How to Improve Others’ Emotions: Reappraise and be Responsive

Abstract

Unlabelled:
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.

Supplementary information:
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s42761-023-00183-4.

Full text

Vol.:(0123456789)
1 3
Affective Science
https://doi.org/10.1007/s42761-023-00183-4
RESEARCH ARTICLE
How toImprove Others’ Emotions: Reappraise andbe Responsive
OliviaJurkiewicz1· C.BlairMcGarrigle2· ChristopherOveis1
Received: 15 August 2022 / Accepted: 15 February 2023
© The Author(s) 2023
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.
Keywords Interpersonal emotion regulation· Reappraisal· Responsiveness· Social support· Social regulation
Overwhelmed with his new job, Tyler divulges his fears and
doubts to his coworker Rebecca. Tyler fears failing the people
who gave him this job opportunity, and he doubts that he can
keep up with the accumulating workload. When Rebecca hears
about his distress, she considers using three different strategies
to help him. She could remind him that many people struggle
at first in a new job, so it is okay to feel this way (i.e., extrinsic
acceptance), she could scold him for being so negative at work
because it looks bad for him (i.e., extrinsic suppression), or
she could suggest that he reframe his situation as a learning
experience in which it is okay to make mistakes (i.e., extrinsic
reappraisal). Ultimately, she chooses the latter strategy, which
proves effective in easing Tyler’s negative emotions.
This example highlights the importance of interpersonal emo-
tion regulation, a process in which one person’s emotions are
regulated by another person (Dixon-Gordon etal., 2015; Zaki &
Williams, 2013). Most emotion regulation research prioritizes
understanding how the individual uses strategies to change their
own emotion experience (Gross, 2015) but overlooks the role of
other people in this process (Reeck etal., 2016). Yet, it is well
documented that other people have the capacity to change a target
person’s emotions through their communication style (Overall
etal., 2009), their emotion expression (Parkinson & Simons,
2009; Peters etal., 2014), their physical proximity (Beckes &
Sbarra, 2022), and their empathic ability (Brown & Fredrickson,
2021). That is why individuals like Tyler often depend on others
to improve how they feel (Williams etal., 2018).
The process of interpersonal emotion regulation may be
initiated by the target (i.e., intrinsic) as in the case of the
social sharing of emotions (Rimé, 2009) or may be initiated
by regulator (i.e., extrinsic; Niven, 2017) as in the example
of Rebecca and Tyler. Some conceptualizations specify that
interpersonal emotion regulation must be deliberate (Nivenet
Handling Editor: Renee Thompson
* Olivia Jurkiewicz
ojurkiew@ucsd.edu
* Christopher Oveis
oveis@ucsd.edu
C. Blair McGarrigle
blair.mcgarrigle@anderson.ucla.edu
1 University ofCalifornia, SanDiego, USA
2 University ofCalifornia, LosAngeles, USA

Affective Science
1 3
al., 2009), and other work does not. We take the position here
that extrinsic emotion regulation may be either deliberate or
non-deliberate on the part of the regulator. Thus far, research
on extrinsic emotion regulation has demonstrated that indi-
viduals choose to use extrinsic reappraisal (Matthews etal.,
2021) and extrinsic suppression (Pauw etal., 2019) on others
to intentionally modify their emotions, and that this is a daily
occurrence (Liu etal., 2021). In the present study, we exam-
ine whether three extrinsic strategies (i.e., reappraisal, sup-
pression, and acceptance) might work and why by capturing
natural behavior in candid conversations in which authentic
emotions are experienced.
Similar to intrapersonal cognitive reappraisal which
works through the reinterpretation of an emotion-eliciting
situation (Gross, 1998, 2015), extrinsic reappraisal should
be effective when a regulator suggests a suitable refram-
ing of the target’s situation. An advantage of extrinsic reap-
praisal is that the regulator provides additional cognitive
resources to the target, thereby reducing the effort needed
by the target to formulate their own alternative interpreta-
tions (for a discussion on load sharing, see Coan & Sbarra,
2015). Because reappraisal is a difficult strategy for indi-
viduals to successfully execute on their own due to cogni-
tive load (Ford & Troy, 2019), any external support may be
useful. For example, listening to another’s reinterpretation
of a negative image bolsters better intrapersonal emotion
regulation (Sahi etal., 2021). On the other hand, there are
reasons to assume that extrinsic reappraisal would not be
effective, particularly if the target does not accept the cogni-
tive reframing chosen by the regulator. For example, targets
perceive written advice from regulators about using reap-
praisal as unhelpful for managing their anxiety compared
to managing their sadness (Shu etal., 2020). One possible
explanation is that targets can feel offended or demeaned by
a regulator’s reinterpretation of their emotion experience,
especially in the context of high arousal negative emotions
such as anxiety and anger (Levenson etal., 2015).
When using extrinsic suppression, a regulator sig-
nals for a target person to hide their emotion expression
through indirect means (e.g., ignoring or conveying dis-
comfort about their emotional expressions) or direct means
(e.g., telling them to hide or control their emotions). By
suppressing a target’s expressions of negative emotions,
a regulator may improve a target’s emotions by prevent-
ing detrimental social behaviors such as co-rumination
(Boren, 2014) or venting (Nils & Rimé, 2012), or a regu-
lator may improve a target’s emotions by shifting the tar-
get’s attention away from the distressing situation (Bebko
etal., 2011). On the other hand, extrinsic suppression may
result in the intensification of negative emotions due to
unresolved negative appraisals (Yih etal., 2019) and the
experience of new negative emotions due to the distressing
social interaction (Lakey etal., 1994).
In the case of extrinsic acceptance, we conceptualize this
strategy as one in which a regulator embraces the emotions
of the target without attempts to control the target’s emo-
tions which may or may not result in the target also accept-
ing their own emotions. Extrinsic acceptance may result in
greater emotion awareness and expression (Stanton & Low,
2012; Torre & Lieberman, 2018) or feelings of validation
(Paivio & Laurent, 2001), but extrinsic acceptance may be
unhelpful if the underlying negative appraisals are not effec-
tively resolved or if the regulator does not also engage in
acceptance behaviors (i.e., helping the target accept their
own emotions).
We propose that extrinsic emotion regulation strategies
function on both the emotions of the target through shifting
their appraisals and the target’s social perceptions of the
extrinsic strategies. First, by using an extrinsic strategy, a
regulator provides a target with emotion regulation instruc-
tions or signals (e.g., to rethink, hide, or accept how they
feel); these instructions/signals can influence the target’s
cognitions and regulatory actions, potentially improving
the target’s emotions. For example, a regulator may try to
help a target downregulate their negative emotions due to a
recent breakup by telling them that they “will regret” feel-
ing like this later (i.e., extrinsic suppression, see Table1),
but if the extrinsic strategy does not effectively change the
target’s underlining appraisal (e.g., fear of being alone), we
propose that the strategy will not work. Therefore, we expect
that extrinsic reappraisal will improve targets’ emotions by
shifting appraisals, whereas extrinsic acceptance and sup-
pression will not.
Secondly, we expect that these extrinsic strategies have
social consequences which should impact whether they
improve a target’s emotions. For example, when a regulator
demonstrates their willingness to support the target’s emo-
tional needs by taking the time and effort to help them reap-
praise, the target is likely to perceive the regulator as highly
responsive (Reis & Shaver, 1988). Perceived responsiveness
includes feeling that one is cared for, understood, and val-
ued and is critical for building and maintaining healthy rela-
tionships (Gordon & Chen, 2016; Reis, 2017). In addition
to these social perceptions, perceiving one’s social partner
as responsive can improve one’s emotions (Maisel & Gable,
2009) by establishing a safe and positive social environment
(Kane etal., 2012). Thus, we propose that perceived respon-
siveness should serve as one key social mechanism through
which extrinsic action can improve a target’s emotions. In
our theorizing, extrinsic reappraisal and acceptance, but not
suppression, should result in enhanced perceived responsive-
ness because they necessarily involve demonstrating an under-
standing of and concern for the target.
In the present study, we examined whether extrinsic reap-
praisal, acceptance, and suppression predicted improved
target emotions—and whether perceived responsiveness

