Emotion最新文献

Prior theory and research offer competing predictions for associations between intrapersonal emotion (dys)regulation and interpersonal emotion regulation (IER). One possibility is that difficulties recognizing, accepting, or managing one's emotions might tend to interfere with seeking or benefiting from IER. Alternatively, people who struggle to regulate their emotions by themselves might nevertheless be able to outsource regulatory functions or capitalize on regulatory support effectively, such that benefits of IER might be preserved or even amplified. We conducted secondary analyses of five samples (Ns = 90-381) collected between 2016 and 2020 to examine links between individual differences in intrapersonal emotion (dys)regulation and reported desire for, seeking of, and helpfulness of receiving IER. The samples consisted of students at a public university in California (Samples 1-3), romantic couples recruited predominantly from the Greater San Francisco Bay Area community (Sample 4), and adults reporting difficulties with emotion-related impulsivity enrolled in an online intervention to reduce aggression (Sample 5). Methods varied across samples, including questionnaires, autobiographical recall, nightly diaries, and ecological momentary assessment. Across samples, individual differences in emotion dysregulation, cognitive reappraisal, and expressive suppression were more robustly tied to perceived helpfulness of IER than reported desire for IER. More specifically, emotion dysregulation and suppression use were negatively associated with helpfulness, whereas reappraisal use was positively associated with helpfulness; however, some results were inconsistent across samples. We examine these consistencies and inconsistencies considering differences in sample characteristics and methods. We discuss conceptual and practical implications of these findings alongside strengths, limitations, and future directions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

Previous research has demonstrated how people are motivated to induce negative feelings in others, a phenomenon known as extrinsic interpersonal affect worsening. This process has been linked to decreased well-being for those involved in regulating these emotions. However, prior studies have primarily centered on experimental scenarios, neglecting the emotions (such as anger) experienced by those regulating extrinsic affect worsening as possible predictors. To address this gap, a study involving 166 British adults (M_age = 35.09, SD = 12.94) was conducted from the end of 2019 to February 2020. Participants reported their general disposition to engage in extrinsic interpersonal affect worsening and subsequently recorded their levels of momentary anger and momentary extrinsic affect worsening through ecological momentary assessments for 28 days at three different daily time points. The findings unveiled a reciprocal relation with nuanced differences between occurrence and intensity of affect worsening. While for occurrence, we only observed an effect where the occurrence of affect worsening led to a heightened experience of anger in the regulator; for intensity, we observed a detrimental cycle in which anger can serve as both a cause and a consequence of the higher intensity of extrinsic affect worsening. These results are discussed within the context of aggression and abuse theories. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

Lab experiments have shown that reminders of romantic partners buffer against stressors. Yet, tightly controlled experiments do not mimic what transpires in people's actual lives. Thus, an important question is as follows: To what extent do reminders of romantic partners confer affective benefits when they occur "in the wild" as people experience their daily activities? To capture people's emotional experience in real time, two studies, each spanning 3 months, used event-contingent ecological momentary assessments with a within-subject experimental manipulation. Prior to encountering a stressful event (taking an exam), participants received either a supportive text message from their partner or no message (Studies 1 and 2), or a supportive text message from the research team (Study 2). Receiving supportive partner messages, compared to no messages or messages from the research team, led to less negative affect and greater positive affect, and to less negative affect and greater positive affect about the exam itself. Receiving supportive partner messages had no statistically significant effects on subjective stress. Interestingly, the quality of the partner messages, as coded by independent raters, did not significantly predict the magnitude of the affective benefits. These findings suggest that receiving any supportive partner message, and not necessarily more subtle differences in the quality of the message, may be the key ingredient for these benefits to occur. The present work advances understanding of how the symbolic presence of partners confers affective regulatory benefits in everyday life. Implications for emotion regulation and the utility of integrating perspectives from adult attachment are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

