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.
- It involves intrinsic regulation, where we try to influence our feelings by turning to others for support, advice, modeling, etc.
- It also involves extrinsic regulation, where we intentionally try to shape how others around us feel through engagement, acceptance, rejection, and other interpersonal means.
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.
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
Key Points
- The study investigated whether investing effort in interpersonal emotion regulation is associated with beneficial emotional and relational outcomes in everyday life.
- Intrinsic regulation effort (trying to feel better through others) was associated with worse emotional outcomes both within-person (on occasions when people tried harder than usual) and between-people (for those who try harder in general).
- Extrinsic regulation effort (trying to make others feel better) was detrimental within-person but beneficial between-people for relational outcomes.
- The findings suggest that more effort does not always lead to better socioemotional outcomes in interpersonal regulation. More complex processes may be at play.
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).
For example, people who habitually regulate their own emotions by turning to others report greater positive affect and less negative affect over time (Williams et al., 2018). Similarly, extrinsic regulation strategies that validate others’ emotions are linked to more satisfying relationships (Debrot et al., 2013).
However, an open question remains: What factors determine whether these interpersonal regulation attempts are successful or unsuccessful?
The motivated emotion regulation model developed by Tamir et al. (2020) provides a useful framework, positing that regulatory outcomes depend on the specific strategies used and the motivation behind them. This includes the reason for regulating (motivational content) and the effort invested (motivational strength).
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
Participants
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.
Procedure
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.
Materials
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.
- Interpersonal Emotion Regulation Intention: Participants indicated whether they engaged in intrinsic regulation (using others to influence their own emotions) and extrinsic regulation (influencing others’ emotions) during their most significant interaction.
- Interpersonal Emotion Regulation Goals: Participants selected if they had a goal to increase/maintain positive emotions, decrease negative emotions, increase/maintain negative emotions, decrease positive emotions, or no goal. This was used to subset the data.
- Interpersonal Emotion Regulation Effort: Two slider scale items (0-100) assessed how much effort participants put into intrinsic and extrinsic regulation during the interaction.
- Social Interaction Quality: A slider scale item (0-100) assessed participants’ perceived quality of the interaction.
- Social Interaction Emotions: Participants reported how much they felt 7 emotions. Positive emotions composite averaged happy, relaxed, and hopeful. Negative emotions composite averaged sad, nervous, angry, and stressed. The emotions accounted for valence and arousal dimensions.
Statistical Analysis
- Linear mixed effects models tested in R.
- Within-person effort was person-mean centered.
- Between-person effort was person averaged then grand-mean centered.
Study 2
Participants
The final sample consisted of 239 participants aged 18-79 (M = 29.74, SD = 10.85, 71% women). Recruitment was similar to Study 1.
Procedure
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.
Materials
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.
- Interpersonal Emotion Regulation Intention: Assessed whether and how participants used others to regulate their own or others’ emotions in the recent interaction.
- Interpersonal Emotion Regulation Effort: Measured how much effort participants invested into intrinsic and extrinsic regulation attempts during the interaction using slider scales.
- Social Interaction Quality: A slider scale rating of how positive or negative participants perceived the overall interaction quality to be.
- Social Interaction Emotions: Participants reported how intensely they felt various positive (peaceful, relaxed, excited, enthusiastic) and negative (sad, dull, anxious, irritated) emotions about the interaction using slider scales.
Results
Study 1
Intrinsic Interpersonal Emotion Regulation Effort
- Within-person (changes within a person across timepoints/situations) intrinsic effort did not predict positive emotions or interaction quality
- Between-person (differences that exist between separate people) intrinsic effort did not predict positive emotions or interaction quality
- Both within- and between-person intrinsic effort predicted worse negative emotions – when participants exerted more effort than usual (within-person) or exerted more effort than others (between-people), they felt more negative about the interaction
Extrinsic Interpersonal Emotion Regulation Effort
- Extrinsic effort did not predict positive emotions
- Within-person extrinsic effort predicted worse negative emotions – when participants exerted more effort than usual they felt more negative
- Between-person extrinsic effort predicted better interaction quality – participants who generally exerted more extrinsic effort rated interactions as higher quality
Study 2
Intrinsic Interpersonal Emotion Regulation Effort
- Neither within- nor between-person intrinsic effort predicted positive emotions or interaction quality
- Between-person intrinsic effort predicted both higher positive and negative emotions – people who generally exerted more intrinsic effort experienced more intense emotions
Extrinsic Interpersonal Emotion Regulation Effort
- Extrinsic effort did not predict positive emotions
- Within-person extrinsic effort predicted slightly worse negative emotions
- Between-person extrinsic effort predicted better emotional outcomes (more positive and negative emotions) and higher interaction quality
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
- Directly measured regulation effort unlike past work.
- Naturalistic examination of everyday social interactions.
- Distinction between intrinsic versus extrinsic regulation.
- Within- versus between-person differences.
- Replication across two complementary methodologies.
Limitations
- Self-report data prone to biases.
- Single items for key measures may reduce reliability.
- Did not assess targets of extrinsic regulation.
- Small samples limited complex temporal analyses.
- Low ecological validity of lab studies.
- Lacked informant reports.
Clinical Implications
Clinicians often recommend interpersonal regulation strategies to help clients regulate 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.
Researchers should clarify the role of effort by manipulating it experimentally and testing key moderators like visibility, motive, and dyadic reciprocity of regulation attempts.
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:
- Does the finding that more interpersonal regulation effort can backfire emotionally surprise you? Why or why not? What might explain this?
- When do you think effort is most likely to pay off or backfire in interpersonal regulation? What key factors may influence this?
- How might these results apply to other domains like health, relationships, or academics? Is effort always productive?
- What are some ways researchers could manipulate effort experimentally to clarify its causal role in shaping regulation outcomes?
- How might clinicians adjust their advice to clients about emotion regulation strategies based on these findings?
