FRIENDS - friendship-based regulation of individual emotions in networks in daily situations: An EMA study on partner-motive pairing and social outcomes in adult friendships.

IF 4.6 3区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Paula Schott, Katharina Enser, Martin Weiß
{"title":"FRIENDS - friendship-based regulation of individual emotions in networks in daily situations: An EMA study on partner-motive pairing and social outcomes in adult friendships.","authors":"Paula Schott, Katharina Enser, Martin Weiß","doi":"10.1186/s40359-026-05767-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Interpersonal emotion regulation depends not only on which strategy is used but on whom people turn to. Previous work suggests that individuals select regulation partners according to their perceived competence for a specific emotion. We examined whether this extends to regulatory motives, and whether partner-motive pairing is associated with better interaction outcomes, higher psychological well-being, and lower social loneliness.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In a preregistered 14-day ecological momentary assessment (EMA) study, 106 adults reported on their friend contacts at four semi-random prompts per day (2,796 contact reports). For every contact, participants indicated the primary benefit they had hoped to obtain (one of six affect-improving regulation strategies), the friend involved, how far the contact had helped, and their evaluation of it. Partner-level pairing was quantified with a Specialization Score and, for interaction outcomes, with a leave-one-out residual separating motive-specific pairing from a partner's overall involvement; network-level pairing with a Network Specialization Index (NSI). Motive-specific pairing was tested against participant-level permutation nulls and with a residualized metric. The strategy a friend actually used was not assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Evidence for motive-specific pairing beyond a partner's overall involvement was limited and motive-dependent: under the permutation null no motive survived correction for multiple testing, and the residualized metric indicated motive-specific channeling only for problem solving and distraction. An exploratory network-level index standardized against each participant's own permutation null exceeded chance on average (d = 0.36) but reached significance for only 18 of 104 participants. Neither the leave-one-out predictor nor the network-level indices were associated with perceived emotion regulation effectiveness, interaction evaluation, psychological well-being, or social loneliness. These null findings were robust across alternative metrics, indices, ordinal models, and random-effects structures.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Participants repeatedly paired particular partners with particular motives. Beyond the concentration of contact on a few partners, this pairing was small and was detectable mainly in an aggregate network-level test, and it was not associated with better interaction outcomes or better psychological adjustment. The findings caution against inferring functional specialization from partner-selection data alone and underline the distinction between network indices derived from self-reported contact reports and the subjective experience of support.</p>","PeriodicalId":37867,"journal":{"name":"BMC Psychology","volume":"14 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13670613/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-026-05767-w","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Interpersonal emotion regulation depends not only on which strategy is used but on whom people turn to. Previous work suggests that individuals select regulation partners according to their perceived competence for a specific emotion. We examined whether this extends to regulatory motives, and whether partner-motive pairing is associated with better interaction outcomes, higher psychological well-being, and lower social loneliness.

Methods: In a preregistered 14-day ecological momentary assessment (EMA) study, 106 adults reported on their friend contacts at four semi-random prompts per day (2,796 contact reports). For every contact, participants indicated the primary benefit they had hoped to obtain (one of six affect-improving regulation strategies), the friend involved, how far the contact had helped, and their evaluation of it. Partner-level pairing was quantified with a Specialization Score and, for interaction outcomes, with a leave-one-out residual separating motive-specific pairing from a partner's overall involvement; network-level pairing with a Network Specialization Index (NSI). Motive-specific pairing was tested against participant-level permutation nulls and with a residualized metric. The strategy a friend actually used was not assessed.

Results: Evidence for motive-specific pairing beyond a partner's overall involvement was limited and motive-dependent: under the permutation null no motive survived correction for multiple testing, and the residualized metric indicated motive-specific channeling only for problem solving and distraction. An exploratory network-level index standardized against each participant's own permutation null exceeded chance on average (d = 0.36) but reached significance for only 18 of 104 participants. Neither the leave-one-out predictor nor the network-level indices were associated with perceived emotion regulation effectiveness, interaction evaluation, psychological well-being, or social loneliness. These null findings were robust across alternative metrics, indices, ordinal models, and random-effects structures.

Conclusions: Participants repeatedly paired particular partners with particular motives. Beyond the concentration of contact on a few partners, this pairing was small and was detectable mainly in an aggregate network-level test, and it was not associated with better interaction outcomes or better psychological adjustment. The findings caution against inferring functional specialization from partner-selection data alone and underline the distinction between network indices derived from self-reported contact reports and the subjective experience of support.

朋友——日常情境下网络中基于友谊的个体情绪调节:成人友谊中伴侣-动机配对和社会结果的EMA研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMC Psychology
BMC Psychology Psychology-Psychology (all)
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
2.80%
发文量
265
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Psychology is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers manuscripts on all aspects of psychology, human behavior and the mind, including developmental, clinical, cognitive, experimental, health and social psychology, as well as personality and individual differences. The journal welcomes quantitative and qualitative research methods, including animal studies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书