Affective Science
1 3
might mediate improvements in target emotions—by exam-
ining naturally occurring attempts at extrinsic emotion
regulation during emotional conversations between newly
acquainted target and regulator participants. We chose to
measure these well-studied strategies because they may have
different emotion outcomes interpersonally depending on
their social consequences (Niven, in press). For instance,
if extrinsic reappraisal is associated with worse perceived
regulator responsiveness, we would also expect it to be asso-
ciated with worse target affect. To determine target emotion
improvement, we measured two types of outcomes from the
targets: their emotions during the conversation and their per-
ception of the regulators’ success at improving how they felt.
We hypothesized that greater use of extrinsic reappraisal
would predict target emotion improvement, and extrinsic
acceptance and suppression would not. We also measured
the target’s perception of the regulator’s responsiveness,
hypothesizing that targets’ perceived regulator responsive-
ness would mediate the relationship between the extrinsic
strategies and target emotion improvement.
Method
Participants
Two hundred seventy-two undergraduate students at the
University of California, San Diego participated in this
social interaction study in same-gender dyads. Participants
received course credit. A power analysis, using G*Power,
indicated that a sample size of 120 dyads (40 dyads per cell)
would be sufficient to detect a medium effect size of f = 0.3
with 80% power. We thus aimed to collect data from at least
120 dyads and more if possible, terminating data collection
Table 1 Examples of regulator extrinsic strategy use from stress sharing conversations
Each example was selected from a different regulator who rated themselves in the upper 25th percentile of using the respective extrinsic strategy.
These quotes are edited for grammar and clarity. R, regulator; T, target. View examples of these interactions at this link: https:// osf. io/ jmz69?
view_ only= fdac5 95060 8a425 aa273 ba07c cd377 ea
Extrinsic reappraisal R: See, that brought you closer to your mom… there’s always good in whatever happens. This is what I
believe.
R: I think this is a positive experience no matter what you decide to do in the future.
R: This time you are going to know what is expected and how the class is, so you will be better prepared.
R: Each person’s abilities are different…maybe you have some other skills that they don’t have…you deal
with other problems in your life better than them.
R: The market now is just bad. Don’t feel too bad about yourself. It’s not like they don’t want to hire you.
Some companies just go under, and they can’t hire anyone now.
R: [About social distancing] It’s frustrating, but I feel like in the end it’s worth it just so they don’t get sick. So
no one does.
R: That’s why I think it’s important to not compare yourself with other people because you don’t know what
their situation is.
Extrinsic acceptance R: That’s stressful as hell. It really is. The job search is demoralizing, just entering resumes just over and over
again into different websites that could’ve just been standardized. It’s tough.
R: Oh my god. You’re in the 20 series. I don’t know the professors, but I just know the 20 series is super hard.
R: It’s completely okay if you feel frustrated because it’s obviously a frustrating situation.
R: I just wanted to say I’m really sorry you had to go through that. It’s a really tough situation.
R: Yeah, I can imagine that for sure. How you prepare yourself… is definitely a stress I think many college
students are dealing with.
R: I think it totally sucks that you have to cut down on work hours, because the fact that you have a job means
that you need money.
R: I can’t imagine how hard it is for you. But I mean you’re getting through it. It’s been half a year, more than
half a year now, so that’s really commendable.
Extrinsic suppression R: Please focus on your studies because I think that’s the most important thing right now. You’ll be unhappy
for a while but I think you will regret it after like six months because “I wasted my time on someone who
broke my heart.”
R: I feel like a lot of people are also going through what you’re going through [said dismissively].
R: Yeah uncertainty, that’s pretty much all of college students [downplaying the target’s situation].
R: I mean I’m sure you did okay.
R: You’ll get over it.
T: I’m a second year so I already put time and effort into this so I have to stick with it. [Regulator changes
subject to themself] R: Yeah, for me…
[Target is stressed about financial situation] R: Oh I see…I hope you get a job by then. [Regulator does not
add any more].
R: I guess you’re experiencing a lot more stress than me… but I guess you’re in a much better position than
me to know what to expect.

Affective Science
1 3
at the conclusion of the academic quarter. Twenty-six par-
ticipants were excluded due to internet connectivity issues
or other technical issues during the study. Four participants
were excluded due to knowing the other participant in the
dyad. All other participants were paired with stranger par-
ticipants. The final sample consisted of 242 participants (121
dyads; Mage = 20.83; 57.02% female; 112 Asian, 5 Black/
African American, 37 Latino/a, 2 Native American, 56
White/Caucasian, 24 multiracial, 6 not listed).
Design
Within each dyad, one participant was randomly assigned a
regulator role, and the other participant was assigned a target
role. To examine questions about extrinsic emotion regula-
tion, we used multivariate linear regression models to deter-
mine the extent that independent variables from the regula-
tor participants influenced the dependent variables from the
target participants. A sensitivity analysis using G*Power
indicated that for a two-predictor linear regression model,
the present sample size of 121 dyads would be sufficient to
detect a small effect size of f2 = 0.08 with 80% power.
We originally intended a between-subject design with
three extrinsic prohedonic goal conditions for the regulator
participants (i.e., upregulate positive emotions, downregu-
late negative emotions, and control). However, the manipu-
lation of regulator goals was deemed to have failed because
it did not influence regulators’ self-reported goals or their
use of extrinsic emotion regulation strategies (see online
supplemental material for manipulation details and relevant
analyses). Given this, and because of the rich nature of the
dataset, which involved real, ecologically valid extrinsic
emotion regulation actions that participants self-generated
to improve targets’ emotions alongside measurements from
both dyadic members, we decided it was most appropriate to
analyze the data based on participants’ natural variability in
interpersonal emotion regulation actions collapsing across
the originally intended manipulation.
Data Availability
Data, code, and online supplemental materials are available
on OSF at https:// osf. io/ kazep/.
Procedure
Overview (See Fig.1)
To get comfortable with the experimental environment and
with each other, each pair of participants first interacted
together in a 5-min fast friends task (Aron etal., 1997).
Then, the participants were assigned either the role of
the regulator or the target and given specific instructions
depending on their role for the 6-min stress sharing con-
versation, a freeform interaction in which the target shared
a stressful experience, and the regulator helped the target
deal with that situation (see “Stress Sharing Conversation”
section). At the end of the session, regulators rated their
extrinsic strategy use. This measure was collected after the
conversation to assess actual use not expected use of these
extrinsic strategies. Targets rated their emotions, the extent
that the regulator improved their emotions (i.e., extrinsic
emotion improvement), and perceived regulator respon-
siveness. Other non-focal measures such as conversation
intensity and sense of connection were also collected (see
Fig. 1 Overview of study procedure. View examples of these interactions at this link: https:// osf. io/ jmz69? view_ only= fdac5 95060 8a425 aa273
ba07c cd377 ea