Emotions are powerful tools through which formal leaders influence their followers, whether by overt emotional displays or deliberate attempts to regulate their own and others' emotions. This raises the following question: Can the strategic effort to regulate others' emotions help team members emerge as informal leaders? This work demonstrates that extrinsic emotion regulation-a goal-directed action aimed at regulating team members' emotions-can enable individuals to rise to informal leadership positions. We hypothesize that team members who improve group emotions emerge as informal leaders. This was tested in two studies. In Study 1 (a lab study on 25 ad hoc groups; n = 100), individuals recognized for improving group affect were chosen as informal leaders. In Study 2 (a field study of 43 student groups that worked together for 6 weeks; n = 141), individuals who self-reported engaging in extrinsic affect-improving were recognized by their peers as fostering positive group affect and subsequently were chosen as the informal leaders of the group. Notably, our findings show that the impact of extrinsic affect-improving was above and beyond that of intrinsic affect-improving. These results underscore the pivotal role of interpersonal emotion regulation, specifically extrinsic affect-improving, in the emergence of informal leadership and highlight its unique contribution to leadership dynamics within teams. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

Relationship conflicts, which are common among committed couples, provoke negative emotions with implications for sexual well-being (i.e., satisfaction, desire, low distress). Couples might manage these emotions through extrinsic interpersonal emotion regulation (IER; attempting to influence the emotions of a romantic partner). In a preregistered dyadic, daily diary, and longitudinal study, we examined how four distinct IER strategies-responsiveness, cognitive support, physical presence, hostility-perceived by a romantic partner during relationship conflict related to both partners' sexual well-being. Over 28 days, community couples (N = 122; recruited between 2022 and 2023) completed brief measures of IER and sexual satisfaction, desire, and distress on days of relationship conflict and full versions of these measures 4 months later. Results may be generalizable to community couples in North America; however, improving the diversity of samples in future research would extend generalizability. Generally, greater perceived responsiveness, cognitive support, and physical presence IER on conflict days were each associated with higher daily sexual satisfaction and desire for couples, while greater perceived hostility was associated with lower daily satisfaction and desire. Greater perceived physical presence averaged across diaries was associated with one's own increased desire 4 months later. Most effects were similar for men and women; however, on days when women perceived greater responsiveness and cognitive support from partners, their partners reported more sexual distress, but there was no association between men's perceived IER and partners' distress. Findings expand models of IER to include sexual well-being and support IER as a target for interventions aimed at promoting sexual well-being. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

A central tenet guiding contemporary research on emotions is that people are fundamentally motivated to feel good and avoid feeling bad. This principle translates from intrapersonal to extrinsic interpersonal emotion regulation; people not only strive to achieve the hedonic goal of managing their own emotions, but they also help others reach the same goal-the process called hedonic interpersonal emotion regulation (hedonic IER). Here, we challenge the centrality of this principle in romantic relationships by testing a hypothesis that, compared with European Americans, Asians use hedonic IER less and benefit less from their partners' use of this strategy. Findings across three studies (total N = 2,540) supported this hypothesis. First, European Americans used hedonic IER more than Asians both in positive and negative situations, and, moreover, this cultural difference was mediated by dialectical beliefs about emotions (Study 1). Second, compared with Chinese, European Americans anticipated greater relationship satisfaction in response to their partners' hedonic IER attempts in both positive and negative situations, and this effect was again mediated by dialectical emotion beliefs (Study 2). Third, compared with Asian couples, European American couples perceived that their partners used hedonic IER more in positive situations. Moreover, when European Americans perceived that their partners used hedonic IER more, they showed greater vagal withdrawal during a positive discussion (i.e., physiological reactivity linked to enhanced social sensitivity and engagement), while Asians did not show this association (Study 3). These findings highlight the critical role of sociocultural contexts in shaping IER and its relational consequences. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

The current research unveils a novel mechanism through which interpersonal emotion regulation enhances romantic relationship quality and affective experience. Across three studies, we tested the hypothesis that depending on interactions with a romantic partner for emotion regulation (emotion regulation dependence [ERD]) motivates people to see their partner as more supportive and responsive, and evaluate their partner's traits more positively. In turn, we expected these elevated perceptions to partially account for the positive effect of ERD on relationship satisfaction and affective experience. In Studies 1 and 2 (N = 395 and 397), experimental manipulations of subjective ERD increased perceived partner support provision, perceived partner responsiveness, and, in Study 2, evaluation of partner traits. In Study 3, a multimethod dyadic study (N = 470), ERD predicted greater perceived partner support provision, perceived partner responsiveness, and positive evaluation of the partner's traits independently of the partner's self-reports and objective observers' assessments of partner behavior. ERD also predicted change over time in these perceptions. These findings were replicated in terms of everyday experiences using daily diary methods (daily n = 9,653). Global and daily ERD indirectly predicted greater relationship satisfaction and mood through positive interpersonal perceptions. Results underscore the importance of intrapsychic processes in interpersonal emotion regulation and suggest that positively biased interpersonal perceptions may be a common pathway through which depending on interactions with romantic partners for emotion regulation improves relationship quality and affective experience. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

