Olivia Jurkiewicz, C. Blair McGarrigle, Christopher Oveis
{"title":"How to Improve Others’ Emotions: Reappraise and be Responsive","authors":"Olivia Jurkiewicz, C. Blair McGarrigle, Christopher Oveis","doi":"10.1007/s42761-023-00183-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>People often try to improve others’ emotions. However, it is unclear which interpersonal emotion regulation strategies are most effective and why. In 121 candid dyadic conversations between undergraduate students via video conferencing, target participants recounted a stressful event to regulator participants. Three strategies used by regulators during these conversations to change targets’ emotions were obtained from the regulator after the conversation: extrinsic reappraisal, extrinsic suppression, and extrinsic acceptance. Perceived regulator responsiveness was obtained from targets to examine the social consequences of extrinsic emotion regulation and its mediating role in successful extrinsic emotion regulation. We found that regulators’ extrinsic reappraisal use was associated with improved target emotions measured across two distinct classes of outcomes: targets’ emotions during the conversation and targets’ perception that the regulator improved their emotions. Regulators’ extrinsic suppression and acceptance, in contrast, were not related with improved target emotions or perceptions of improvement. Instead, all extrinsic regulatory strategies were associated with improved targets’ emotions when mediated by targets’ perceptions of regulator responsiveness. Finally, observer-ratings of regulators’ extrinsic reappraisal and suppression use were found to be consistent with regulators’ self-ratings and follow the same pattern of results on the outcome measures. These findings provide insight into why the social regulation of emotions can succeed or fail and hold implications for interventions aimed at guiding people toward more successfully improving others’ emotions.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":72119,"journal":{"name":"Affective science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s42761-023-00183-4.pdf","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Affective science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42761-023-00183-4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Abstract
People often try to improve others’ emotions. However, it is unclear which interpersonal emotion regulation strategies are most effective and why. In 121 candid dyadic conversations between undergraduate students via video conferencing, target participants recounted a stressful event to regulator participants. Three strategies used by regulators during these conversations to change targets’ emotions were obtained from the regulator after the conversation: extrinsic reappraisal, extrinsic suppression, and extrinsic acceptance. Perceived regulator responsiveness was obtained from targets to examine the social consequences of extrinsic emotion regulation and its mediating role in successful extrinsic emotion regulation. We found that regulators’ extrinsic reappraisal use was associated with improved target emotions measured across two distinct classes of outcomes: targets’ emotions during the conversation and targets’ perception that the regulator improved their emotions. Regulators’ extrinsic suppression and acceptance, in contrast, were not related with improved target emotions or perceptions of improvement. Instead, all extrinsic regulatory strategies were associated with improved targets’ emotions when mediated by targets’ perceptions of regulator responsiveness. Finally, observer-ratings of regulators’ extrinsic reappraisal and suppression use were found to be consistent with regulators’ self-ratings and follow the same pattern of results on the outcome measures. These findings provide insight into why the social regulation of emotions can succeed or fail and hold implications for interventions aimed at guiding people toward more successfully improving others’ emotions.