Affective Science
1 3
“Non-focal Measures” section) and used in analyses to
account for alternative explanations.
Participants communicated with one another via the
video conferencing platform, Zoom. To enhance the rich-
ness of and standardize the experimental environment, par-
ticipants participated in a quiet and private location, turned
off the self-view feature, and used full-screen mode. We used
short and focused, candid conversations because they iso-
late the relationship between the regulators’ behavior and
the targets’ outcomes while maintaining ecological validity.
Many advantages exist for using remote video conferencing
to study social interactions such as minimizing logistical
issues and cost for the researchers and maximizing comfort
and convenience for the participants. Video conferencing has
become an incredibly common way to interact with others.
For instance, Microsoft reported 270 million monthly active
users of their video conferencing platform in January 2022
(Foley, 2022); thus, another advantage of this study is that it
captures behavior that commonly occurs in the real world but
is insufficiently examined. Furthermore, video conferencing
effectively mirrors in-person interactions such that partici-
pants can see and speak to each other clearly and effortlessly.
Thus, this tool does not forgo data quality. We would expect
to see equivalent results in in-person interactions.
Fast Friends Task
The purpose of the 5-min fast friends task was for par-
ticipants to get comfortable speaking about personal top-
ics. Participants answered questions about themselves out
loud with the other participant listening, alternating who
answered first. Questions were selected from the closeness-
generating questions developed by Aron etal. (1997) and
included questions such as “Given the choice of anyone in
the world, whom would you want as a dinner guest?” and “If
you could wake up tomorrow having gained any one quality
or ability, what would it be?” All dyads received the same
questions in the same order.
Stress Sharing Conversation (See Tables1 and2)
The purpose of the 6-min stress sharing conversation was to gen-
erate a natural and emotional interaction between two participants
in which we could examine extrinsic emotion regulation when
targets’ are experiencing real and authentic emotions (see Table1
for written examples of extrinsic strategies used during the stress
sharing conversations and a link to a video of with example clips
from the study). Table2 provides a breakdown of the types of
stressors discussed during the stress sharing conversation. The
most common stressors included future uncertainty, school per-
formance, interpersonal conflict, and health/COVID-19.
For the stress sharing conversation, participants were
randomly assigned to be the regulator or the target. In the
instructions given to the participants, the regulator was
referred to as the friend, and the target was referred to as
the sharer to minimize any demand effects. Both partici-
pants were told that the role of the target is to speak about
a stressor they are experiencing in their life right now, to
discuss the details of why that experience happened, and
to share how they feel. The stressor could include anything
they perceive to be stressful at work, school, or home. Then,
both participants were told that the role of the regulator is to
talk with the target about that stressor. All regulators were
given the goal to have a natural conversation with the tar-
get participants, and they were encouraged to share their
thoughts and impressions, give advice, and ask questions.
Participants who were not in the control condition were also
told to either increase the positive emotions or decrease the
negative emotions of the target participants. Compared to
the control condition, these instructions did not successfully
change regulators’ extrinsic prohedonic goals (ps > 0.10) nor
did they significantly predict any of the outcome measures
(ps > 0.20; see online supplemental materials for the com-
plete instructions). After these instructions were given, the
target was moved to a private Zoom breakout room for 5min
to brainstorm what they wanted to discuss during the stress
sharing conversation.
Table 2 Descriptive statistics
for the conversations between
participants
Mean depth of conversation: 3.65
Mean meaningfulness of conversation: 4.18
Percent of regulators who wanted to improve target emotions: 88%
Distribution of topics of conversation
Future uncertainty (e.g., feeling lost, trouble finding a job, life transition issues): 25%
School performance (e.g., poor grades, overwhelmed with coursework): 22%
Interpersonal conflict (e.g., breakup, family dispute, strife among roommates): 16%
Health or COVID-19 (e.g., managing an illness, fear of loved ones getting sick): 10%
Financial (e.g., hospital bills, struggling to pay rent): 8%
Loneliness (e.g., feeling isolated, lacking social support): 8%
Balancing full-time employment (e.g., juggling school and work): 6%
Other (e.g., grief, housing issues, transportation problems): 5%

