Contexts Matter in ‘a Distress Shared Is a Distress Halved’: A Meta-Analysis of Distress Sharing–Psychological Distress Relations

Can ‘a distress shared is a distress halved’ be universally applied? The relationship between sharing distress with others and individuals' psychological health may oscillate depending on how and where it is shared. This meta-analysis aimed to examine (1) whether the relationship between sharing distress and psychological distress is moderated by the manner of sharing (i.e. general tendency to share distress with others [general distress sharing] vs. ruminatively fixating on the negatives during the sharing [co-rumination]) and (2) cultural context (Eastern vs. Western). A total of 110 effect sizes from 105 studies (91 articles on general distress sharing and 84 articles on co-rumination) were included in the analysis with sharing manner as a moderator. For the cross-cultural analyses, 61 studies were included with 47 studies conducted in Western cultures and 15 studies conducted in Eastern cultures. Whereas generally sharing distress was negatively related to psychological distress, co-rumination showed a positive correlation with psychological distress. Culture significantly moderated co-rumination but not general distress sharing in relation to psychological distress. General distress sharing was consistently associated with decreased psychological distress across cultures. In contrast, co-rumination was related to deleterious psychological health only among Westerners, while Easterners showed a non-significant association with psychological distress. Our results align with the increasing importance of taking contextual factors into account in the field of emotion regulation literature.