Social psychophysiological compliance (SPC) was tested as a predictor of future team performance of two-person teams performing a self-paced projective tracking task under laboratory conditions. Undergraduate students (N=16 teams, aged 17 to 23 yrs) worked in parallel using separate X-Y joysticks to guide a virtual object through a complex path. One team member controlled the horizontal position of the object while the other controlled vertical. Unexpected changes in task control dynamics occurred at a randomly-selected point in the path: either horizontal and vertical (HV) control were swapped between team members, directional control was reversed, or both HV swap plus directional reversal occurred. Higher cardiac SPC (cross correlation, lag=0) scores predicted lower tracking error from path centerline (p<.01) but did not predict collision severity between object and path wall. The results indicate that SPC has some potential for assessing a team's readiness to handle unexpected task demands in the immediate future.Key words: social psychophysiological compliance, teamwork, cybernetics Psychophysiological techniques can be used for objective and continuous monitoring of the human response to computer-mediated tasks but most studies employing these techniques have focused on individuals rather than teams. Furthermore, the reported empirical relationships are largely based on correlations between psychophysiological changes and performance measures collected over the same time period. The present study represents an attempt to develop a new approach, moving from individual to social psychophysiology, and from examining simultaneous events to testing if changes in social psychophysiology can be used to predict team performance in the immediate future. This research is guided by the behavioral cybernetic model developed by K.U. Smith and associates (Smith & Smith, 1987) which assumes that: (1) human behavior is controlled as a closed-loop or cybernetic process; (2) closed-loop behavioral links are established between sensory feedback from design factors in the performance environment; and (3) that sensory feedback control is mediated by motor behavior. This theoretical perspective differs from most present-day cognitive models that classify motor behavior as an output or end product of mental processes, that has no significant role in either controlling or organizing subsequent behavior.Looking beyond the obvious role of motor behavior in feedback control of the environment, K.U. Smith's cybernetic theory highlighted the many roles of motor activity in behavior organization such as dynamic and continuous control of posture, fine