Affective Science
1 3
Focal Measures
Regulator Extrinsic Strategy Use (See Table3)
Regulators rated the following three extrinsic emotion reg-
ulation strategies that they used to manage the emotions of
targets during the stress sharing conversation on 1 (strongly
disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) scales: extrinsic reappraisal
(
α
= .77), extrinsic suppression (
α
= .61), and extrinsic
acceptance (
α
= .80). The six-item extrinsic reappraisal and
five-item extrinsic suppression scales were adapted from
the cognitive reappraisal and the expressive suppression
facets of the emotion regulation questionnaire (Gross &
John, 2003) and from the trait-level interpersonal emotion
regulation questionnaire (Gonzalez & John,2021). The
seven-item extrinsic acceptance scale was adapted from
the trait-level interpersonal acceptance items of the inter-
personal emotion regulation questionnaire (Gonzalez &
John,2021; see Table3for exact items).
Target Emotion Improvement
Target Emotions
Targets rated the extent to which they felt positive and nega-
tive emotions during the stress sharing conversation using a
measure adapted from a previous study on emotion regulation
in social interactions (Impett etal., 2012). The five items for the
positive emotion composite (α = .87) were “proud / good about
yourself,” “compassionate / sympathetic / touched,” “grateful
/ appreciative / thankful,” “inspired / uplifted / elevated,” and
“happy / pleased / joyful.” The six items for the negative emo-
tion composite (α = .81) were “angry / irritable / frustrated,”
“anxious / nervous,” “distressed / upset,” “guilty / embarrassed
/ ashamed,” “sad / down,” and “resentful / bitter / annoyed.” All
items were measured on 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much) scales.
Extrinsic Emotion Improvement
Targets rated the extent to which regulators improved their
emotions by upregulating their positive emotions and down-
regulating their negative emotions on 1 (strongly disagree) to
5 (strongly agree) scales (“The other participant succeeded
in making me feel more positive emotions” and “The other
participant succeeded in making me feel less negative emo-
tions”). In figures and tables, these two items are referred to as
extrinsic positive emotion upregulation and extrinsic negative
emotion downregulation, respectively.
Perceived Regulator Responsiveness
Targets rated the responsiveness of the regulators using adapted
items from the Perceived Partner Responsiveness Scale (Reis
etal., 2017) relevant to short conversations between strangers
(e.g., “The other participant was responsive to my needs.”). Nine
Table 3 Individual items for the extrinsic emotion regulation strategies
Extrinsic reappraisal
1. When I wanted the other person to feel less negative emotion (such as sadness or anger), I tried to help them change what they were thinking
about.
2. When I wanted the other person to feel more positive emotion (such as joy or amusement), I tried to change what they were thinking about.
3. I influenced the other person’s emotions by suggesting alternative ways to think about the situation they are in
4. When the other person talked about their stressful situation, I helped them think about it in a way that calmed them down.
5. When I wanted the other person to feel less negative emotion, I tried to influence the way they were thinking about the situation.
6. When I wanted the other person to feel more positive emotion, I tried to change the way they were thinking about the situation.
Extrinsic suppression
1. I influenced the other person’s emotions by finding ways to keep them from expressing their emotions.
2. I acted in ways that made the other person keep their emotions to themselves.
3. When the other person was feeling positive emotions, I found ways to discourage them from expressing these emotions.
4. I managed the other person’s emotions by allowing them to feel and then release these emotions.
5. When the other person was feeling negative emotions, I tried to do things that kept them from expressing their emotions.
Extrinsic acceptance
1. I embraced the other person’s emotions, whatever they were.
2. I was comfortable with other person’s emotions.
3. I understood that the other person was going to have certain emotions at certain times and that was just fine.
4. I found it hard to come to terms with the other person’s emotions.
5. As far as influencing the other person’s emotions goes, I pretty much accepted the other person as they were.
6. Accepting the other person’s emotions was not easy for me.
7. I simply accepted the emotions of the other person as a natural response to the particular circumstances they are in.

Affective Science
1 3
items were rated from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree)
by the target, and they assessed the caring, understanding, and
validation shown by the regulator (α = .92).
Non‑focal Measures
To account for alternative variables that may improve target
emotions during the stress sharing conversation, we col-
lected measures on conversation intensity, sense of connec-
tion, regulator empathy, regulator goals/perceptions, and
target trait affect.
Conversation Intensity
Both regulator and target rated the meaningfulness and depth
of the stress sharing conversation on 1 (strongly disagree) to
5 (strongly agree) scales.
Sense ofConnection
Both regulator and target rated their closeness and their
motivation to affiliate at the end of the conversation. Close-
ness was measured using the Inclusion of Other in Self scale
(Aron etal., 1992), and affiliation was measured using five
items (Van Kleef etal., 2008) including “I would like to
get to know the other participant better” and “I feel like the
other participant and I are friends” on 1 (strongly agree) to
5 (strongly disagree) scale.
Regulator Variables
Empathy
Before the start of the study, regulators rated their empathic
concern and perspective-taking using the Interpersonal
Reactivity Index (Davis, 1980) on 1 (does not describe me
well) to 5 (describes me well) scales.
Regulator Extrinsic Prohedonic Goals
Regulators rated the extent they wanted to improve the targets’
positive and negative emotions during the conversation on 1
(strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree) scale.
Regulator Perception ofImproved Target Emotion
Regulators rated to what extent they believed they success-
fully improved the targets’ positive and negative emotions on
1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) scales (“I succeeded
in making the other participant feel more positive” and “I suc-
ceeded in making the other participant feel less negative”).
Target Trait Affect
In order to account for targets’ emotions potentially influ-
encing the regulators’ extrinsic strategy choices, at the
beginning of the study, targets rated how much they felt
positive and negative affect in general (in their daily life)
on 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much) scales. The five items
for the positive emotion composite (α = .74) were “proud
/ good about yourself,” “compassionate / sympathetic /
touched,” “grateful / appreciative / thankful,” “inspired /
uplifted / elevated,” and “happy / pleased / joyful.” The six
items for the negative emotion composite (α = .85) were
“angry / irritable / frustrated,” “anxious / nervous,” “dis-
tressed / upset,” “guilty / embarrassed / ashamed,” “sad /
down,” and “resentful / bitter / annoyed.”
Observer Ratings ofExtrinsic Strategies
We obtained observer ratings of regulators’ strategy use
from three trained behavioral coders. Behavioral cod-
ers watched videos of the entire conversation and rated
both extrinsic reappraisal and extrinsic suppression on
1 (behavior is not present at all) to 5 (behavior is very
frequently present) scales (see supplemental materials for
instructions). We assessed inter-rater reliability on 13% of
the data for extrinsic reappraisal (ICC = .75) and extrinsic
suppression (ICC = .78). Six dyads were excluded due to
improper recording or uploading of the video data.
Additionally, we attempted to obtain observer ratings
of two forms of regulator extrinsic acceptance: regulators
attempt at accepting the targets’ emotions (measured through
self-report) and regulators attempt to lead the targets to
accept their emotions (not measured through self-report).
Due to low inter-rater reliability, we did not proceed with
coding these variables.
Results
Regulator Extrinsic Strategy Use andTarget Emotion
Improvement
Extrinsic Reappraisal Predicted Target Emotion
Improvement (See Fig.2)
First, we tested the relationship between regulator extrinsic
reappraisal use and extrinsic emotion improvement using uni-
variate linear regression models without control variables (for
controls, see “Examining Alternative Explanations” section).
When regulators used more extrinsic reappraisal during the
stress sharing conversation, targets reported that regulators

Affective Science
1 3
were significantly more successful at upregulating their posi-
tive emotions, b = 0.32, t(119) = 3.72, 95% CI [0.15, 0.49],
p < 0.001, and at downregulating their negative emotions,
b = 0.21, t(119) = 2.32, 95% CI [0.03 0.39], p = .022.
Then, we tested the relationship between regulator extrinsic
reappraisal use and target emotions using univariate linear regres-
sion models without controls. When regulators used more extrin-
sic reappraisal, targets experienced significantly more positive
emotion, b = 0.22, t(119) = 2.69, 95% CI [0.06, 0.37], p = .008,
and less negative emotion, b = − 0.12, t(119) = − 2.47, 95% CI
[− 0.22, − 0.02], p = .015, during the stress sharing conversation.
Additionally, we examined the alternative explanation for
these results in the other causal direction—that regulators
used more extrinsic reappraisal on targets with better affect
(i.e., greater positive emotions and less negative emotions).
We did not find any support for this alternative explanation.
To examine this, we tested how target trait affects predicted
regulator extrinsic reappraisal use. We found that targets with
Fig. 2 The influence of extrinsic reappraisal on target emotion
improvement. When regulators used extrinsic reappraisal, targets
experienced significantly elevated positive emotions (A) and signifi-
cantly diminished negative emotions (B), and targets reported that
regulators were responsible for their improved positive (C) and nega-
tive (D) emotions

