Interpersonal emotion regulation refers to using other people to change one’s or others’ emotions. The outcomes have important implications for emotional well-being and relationships.
Understanding these processes is crucial, as they shape emotional experiences and relationship dynamics in everyday life. Effective interpersonal emotion regulation may foster emotional well-being ,emotional intelligence, and strong social connections, while difficulties in this area could lead to emotional distress and interpersonal problems.
Investigating factors that influence the outcomes of interpersonal emotion regulation, such as the effort invested, can provide valuable insights for enhancing personal and relational well-being.
Key Points
Rationale
Prior research has demonstrated that intrinsic and extrinsic interpersonal emotion regulation are crucial for emotional well-being and relationship quality (Williams et al., 2018).
However, an open question remains: What factors determine whether these interpersonal regulation attempts are successful or unsuccessful?
Critically, though, interpersonal regulation research has yet to examine the role of effort systematically.
Although some studies have looked at indirect markers like regulation frequency (Dixon-Gordon et al., 2018) or hours providing support (Gunderson & Barrett, 2017), these are problematic because effort is conceptually distinct from strategy use or time spent. Moreover, findings using these proxy measures have been mixed.
In contrast, recent intrapersonal work directly assessing effort provides more consistent evidence that it facilitates regulatory success (Gutentag et al., 2023).
This background establishes a strong rationale for the current research – directly measuring interpersonal regulation efforts will help clarify its influence on emotional and relational outcomes, reconciling discrepant past findings.
It will also bridge an important gap between the intra- and interpersonal emotion regulation literature.
Method
Study 1
The sample consisted of 171 participants, aged 18–62 (M= 28.96, SD = 11.81, 79% women). Approximately half were single, and half were in a relationship.
Recruitment occurred through an undergraduate research participation program and community advertising.
University participants received course credit, while community participants received gift cards based on their level of participation.
The daily diary study lasted nine days in total.
On Day 1, participants completed a baseline survey assessing traits and demographics. For the next 7 days (Days 2-8), participants received a daily survey at 5 pm assessing their most significant social interaction that day, and a follow-up survey (Day 9).
Surveys expired at 11:59 pm. If no interaction occurred that day, they reported on a recent one.
The measures were adapted from prior research (Gutentag et al. 2023; Kalokerinos et al. 2017; Posner et al. 2005; Yik et al. 2011) and assessed using slider scales, allowing investigation of effort associations with emotional and relational outcomes.
Study 2
The final sample consisted of 239 participants aged 18-79 (M = 29.74, SD = 10.85, 71% women). Recruitment was similar to Study 1.
On Day 1, participants completed a baseline survey and watched instructional videos.
For the next 7 days, they completed 7 ESM surveys per day scheduled randomly from 9:30 am-7 pm, plus one end-of-day survey.
Each ESM survey prompted participants to report their most recent significant social interaction.
The ESM surveys contained 26-29 items. 13 items were relevant, assessing the same key measures as the daily diaries: interpersonal regulation intention, goals, effort, interaction emotions (positive, negative), and quality.
Surveys asked about participants’ most recent significant social interaction. If no interaction occurred, questions assessed current emotions instead, ensuring participants were not incentivized to skip questions.
Results
Insight
The finding that effort did not pay off emotionally counters assumptions that more effort invariably facilitates regulation success (Gross, 2015; Zaki & Williams, 2013).
It also contrasts with intrapersonal work where effort generally has emotional benefits (Gutentag et al., 2023).
This highlights a potential disconnect between the literatures. Reasons may be that intrinsic effort makes support seem visible, eliciting reactance (Bolger & Amarel, 2007), or indexes greater need to regulate negativity.
For extrinsic regulation, it may signal unnoticed support attempts which negatively impact providers (Biehle & Mickelson, 2012).
Nonetheless, extrinsic effort had social payoffs between people. This initial evidence reconciles mixed past findings and sets the stage to uncover moderators of when effort pays off interpersonally.
Strengths
Limitations
Clinical Implications
Clinicians often recommend interpersonal regulation strategies to help clientsregulate emotions. However, advising clients to simply try harder may backfire emotionally.
A nuanced understanding of when and for whom effort pays off can inform best practices.
The context likely matters. Effort could enable negative behaviors like venting or reassurance seeking which exacerbates distress. Or be perceived as visible support prompting reactance.
The mixed outcomes suggest successful regulation is not just about effort, but complex social-cognitive processes. Advise flexibility, and help clients align effort with optimal contexts, goals and strategies.
References
Primary reference
Tran, A., Greenaway, K. H., Kostopoulos, J., Tamir, M., Gutentag, T., & Kalokerinos, E. K. (2024). Does interpersonal emotion regulation effort pay off?Emotion, 24(2), 345–356.https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0001289
Other references
Biehle, S. N., & Mickelson, K. D. (2012). Provision and receipt of emotional spousal support: The impact of visibility on well-being.Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice, 1(3), 244–251.https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028480
Bolger, N., & Amarel, D. (2007). Effects of social support visibility on adjustment to stress: Experimental evidence.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(3), 458–475.https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.3.458
Debrot, A., Schoebi, D., Perrez, M., & Horn, A. B. (2013). Touch as an interpersonal emotion regulation process in couples’ daily lives.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(10), 1373–1385.https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213497592
Dixon-Gordon, K. L., Haliczer, L. A., Conkey, L. C., & Whalen, D. J. (2018). Difficulties in interpersonal emotion regulation: Initial development and validation of a self-report measure.Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 40(3), 528–549.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-018-9647-9
English, T., Lee, I. A., John, O. P., & Gross, J. J. (2017). Emotion regulation strategy selection in daily life: The role of social context and goals.Motivation and Emotion, 41(2), 230–242.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-016-9597-z
Farooqi, S. R. (2014). The construct of relationship quality. Journal of Relationships Research, 5, Article e2.https://doi.org/10.1017/jrr.2014.2
Gunderson, J., & Barrett, A. E. (2017). Emotional cost of emotional support? The association between intensive mothering and psychological well-being in midlife.Journal of Family Issues, 38(7), 992–1009.https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X15579502
Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Rapson, R. L. (1993). Emotional contagion.Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2(3), 96–100.https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.ep10770953
Marini, C. M., Wilson, S. J., Tate, A. M., Martire, L. M., & Franks, M. M. (2021). Short- and long-term effects of support visibility on support providers’ negative affect.The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 76(3), 461–470.https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbz114
Morelli, S. A., Lee, I. A., Arnn, M. E., & Zaki, J. (2015). Emotional and instrumental support provision interact to predict well-being.Emotion, 15(4), 484–493.https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000084
Niven, K., Macdonald, I., & Holman, D. (2012). You spin me right round: Cross-relationship variability in interpersonal emotion regulation.Frontiers in Psychology, 3,Article 394.https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00394
Tamir, M. (2021). Effortful emotion regulation as a unique form of cybernetic control.Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(1), 94–117.https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620922199
Zee, K. S., & Bolger, N. (2019). Visible and invisible social support: How, why, and when.Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28(3), 314–320.https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721419835214
Keep Learning
Here are some suggested Socratic discussion questions:
Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc
BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education
Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.
Saul McLeod, PhD
BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester
Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.
