drained”. Everyday language often calls this positive or negative energy. Science uses less mystical terms — but the underlying experience can be very real.
Research points to emotional contagion, environmental sensitivity, stress reactivity, empathy and physiological synchrony. Twin studies add a fascinating layer: people differ partly for genetic reasons in how strongly they react to environments, but the environment itself still matters enormously.
Quick answer
Can another person really change how you feel?
Yes, through established psychological, behavioural and physiological pathways. Emotions can spread between people, close partners can show physiological synchrony, and individuals differ in environmental sensitivity. This is not evidence for a literal invisible aura or unknown energy field.
Key takeaways
- A month-long diary study of 447 teenage twins found average negative affect was substantially heritable, while average positive affect showed a strong shared-environment contribution.
- A study of 2,868 adolescent twins estimated environmental sensitivity heritability at about 47%.
- Sensitivity to negative and positive environments appears to have partly distinct genetic components.
- A 2024 laboratory study found emotional contagion and heart-rate/HRV synchrony between interacting people, with stronger positive contagion among friends than strangers.
- Science supports social and physiological influence between people; it does not establish telepathy or invisible energy transfer.
“Positive energy” has a scientific translation
Researchers often describe the experience using concepts such as positive and negative affect, emotional contagion and social synchrony. We unconsciously read facial expression, voice, posture, timing and behaviour. Those cues can alter our own emotional state, attention and stress response.
This translation matters because it lets us take the everyday experience seriously without turning it into a claim that science has not demonstrated.
Twin research: positive and negative affect do not have identical origins
In a daily diary study, 447 17-year-old twins rated positive and negative affect for about a month. Genetic factors explained roughly 53% of differences in average negative affect, while shared environmental factors explained about 42% of differences in average positive affect. Day-to-day variability showed both genetic and environmental contributions.
An older study of 105 twin pairs also found different patterns for positive and negative affect. The broader message is not that positive emotion is “environmental” and negative emotion is “genetic”, but that the two dimensions can have different mixtures of influence.
Some people really do seem more sensitive to their surroundings
A large twin study of 2,868 adolescents estimated the heritability of environmental sensitivity at 47%. Even more interestingly, sensitivity to negative experiences and sensitivity to positive aspects of the environment appeared to involve partly distinct genetic influences.
That means two people can enter the same social situation and experience it very differently. One may be strongly lifted by encouragement or heavily affected by conflict; another may be less reactive in either direction.
Emotional contagion can reach the body
In a 2024 laboratory study, one person experienced an induced positive or negative emotion while a second person observed them. Researchers saw spontaneous mimicry, emotional contagion and physiological synchrony. In positive conditions, friend pairs showed stronger positive contagion and greater synchrony in heart rate and HRV than stranger pairs.
This does not mean hearts literally “share energy”. It shows that social interaction can couple emotional and autonomic responses through ordinary human communication and perception.
Where the scientific boundary should be drawn
There is no established twin-science evidence showing that people transmit an unknown invisible energy, aura or telepathic signal independent of ordinary sensory and physiological mechanisms. Small exploratory studies should not be presented as proof of such claims.
The grounded conclusion is already compelling: people can influence each other’s mood, stress, behaviour and physiology, and some individuals appear more environmentally sensitive than others.
TwinPare perspective: social context belongs in the health picture
Sleep, exercise and nutrition are not the only things that shape how we feel. Relationships, conflict, belonging, encouragement and social stress can also affect behaviour and recovery. That makes the social environment an important context when interpreting health trends.
TwinPare’s broader philosophy is relational: understand health as something that can be influenced by the people around us, while keeping sharing voluntary and avoiding claims that go beyond the evidence.
Source notes
The sources have been verified and editorially reviewed for this article. The limitations below show which level of conclusion the sources support.
- [zheng-2016] Heritability of Intraindividual Mean and Variability of Positive and Negative Affect Yao Zheng et al.. Psychological Science, 2016. Evidence type: Intensive longitudinal twin diary study Limitation: Participants were 17-year-old UK twins; estimates may not generalize identically to all ages and cultures. PubMed
- [baker-1992] Genetic and environmental influences on positive and negative affect: support for a two-factor theory L A Baker et al.. Psychology and Aging, 1992. Evidence type: Twin and family study Limitation: Older study using self-report measures; useful as historical support, not a standalone modern estimate. PubMed
- [assary-2021] Genetic architecture of Environmental Sensitivity reflects multiple heritable components: a twin study with adolescents Eslam Assary et al.. Molecular Psychiatry, 2021. Evidence type: Large adolescent twin study Limitation: Environmental sensitivity was questionnaire-based and the findings do not imply a “sensitivity gene”. PubMed
- [lin-2024] Emotion contagion and physiological synchrony: The more intimate relationships, the more contagion of positive emotions Daichun Lin et al.. Physiology & Behavior, 2024. Evidence type: Laboratory dyadic physiology study Limitation: The study compared friend and stranger dyads in a laboratory task; it supports ordinary social and physiological coupling, not paranormal transmission. PubMed
- [twinsscan-2026] Genetic sensitivity to the environment moderates the impact of positive and negative childhood experiences on psychological adjustment "for good and for bad" TwinssCan investigators. Psychological Medicine, 2026. Evidence type: Twin cohort gene-by-environment study Limitation: Significant effects were outcome-specific and did not emerge for all internalizing or wellbeing outcomes; broad generalization should be avoided. PubMed
Editorial source review
This section shows how the article's key factual claims are linked to the source.
Phrasings that require caution
- Use “energy” as everyday language and immediately translate it into established concepts such as affect, contagion, sensitivity and synchrony.
- Do not present emotional contagion as evidence for telepathy, aura or unknown energy fields.
- Heritability of environmental sensitivity does not mean a person is genetically fixed to react in one way.
| ID | Claim | Source support | Caution |
|---|