Affective Science
1 3
less positive affect at beginning of the study received signifi-
cantly greater extrinsic reappraisal from regulators, b = − 0.32,
t(117) = − 2.04, 95% CI [− 0.62, − 0.01], p = .044. Target trait
negative affect was not significantly associated with regula-
tor extrinsic reappraisal use, b = − 0.08, t(117) = − 0.62, 95%
CI [− 0.32, 0.17], p = .54. This suggests that regulators used
more extrinsic reappraisal on those who entered the study in
a worse affective state and, on average, successfully uplifted
them during the conversation. Finally, we controlled for target
trait affect in our main analyses. When we did, we still found
that when regulators used more extrinsic reappraisal, targets
experienced significantly more positive emotion, b = 0.27,
t(117) = 3.45, 95% CI [0.11, 0.42], p < .001, and less negative
emotion, b = 0.12, t(117) = − 2.49, 95% CI [− 0.22, − 0.02],
p = .014, indicating that targets’ affect at the start of the study
could not explain the main results.
Extrinsic Suppression andAcceptance Did Not Predict
Target Emotion Improvement
Neither extrinsic suppression nor extrinsic acceptance was
significantly associated with targets’ emotions or extrinsic
emotion improvement (see Table4).
The Role ofResponsiveness inTarget
Emotion Improvement
Responsiveness Predicted Target Emotion
Improvement
When targets perceived greater regulator responsiveness,
they experienced significantly greater positive emotion,
b = 0.89, t(119) = 9.08, 95% CI [0.70, 1.09], p < .001, and
lower negative emotion, b = − 0.20, t(119) = − 2.51, 95%
CI [− 0.35, − 0.04], p = .013. When targets perceived greater
regulator responsiveness, they also reported that regulators
were significantly more successful at upregulating their posi-
tive emotions, b = 0.63, t(119) = 4.85, 95% CI [0.37, 0.89],
p < .001, and at downregulating their negative emotions,
b = 0.71, t(119) = 5.64, 95% CI [0.46, 0.96], p < .001.
Extrinsic Strategy Use Predicted Greater
Responsiveness
Targets perceived greater regulator responsiveness when
regulators used more extrinsic reappraisal, b = 0.13,
t(119) = 2.24, 95% CI [0.02, 0.24], p = .027, and more extrin-
sic acceptance, b = 0.20, t(119) = 3.47, 95% CI [0.08, 0.31],
p < .001, whereas targets perceived less regulator respon-
siveness when regulators used more extrinsic suppression,
b = − 0.14, t(119) = − 2.44, 95% CI [− 0.26, − 0.03], p = .01
(see TableS1 the correlations between specific facets of
responsiveness and extrinsic strategies).
Responsiveness asaMediator ofTarget Emotion
Improvement (See Fig.3)
To examine the extent that perceived regulator responsive-
ness mediated the relationship between regulator extrinsic
strategies and target emotion improvement, we ran multiple
mediation models using the mediation R package (Tingley
etal., 2014). We tested the significance of the indirect effects
using 1,000 bootstrapped samples. Figure3 illustrates and
reports the indirect effects of greater perceived regulator
responsiveness on target emotion improvement, measured
by the four outcomes variables (i.e., target positive emotion,
target negative emotion, regulator success at upregulating
Table 4 Means, standard deviations, and correlations of focal measures
Extrinsic positive emotion upregulation is the extent that the target perceived the regulator to successfully upregulate their positive emotions;
extrinsic negative emotion downregulation is the extent that the target perceived the regulator to successfully downregulate their negative emo-
tions
*p < .05
**p < .01
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Regulator-rated variables
1. Extrinsic reappraisal 4.67 1.01
2. Extrinsic acceptance 5.97 0.75 − .05
3. Extrinsic suppression 2.50 0.88 .11 − .56**
Target-rated variables
4. Positive emotions 3.08 0.90 .24** .11 − .06
5. Negative emotions 1.46 0.56 − .22* − .07 − .03 − .35**
6. Extrinsic positive emotion upregulation 3.83 0.93 .32** .09 .03 .61** − .27**
7. Extrinsic negative emotion downregulation 3.76 0.97 .21* .15 .00 .50** − .23* .61**
8. Perceived regulator responsiveness 4.10 0.65 .20* .30** − .22* .64** − .22* .41** .46**

Affective Science
1 3
target positive emotion, and regulator success at downregu-
lating target negative emotion). These mediation models
suggest that regulators who used more extrinsic reappraisal
improved target emotions, partially by being perceived as a
more responsive interaction partner.
Although extrinsic suppression and extrinsic accept-
ance were not significantly associated with target emotion
improvement, these two extrinsic strategies were signifi-
cantly associated with perceived regulator responsiveness.
Therefore, we examined the mediating role of perceived
regulator responsiveness on the relationship between these
two strategies and target emotion improvement. In all mod-
els (see Fig.4), perceived regulator responsiveness fully
mediated the relationship between the extrinsic strategies
and target emotion improvement. In summary, these results
suggest that extrinsic acceptance was effective at improving
target emotion due to greater perceived regulator respon-
siveness, and that extrinsic suppression was not effective
at improving target emotion due to diminished perceived
regulator responsiveness.
Examining Alternative Explanations
Due to the cross-sectional nature of our data, we tested
multiple alternative explanations that could account for an
independent increase in both regulator extrinsic reappraisal
use and target emotions. First, we expected that conver-
sation intensity (i.e., meaningfulness and depth), sense of
connection (i.e., closeness and affiliation), and regulator
empathy (i.e., empathic concern and perspective-taking; see
TableS2 for descriptive statistics) would be associated with
target emotions. Thus, we controlled for these variables in
linear regression models to predict target emotions, and we
found that regulator extrinsic reappraisal use remained a
significant predictor of target emotions (see Table5). Our
findings suggest that regulator extrinsic reappraisal use is a
critical predictor of improved target emotions irrespective
of conversation intensity, sense of connection, and regu-
lator empathy. Furthermore, extrinsic reappraisal did not
significantly correlate with conversation intensity, sense of
Fig. 3 Greater perceived regulator responsiveness significantly medi-
ated the relationship between extrinsic reappraisal and target positive
emotion (A), regulator success at upregulating target positive emotion
(C), and regulator success at downregulating target negative emotion
(D). Greater perceived regulator responsiveness marginally medi-
ated the relationship between extrinsic reappraisal and target negative
emotion (B). *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