As social creatures, our relationships with other people have tremendous downstream impacts on health and well-being. However, we still know surprisingly little about how our social interactions regulate how we think and feel through life's challenges. Getting help from other people to change how one thinks about emotional events-known as "social reappraisal"-can be more effective in downregulating negative affect than reappraising on one's own, but it is unknown whether this regulatory boost from social support persists when people face the same events alone in the future. In a preregistered study of 120 young adults (N = 60 same-gender dyads, gender-split sample) involving in-lab emotion regulation tasks and a follow-up task online approximately 1 day later, we found that participants responded less negatively to aversive images that were socially regulated (i.e., reappraised with the help of a friend) both immediately and over time, as compared to images that had been solo regulated (i.e., reappraised on one's own) or not regulated (i.e., passively viewed). Interestingly, the regulatory boost from social support observed both in the lab and at follow-up was driven by women dyads. This work highlights one important mechanism explaining how support from others can facilitate emotional well-being: By changing peoples' lasting impressions of distressing events, interactions with others can help prepare them to cope with future exposure to those events on their own, underscoring how valuable others' perspectives can be when navigating ongoing emotional stressors. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

While most people want to feel happy, valuing happiness can paradoxically make people unhappy. We propose that such costs may extend to interpersonal contexts, given that valuing happiness may shape how people (i.e., regulators) manage others' (i.e., targets') emotions (i.e., extrinsic interpersonal emotion regulation). While valuing happiness could motivate regulators to reduce targets' distress using effective forms of emotion regulation, it may also push them to be intolerant toward targets' distress and, in turn, predict worse target well-being. The current investigation examines how two approaches to happiness (i.e., happiness aspiring and happiness concern) predict how regulators manage their children's and romantic partners' distress-two fundamental close relationship types that allow us to address the robustness of our findings. We obtained longitudinal reports across a year from socioculturally diverse regulators (N = 279, including partially overlapping groups of 155 parents and 248 partnered individuals) and cross-sectional reports from partners. We found that people who aspired to be happy were more successful at using reappraisal and distraction to manage targets' emotions, while those who were concerned about happiness were less successful at accepting targets' emotions (i.e., confirmed by partners' reports). In turn, more successful use of reappraisal and distraction predicted better target well-being, and less successful acceptance of targets' emotions predicted poorer target well-being across the next 8 months. These findings underscore the importance of understanding individual differences that shape consequential forms of interpersonal emotion regulation, thereby illuminating who is most likely to help their loved ones and who may be putting them at risk. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

Interpersonal emotion regulation occurs when people influence others' emotions (extrinsic regulation) or turn to others to influence their own emotions (intrinsic regulation). Research on interpersonal regulation has tended to focus on how people regulate emotions, with little interrogation of why people do it, despite the importance of motives in driving emotion regulation goals and strategy selection. To fill this gap, we conducted a systematic exploration of interpersonal emotion regulation motives, employing a participant-driven approach to document the breadth of motives that people hold across different social contexts. Study 1a (N = 100) provided an initial qualitative examination of motives for both intrinsic and extrinsic interpersonal emotion regulation. Study 1b (N = 399) quantitatively catalogued these motives in recalled social interactions. Study 2 (N = 200), a daily diary study, used the motive taxonomy generated in Studies 1a and 1b to understand why people regulated their own and others' emotions in everyday social interactions over the course of 14 days. Together, our findings reveal the diversity of intrinsic and extrinsic interpersonal emotion regulation motives and open avenues to further explore motives both as a precursor to and an outcome of regulatory processes in daily life. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).