Willingness to express emotion depends upon perceiving partner care

Emotion Regulation in Dementia Caregiving: The Role of Neuropsychiatric Symptoms and Attachment Orientation

Family caregivers are usually the main source of support for persons living with dementia, being exposed to a loved one's suffering, which can lead to experiencing strong and negative emotions. This study aimed to identify factors capable of explaining individual differences in the way caregivers regulate their emotions. This cross-sectional study included 78 informal caregivers (M = 64.84 years; SD = 13.32) and 84 controls (non-caregivers) (M = 77 years; SD = 7.59). Neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS), attachment orientations, and emotion regulation were measured using self-report scales. Caregivers of persons living with dementia used more expressive suppression in comparison to non-caregivers. NPS and attachment avoidance were associated with expressive suppression. Moderation analyses showed that NPS only predicted expressive suppression when attachment avoidance was low or medium. The present study showed that caregivers are more likely to suppress their emotions in the presence of NPS, especially those with lower/middle levels of attachment avoidance. Psychological interventions targeting emotion regulation should be offered especially to caregivers that face NPS of persons living with dementia and present lower/middle levels of attachment avoidance.

When emotion expression will (and will not) enhance listening and responsiveness

We theorize that expressing emotion often will enhance listening and responsiveness in communal relationships because the nature of cooperation called for in communal relationships often matches five functions that expressing emotion can serve. The same is less frequently true for other types of relationships.

Do targets of ostracism truthfully communicate their emotional reactions to sources?

Ostracism triggers negative emotions such as sadness, anger, and hurt feelings. Do targets of ostracism truthfully share their emotions with the sources of ostracism? Drawing on past research on social-functional accounts of emotions and interpersonal emotion regulation, we investigated the possibility that targets may misrepresent their emotions (i.e., gaming emotions). We conducted three experiments (N = 1058; two pre-registered) using an online ball-tossing game, in which participants were randomly assigned to be included or ostracized. Consistent with the literature, we found that ostracized individuals were more hurt, sad, and angry than included individuals. However, we found little and inconsistent evidence that ostracized (vs included) individuals misrepresented their emotional reactions to the sources. Further, Bayesian analyses offered more support against misrepresentation of emotions. These findings suggest that targets of ostracism truthfully communicated their social pain to the sources.

The adaptiveness of fear (and other emotions) considered more broadly: Missed literature on the nature of emotions and its functions

We agree with Grossmann that fear often builds cooperative relationships. Yet he neglects much extant literature. Prior researchers have discussed how fear (and other emotions) build cooperative relationships, have questioned whether fear per se evolved to serve this purpose, and have emphasized that human cooperation takes many forms. Grossmann's theory would benefit from a wider consideration of this work.

People with higher relationship satisfaction use more humor, valuing, and receptive listening to regulate their partners' emotions

The emotional experiences you have with a romantic partner shape how satisfied you are in your relationship. Engaging in attempts to make a romantic partner feel better is linked with better relationship outcomes. However, it is not yet clear which specific processes people use to regulate their partners' emotions, nor which processes are most strongly linked with relationship satisfaction. In the current study of 277 individuals (55% female), we tested the extent to which eight extrinsic emotion regulation processes (expressive suppression, downward social comparison, humor, distraction, direct action, reappraisal, receptive listening, and valuing) predict relationship satisfaction. Six of the eight processes showed significant positive correlations with relationship satisfaction, with the strongest associations for valuing (r = .43), humor (r = .33), and receptive listening (r = .27). Relative weights were significant only for valuing, humor, and receptive listening, suggesting that these are the most important predictors of relationship satisfaction. Results are discussed in terms of the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic regulation processes and the potential importance of motives for regulation.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12144-023-04432-4.

Mood and judgment in a dyadic stress context

The 1980s and 1990s witnessed a surge of psychological research addressing the role of affect in social judgments. Evaluations of others were shown to be shaped, at least in part, by a person's incidental mood in the moment of social evaluation; while negative moods instigated negative interpersonal evaluations, positive moods instigated positive interpersonal evaluations. Interestingly, these effects only emerged when the reason for the evaluator's mood was not obvious. Over 30 years later, we expand these findings to the dyadic domain. Rather than conceptualize interpersonal evaluations as occurring solely within an individual, we introduce the Dyadic Affect Infusion/Diffusion (DAID) model to suggest that interpersonal evaluations occur as fundamentally dyadic phenomena. Using 6 weeks of daily diary data from 311 couples in which one member approached a stressful event, we show that (a) mood influences relationship evaluations at both the intraindividual (i.e., affect infusion) and interindividual (i.e., affect diffusion) levels, (b) both affect infusion and affect diffusion are turned off by the availability of attributional information, and (c) these effects are better explained by affect infusion/diffusion rather than by several alternative mechanisms. Taken together, the DAID model bolsters the view that individualistic approaches to emotion and social cognition are insufficient and require theory and data at the dyadic and group levels of analysis. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Social Support Predicts Differential Use, but not Differential Effectiveness, of Expressive Suppression and Social Sharing in Daily Life

While emotion regulation often happens in the presence of others, little is known about how social context shapes regulatory efforts and outcomes. One key element of the social context is social support. In two experience sampling studies (Ns = 179 and 123), we examined how the use and affective consequences of two fundamentally social emotion-regulation strategies-social sharing and expressive suppression-vary as a function of perceived social support. Across both studies, we found evidence that social support was associated with variation in people's use of these strategies, such that when people perceived their environments as being higher (vs. lower) in social support, they engaged in more sharing and less suppression. However, we found only limited and inconsistent support for context-dependent affective outcomes of suppression and sharing: suppression was associated with better affective consequences in the context of higher perceived social support in Study 1, but this effect did not replicate in Study 2. Taken together, these findings suggest that the use of social emotion-regulation strategies may depend on contextual variability in social support, whereas their effectiveness does not. Future research is needed to better understand the circumstances in which context-dependent use of emotion regulation may have emotional benefits, accounting for personal, situational, and cultural factors.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s42761-022-00123-8.

The Impact of Trust on the Willingness of Co-Tenancy Behavior: Evidence from China

Introduction

Nowadays, more and more people choose to rent houses in first-tier cities together with other people, which can alleviate certain economic pressure. Therefore co-tenancy has become an important field of academic research in recent years and a number of previous studies have discussed the phenomenon. However, fewer studies explore the influence of different variables on the willingness of co-tenancy behavior through quantitative methods.

Methods

This study conceptualizes and implements concepts such as trust, positive emotion, relationship strength, satisfaction, income, duration of co-tenancy required and the willingness of co-tenancy behavior(WOCB). We designed and collected a questionnaire and finally a questionnaire survey of users (n=525) was conducted, and a basic description and comparison of research objects’ willingness of co-tenancy behavior were made in terms of trust, and positive emotion, relationship strength and monthly income also affect the willingness of co-tenancy behavior.

Results

The trust effects have a positive impact on the WOCB, Trust effect will affect Relationship Strength and Positive Emotion, and will further affect the WOCB. However, this influence is negative when people are in high Monthly Income and negative when people are in low Monthly Income.

Discussion

Trust, relationship strength and positive emotion are key factors for people to rent houses with others. That is to say, the intensity of people’s willingness to rent houses with others depends on the degree of trust in others, the relationship strength and positive emotion. When the post-90s drifters in Shenzhen do not believe others, they will tend to live alone rather than the new model of co-tenancy. We also suspect that a person with negative emotion far greater than positive emotion prefers to live alone, rather than living in the same place with his roommates. It provided certain group implications for their willingness of co-tenancy behavior.