Affective Science
1 3
Fig. 4 The mediating role of perceived regulator responsiveness on
target emotion improvement for extrinsic suppression and extrinsic
acceptance. Lower perceived regulator responsiveness fully medi-
ated the relationship between greater extrinsic suppression and wors-
ened target emotion (A, B) and between greater extrinsic suppression
and the unsuccessful improvement of target emotion (C, D). Greater
perceived regulator responsiveness fully mediated the relationship
between greater extrinsic acceptance and better target emotion (E, F)
and between greater extrinsic acceptance and the successful improve-
ment of target emotion (G, H). Dashed lines refer to non-significant
relationships. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

Affective Science
1 3
connection, or regulator empathy (see Table S3) which indi-
cates that these variables did not mediate the effectiveness
of extrinsic reappraisal.
Another alternative explanation is that, at the end of the
conversation, regulators were motivated to endorse greater
extrinsic reappraisal use when they perceived that they
improved target emotions. We controlled for this motivational
bias by asking regulators to what extent they perceived that
they improved target emotions at the end of the conversation.
We found that when we included this in predicting target emo-
tions, regulator extrinsic reappraisal use remained significant,
and there was no significant interaction (see TableS4). In
other words, regulator extrinsic reappraisal use was positively
associated with better target emotions whether or not regula-
tors perceived that they improved target emotions.
A final alternative explanation is that a regulator who
used extrinsic reappraisal also held the extrinsic prohe-
donic goal to improve the target’s emotions, and it was
this goal that drove other behaviors which resulted in
improved target emotions (see Tamir etal., 2019 for the
distinction between goals and strategies in emotion regu-
lation). In this study, 88% of regulators had the goal to
improve target emotions, and having this goal positively
correlated with greater extrinsic reappraisal use and
extrinsic acceptance use but negatively correlated with
greater extrinsic suppression use (see online supplemen-
tal). When we included regulators’ extrinsic prohedonic
goal in the linear regression models to predict target
emotions, we found that this goal was not significantly
associated with target emotions and did not significantly
interact with regulator extrinsic reappraisal use, and reg-
ulator extrinsic reappraisal use remained significant (see
TableS5). In summary, the positive relationship between
extrinsic reappraisal use and target emotions was not con-
founded by regulators’ goals.
Observer Ratings ofExtrinsic Reappraisal
andSuppression
Observer ratings of both regulator extrinsic reappraisal
use (M = 2.81, SD = 1.41) and regulator extrinsic suppres-
sion use (M = 1.99, SD = 1.16) positively correlated with
regulators’ self-ratings of these strategies, respectively
(r(113) = .40, p < .001 and r(113) = 0.38, p < .001). Fur-
thermore, we obtained similar results when using observer
ratings to predict emotion outcomes and perceived partner
responsiveness (see TableS10) such that observer-rated
extrinsic reappraisal was positively associated with better
target emotion outcomes and greater perceived regulator
responsiveness and that observer-rated extrinsic suppres-
sion was not significantly associated with target emotion
outcomes but was negatively associated with perceived
regulator responsiveness.
Table 5 Regressions predicting
target emotions from extrinsic
reappraisal with control
variables
t, target-rated; r, regulator-rated
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001
Target negative emotion Target positive emotion
Predictors B SE t p B SE t p
Conversation intensity
Meaningfulness (t) − 0.05 0.46 − 0.78 .43 0.18 0.08 2.40 .02*
Meaningfulness (r) − 0.04 0.07 − 0.50 .62 − 0.17 0.10 − 1.71 .09
Depth (t) 0.09 0.88 1.66 .10 0.05 0.06 0.85 .40
Depth (r) 0.10 0.05 1.58 .12 − 0.17 0.07 − 2.24 .03*
Sense of connection
Closeness (t) − 0.01 0.06 − 0.25 .80 0.25 0.06 4.35 .00***
Closeness (r) 0.01 0.05 0.21 .83 0.02 0.06 0.43 .67
Affiliation (t) − 0.14 0.08 − 1.67 .10 0.30 0.09 3.20 .001**
Affiliation (r) − 0.11 0.09 − 1.21 .23 0.01 0.11 0.11 .91
Regulator empathy
Empathic concern − 0.00 0.11 − 0.00 .00 0.18 0.12 1.48 .14
Perspective taking − 0.04 0.11 − 0.41 .69 0.19 0.12 1.50 .14
Extrinsic reappraisal − 0.15 0.05 − 2.76 .01** 0.14 0.06 2.23 .03*
Fit F df p R2F df p R2
2.03 11,105 .03* .09 13.26 11,105 .00*** .05
Multicollinearity VIFs < 1.94 VIFs < 1.94

Affective Science
1 3
Discussion
In the present study, we examined the effectiveness of
three extrinsic strategies in candid dyadic conversations.
These strategies are exhaustively studied in the intraper-
sonal context. However, whether these strategies would
show similar consequences in an interpersonal setting is a
pressing question. We demonstrated that extrinsic emotion
improvement can successfully happen in short conversa-
tions between newly acquainted people without receiving
any specific instruction on how to regulate the emotions of
others. We found that greater use of extrinsic reappraisal
was directly associated with improved target emotions,
whereas extrinsic suppression and acceptance were not.
Emotion improvement was measured by asking target par-
ticipants about their emotions and about the regulators’
success at improving their emotions. We found convergent
findings on all four distinct measures in our focal analyses.
Although extrinsic suppression and acceptance had
no direct association with improved target emotions,
all extrinsic strategies had an indirect association with
improved target emotions through perceived regulator
responsiveness. As predicted, responsiveness mediated
improved target emotions such that extrinsic acceptance
and reappraisal enhanced responsiveness, whereas extrin-
sic suppression diminished responsiveness. It is possible
that the effectiveness of these strategies could also be
moderated by responsiveness; however, our data does not
suggest this (see TableS6). Instead, we found that these
extrinsic actions were associated with distinct social per-
ceptions which impacted their relationship to improving
others’ emotions. Finally, we found that observer-ratings
of extrinsic reappraisal and extrinsic suppression corre-
sponded with regulator self-ratings and that there was a
similar pattern of results on target emotion outcomes.
Limitations andFuture Directions
Some limitations should be considered when interpreting
these findings. First, this study is correlational in nature;
while the present findings fit within the causal framework of
our theorizing and the observational data provides additional
support for our hypotheses, the present results do not speak
directly to causality. It is possible that the regulators’ use
of extrinsic reappraisal is in response to the way in which
targets disclose their distress. Therefore, future research
should manipulate extrinsic reappraisal to determine its
effectiveness.
Second, it is important to note that not all regulator par-
ticipants had the same (if any) interpersonal goals. Thus,
attempts at changing targets’ emotions may have been
conversational-directed depending on the targets’ disclosure
instead of goal-directed. This raises the question—what
trigger regulators to have these goals? In future research, it
would be useful to examine whether regulators set these goals
because of their own motivations or because of the type of
disclosure by the target. For example, a target person may
seek emotional support but receive problem-oriented support
(Liu etal., 2021) because of the way they present their dis-
tress. In other words, the regulator’s goals may be shaped by
the target (i.e., non-deliberate intrinsic emotion regulation).
Finally, although we found that extrinsic reappraisal was
directly associated with improved target emotions, we do not
know which specific reappraisal tactics were most effective.
Reappraisal can work both by changing the construal of the
situation or by changing the goals for the situation (Uusberg
etal., 2019), and one of these reappraisal tactics may work
better than the other in the interpersonal context. Further-
more, these reappraisal tactics could interact with intrinsic
interpersonal emotion regulation goals (i.e., when an indi-
vidual desires to change their own emotions through the help
of others). Often, people seek out others for emotional help
(Campos etal., 2011; Williams etal., 2018). Yet, people may
avoid individuals who challenge their thinking regardless
of whether it could help them in the long run (Behfar etal.,
2020). This mismatch between the extrinsic tactics that the
regulator uses and what the target wants may impact the
effectiveness of extrinsic reappraisal. In future research, it
will be important to identify which types of extrinsic reap-
praisal people seek out or avoid.
In this study, extrinsic acceptance was measured by ask-
ing regulators if they accept the emotions of the target.
Although we conceptually believe that this may lead to
regulators helping targets accept their emotions, this may
not necessarily be the case. In future research, it is critical
to examine if this link exists between regulators’ accept-
ance of targets’ emotions and their attempts to aid targets in
accepting their emotions. These attempts at helping a target
accept their emotions are possibly an effective interpersonal
emotion regulation strategy which was not directly measured
in this study.
Future research should compare the emotional and
social consequences of other interpersonal strategies such
as advice-giving, humor, and affection (Niven etal., 2009).
These strategies may work better than extrinsic reappraisal
depending on the situation. For instance, extrinsic reap-
praisal may help someone deal with rejection, whereas
advice-giving may work better at helping someone manage
the emotions involved in social conflict. An important fac-
tor to consider in future research is the controllability of the
situation (Ford & Troy, 2019) and if extrinsic reappraisal
works better for situations with low controllability (e.g.,
grief) like its intrapersonal counterpart.

