{"title":"Seekers' and regulators' perspectives of interpersonal emotion regulation: Associations with personality pathology.","authors":"Kristen P Howard, Jennifer S Cheavens","doi":"10.1037/per0000667","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Personality disorders (PDs) are well characterized by deficits in interpersonal and emotional functioning, highlighting the importance of examining their intersection, such as interpersonal emotion regulation (IER). Given the dyadic nature of IER, characterizing the individuals who help regulate emotions, and their perceptions of these interactions, may further elucidate the process of IER in individuals with personality pathology. We aimed to directly characterize network partners that aid in IER and compare perceptions between both IER seekers and regulators. Primary participants, who were recruited for elevated levels of personality pathology, including some evidence of elevated borderline personality features, nominated members of their social network (i.e., secondary participants) to participate. The final sample included 165 secondary participants (115 of whom were identified as IER partners by primary participants) associated with 73 primary participants. We examined the association between dimensions of primary and secondary personality pathology and measures of the primary participant's IER. Primary and secondary participants tended to agree on measures of IER frequency; however, there was less agreement on more subjective measures, such as the efficacy of IER and the willingness of the secondary participant. Additionally, disinhibition of the primary participant was associated with IER outcomes from both partner's perspectives, including reduced willingness and perceived efficacy from the secondary's perspective and increased efficacy and underestimation of the secondary's IER use from the primary's perspective. These results highlight the value of examining both individuals involved in IER. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":74420,"journal":{"name":"Personality disorders","volume":"16 3","pages":"260-271"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Personality disorders","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000667","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Personality disorders (PDs) are well characterized by deficits in interpersonal and emotional functioning, highlighting the importance of examining their intersection, such as interpersonal emotion regulation (IER). Given the dyadic nature of IER, characterizing the individuals who help regulate emotions, and their perceptions of these interactions, may further elucidate the process of IER in individuals with personality pathology. We aimed to directly characterize network partners that aid in IER and compare perceptions between both IER seekers and regulators. Primary participants, who were recruited for elevated levels of personality pathology, including some evidence of elevated borderline personality features, nominated members of their social network (i.e., secondary participants) to participate. The final sample included 165 secondary participants (115 of whom were identified as IER partners by primary participants) associated with 73 primary participants. We examined the association between dimensions of primary and secondary personality pathology and measures of the primary participant's IER. Primary and secondary participants tended to agree on measures of IER frequency; however, there was less agreement on more subjective measures, such as the efficacy of IER and the willingness of the secondary participant. Additionally, disinhibition of the primary participant was associated with IER outcomes from both partner's perspectives, including reduced willingness and perceived efficacy from the secondary's perspective and increased efficacy and underestimation of the secondary's IER use from the primary's perspective. These results highlight the value of examining both individuals involved in IER. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).