Affective Science
1 3
Acknowledgements The authors thank Kylie Cassutt and Navya Yar-
rabothula for their work on this project.
Additional Information
Funding This work was not supported by any funding.
Competing Interests On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author
states that there is no conflict of interest.
Data Availability The experiment reported in this article was not for-
mally preregistered. Data, code, and online supplemental materials are
available on OSF at https:// osf. io/ kazep/, and a preprint is available at
https:// psyar xiv. com/ ejdth.
Author Contribution All authors contributed meaningfully to study
design, data collection/analysis, and paper writing.
Ethics Approval The experiment reported was approved by UCSD
Social and Behavioral Sciences IRB (#IRB00000355).
Informed Consent Informed consent was obtained from all participants.
Supplementary Information The online version contains supplemen-
tary material available at https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s42761- 023- 00183-
4.Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format,
as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the
source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate
if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this
article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless
indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended
use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted
use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright
holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons.
org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/.
References
Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of other in the
self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4), 596. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1037/ 0022- 3514. 63.4. 596
Aron, A., Melinat, E., Aron, E. N., Vallone, R. D., & Bator, R. J.
(1997). The experimental generation of interpersonal closeness:
A procedure and some preliminary findings. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(4), 363–377. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1177/ 01461 67297 234003
Bebko, G. M., Franconeri, S. L., Ochsner, K. N., & Chiao, J. Y.
(2011). Look before you regulate: Differential perceptual strate-
gies underlying expressive suppression and cognitive reappraisal.
Emotion, 11(4), 732. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ a0024 009
Beckes, L., & Sbarra, D. A. (2022). Social baseline theory: State of
the science and new directions. Current Opinion in Psychol-
ogy, 43, 36–41. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. copsyc. 2021. 06. 004
Behfar, K. J., Cronin, M. A., & McCarthy, K. (2020). Realizing the
upside of venting: The role of the “challenger listener.” Acad-
emy of Management Discoveries, 6(4), 609–630. https:// doi. org/
10. 5465/ amd. 2018. 0066
Boren, J. P. (2014). The relationships between co-rumination, social
support, stress, and burnout among working adults. Manage-
ment Communication Quarterly, 28(1), 3–25. https:// doi. org/
10. 1177/ 08933 18913 509283
Brown, C. L., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2021). Characteristics and con-
sequences of co-experienced positive affect: Understanding the
origins of social skills, social bonds, and caring, healthy com-
munities. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 39, 58–63.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. cobeha. 2021. 02. 002
Campos, J. J., Walle, E. A., Dahl, A., & Main, A. (2011). Recon-
ceptualizing emotion regulation. Emotion Review, 3(1), 26–35.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 17540 73910 380975
Coan, J. A., & Sbarra, D. A. (2015). Social baseline theory: The
social regulation of risk and effort. Current Opinion in Psy-
chology, 1, 87–91. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. copsyc. 2014. 12. 021
Davis, M. H. 1980 A multidimensional approach to individual dif-
ferences in empathy
Dixon-Gordon, K. L., Bernecker, S. L., & Christensen, K. (2015).
Recent innovations in the field of interpersonal emotion regula-
tion. Current Opinion in Psychology, 3, 36–42. https:// doi. org/
10. 1016/j. copsyc. 2015. 02. 001
Foley, K. (2022 March 14). Microsoft Team turns five. What’s
next? ZDNet https:// www. zdnet. com/ ar tic le/ micro
soft- teams- turns- five- whats- next/
Ford, B. Q., & Troy, A. S. (2019). Reappraisal reconsidered: A closer
look at the costs of an acclaimed emotion-regulation strategy.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28(2), 195–203.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 09637 21419 827526
Gonzalez, F. J. & John, O. P. (2021). Individual differences in three
interpersonal emotion regulation strategies: Effects of suppres-
sion reappraisal and acceptance for well-being and relation-
ships. Manuscript in preparation.
Gordon, A. M., & Chen, S. (2016). Do you get where I’m coming
from?: Perceived understanding buffers against the negative
impact of conflict on relationship satisfaction. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 110(2), 239–260. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1037/ pspi0 000039
Gross, J. J. (1998). Antecedent-and response-focused emotion reg-
ulation: Divergent consequences for experience, expression,
and physiology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
74(1), 224. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037// 0022- 3514. 74.1. 224
Gross, J. J. (2015). Emotion regulation: Current status and future
prospects. Psychological inquiry, 26(1), 1–26. https:// doi. org/
10. 1080/ 10478 40X. 2014. 940781
Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in
two emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect,
relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 85, 348–362. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/
0022- 3514. 85.2. 348
Impett, E. A., Kogan, A., English, T., John, O., Oveis, C., Gordon,
A. M., & Keltner, D. (2012). Suppression sours sacrifice: Emo-
tional and relational costs of suppressing emotions in romantic
relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(6),
707–720. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01461 67212 437249
Kane, H. S., McCall, C., Collins, N. L., & Blascovich, J. (2012). Mere
presence is not enough: Responsive support in a virtual world.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1), 37–44. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jesp. 2011. 07. 001
Lakey, B., Tardiff, T. A., & Drew, J. B. (1994). Negative social inter-
actions: Assessment and relations to social support, cognition, and
psychological distress. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology,
13(1), 42. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1521/ jscp. 1994. 13.1. 42
Levenson, R. W., Minder Haase, C. M., Bloch, L., Holley, S. R., &
Seider, B. H. (2015). Emotion regulation in couples. In J. J. Gross
(Ed.) Handbook of Emotion Regulation (2nd ed., pp 267–283).
The Guilford Press.

Affective Science
1 3
Liu, D. Y., Strube, M. J., & Thompson, R. J. (2021). Interpersonal emo-
tion regulation: An experience sampling study. Affective Science,
2(3), 273–288.
Maisel, N. C., & Gable, S. L. (2009). The paradox of received social
support: The importance of responsiveness. Psychological Sci-
ence, 20(8), 928–932. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1467- 9280. 2009.
02388.x
Matthews, M., Webb, T. L., & Sheppes, G. (2021). Do people choose
the same strategies to regulate other peoples emotions as they
choose to regulate their own? Emotion Advance online publica-
tion. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ emo00 01008
Nils, F., & Rimé, B. (2012). Beyond the myth of venting: Social shar-
ing modes determine the benefits of emotional disclosure. Euro-
pean Journal of Social Psychology, 42(6), 672–681. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1002/ ejsp. 1880
Niven, K. (2017). The four key characteristics of interpersonal emotion
regulation. Current Opinion in Psychology, 17, 89–93. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1016/j. copsyc. 2017. 06. 015
Niven, K. (in press). Interpersonal emotion regulation. In J. J. Gross
& B.Q. Ford (Eds.) Handbook of Emotion Regulation. Guilford
publications.
Niven, K., Totterdell, P., & Holman, D. (2009). A classification of con-
trolled interpersonal affect regulation strategies. Emotion, 9(4),
498–509. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ a0015 962
Overall, N. C., Fletcher, G. J., Simpson, J. A., & Sibley, C. G. (2009).
Regulating partners in intimate relationships: The costs and benefits
of different communication strategies. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 96(3), 620–639. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ a0012 961
Paivio, S. C., & Laurent, C. (2001). Empathy and emotion regulation:
Reprocessing memories of childhood abuse. Journal of Clini-
cal Psychology, 57(2), 213–226. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ 1097-
4679(200102) 57:2% 3c213:: AID- JCLP7% 3e3.0. CO;2-B
Pauw, L. S., Sauter, D. A., Van Kleef, G. A., & Fischer, A. H. (2019).
Stop crying! The impact of situational demands on interpersonal
emotion regulation. Cognition and Emotion, 33(8), 1587–1598.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 02699 931. 2019. 15853 30
Parkinson, B., & Simons, G. (2009). Affecting others: Social appraisal
and emotion contagion in everyday decision making. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(8), 1071–1084. https:// doi. org/
10. 1177/ 01461 67209 336611
Peters, B. J., Overall, N. C., & Jamieson, J. P. (2014). Physiological and
cognitive consequences of suppressing and expressing emotion in
dyadic interactions. International Journal of Psychophysiology,
94(1), 100–107. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ijpsy cho. 2014. 07. 015
Reeck, C., Ames, D. R., & Ochsner, K. N. (2016). The social regulation of
emotion: An integrative, cross-disciplinary model. Trends in Cogni-
tive Sciences, 20(1), 47–63. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. tics. 2015. 09. 003
Reis, H. T. (2017). The interpersonal process model of intimacy Main-
taining intimacy through self disclosure and responsiveness. In J
Fitzgerald Ed Foundations for Couples Therapy Research for the
Real World 216 225 Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group https://
doi. org/ 10. 4324/ 97813 15678 610- 22.
Reis, H. T. (2017). The interpersonal process model of intimacy: Main-
taining intimacy through self disclosure and responsiveness. In J.
Fitzgerald (Ed.) Foundations for Couples Therapy Research for
the Real World (1st ed., pp. 216–225). Routledge/Taylor & Francis
Group https:// doi. org/ 10. 4324/ 97813 15678 610- 22.
Reis, H. T., & Shaver, P. R. (1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal pro-
cess. In S. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of Personal Relationships (pp.
367–389). Wiley.
Rimé, B. (2009). Emotion elicits the social sharing of emotion: Theory
and empirical review. Emotion Review, 1(1), 60–85.
Sahi, R. S., Ninova, E., & Silvers, J. A. (2021). With a little help from
my friends: Selective social potentiation of emotion regulation.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 150(6), 1237–
1249. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ xge00 00853
Shu, J., Bolger, N., & Ochsner, K. N. (2020). Social emotion regula-
tion strategies are differentially helpful for anxiety and sadness.
Emotion, 21(6), 1144–1159. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ emo00 00921
Stanton, A. L., & Low, C. A. (2012). Expressing emotions in stressful
contexts: Benefits, moderators, and mechanisms. Current Direc-
tions in Psychological Science, 21(2), 124–128. https:// doi. org/
10. 1177/ 09637 21411 434978
Tamir, M., Halperin, E., Porat, R., Bigman, Y. E., & Hasson, Y.
(2019).When there’s a will, there’s a way: Disentangling the
effects of goals and means in emotion regulation.Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 116, 5. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/
pspp0 000232
Tingley, D., Yamamoto, T., Hirose, K., Keele, L., Imai, K. (2014).
Mediation R package for causal mediation analysis. Journal of
Statistical Software, 59(5), 1-38.
Torre, J. B., & Lieberman, M. D. (2018). Putting feelings into words:
Affect labeling as implicit emotion regulation. Emotion Review,
10(2), 116–124. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 17540 73917 742706
Uusberg, A., Taxer, J. L., Yih, J., Uusberg, H., & Gross, J. J. (2019).
Reappraising reappraisal. Emotion Review, 11(4), 267–282.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 17540 73919 862617
Van Kleef, G., Oveis, C. C., der Löwe, I., LuoKogan, A., Goetz, J., &
Keltner, D. (2008). Power, distress, and compassion. Psychologi-
cal Science, 19, 1315–1322. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1467- 9280.
2008. 02241.x
Williams, W. C., Morelli, S. A., Ong, D. C., & Zaki, J. (2018). Inter-
personal emotion regulation: Implications for affiliation, perceived
support, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 115(2), 224–254. https :// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ pspi0
000132
Yih, J., Uusberg, A., Taxer, L. J., & Gross, J. (2019). Better together: A
unified perspective on appraisal and emotion regulation. Cognition
and Emotion, 33(1), 41–47. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 02699 931. 2018.
15047 49
Zaki, J., & Williams, W. C. (2013). Interpersonal emotion regulation. Emo-
tion, 13(5), 803–810. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ a0033 839