Interpersonal Emotion Regulation and Psychological Distress: What Is the function of Negative Mood Regulation Expectancies in This Relationship?

Introduction

Emotion regulation (ER) is an umbrella term that covers all internal and external processes that allow us to modify, monitor, and evaluate both the intensity and the temporal features of our emotional reactions while also taking contextual demands into account (Thompson, 1994). Thus, ER includes social, behavioural, cognitive, biological, controlled, and uncontrolled automatic processes (Aldao et al., 2016; Garnefski et al., 2001). ER involves both intrapersonal (managing emotions by oneself) and interpersonal (managing emotions by making use of others) regulatory processes (Thompson & Calkins, 1996). Although strategies used in the intrapersonal ER process had been frequently examined by existing studies (Dixon-Gordon et al., 2018), its interpersonal aspects that involve using other people with ER purposes had been overlooked by many contemporary ER theories (Hofmann, 2014).

Hofmann et al. (2016) recently introduced a new model of interpersonal emotion regulation (IER) that emphasizes the role of social interactions in ER. IER model focuses on how individuals use others to alleviate their distress or negative emotional state. It is important to note that IER model assumes that individuals utilize others to regulate their emotions without conscious or deliberate effort. Hofmann et al. (2016) have conceptualized IER as a construct consisting of four distinct strategies: “Enhancing Positive Affect,” “Perspective Taking,” “Soothing,” and “Social Modeling.” Enhancing Positive Affect involves approaching other people to intensify feelings of happiness and pleasure when one is feeling elated, which makes it an ER strategy that aims to change the emotional state of the others. In contrast, Perspective Taking involves getting the opinion of others when one is experiencing distressing emotions. Similarly, Soothing is described as seeking out sympathy, compassion, and comfort from others. Lastly, Social Modeling refers to looking at others to understand how they deal with a given situation with the purpose of imitating that pattern when necessary (Hofmann et al., 2016). The IER strategies other than Enhancing Positive Affect are more concerned with what one is feeling, and how that emotion is regulated through the utilization of already existing interpersonal relationships.

The initial work on this model revealed that the habit of regularly using interpersonal ER strategies is associated with higher levels of general ER difficulty, in addition to depression and anxiety (Hofmann et al., 2016). This pattern is especially present for Perspective Taking, Soothing, and Social Modeling dimensions, which are ER strategies that aim to regulate the negative mood. The same pattern was not observed for Enhancing Positive Affect. Instead, Enhancing Positive Affect was reported as inversely associated with depression and anxiety, which may be due to its adaptive ER function (Altan-Atalay & Saritas-Atalar, 2019; Hofmann et al., 2016). In contrast to Hofmann et al. (2016), more recent studies indicate inconsistent results regarding the association between dimensions of IER and psychological distress. In this regard, while several studies have shown a negative association between Enhancing Positive Affect and depression (Altan-Atalay & Sarıtaş-Atalar, 2019; Koç et al., 2019; Pruessner et al., 2019), others have not reported such a significant association (Gökdağ et al., 2018). Furthermore, a similar inconsistency exists in results on perspective taking. Notably, some studies found a negative correlation between Perspective Taking and depression (Altan-Atalay & Sarıtaş-Atalar, 2019; Koç et al., 2019), but this inverse association was not confirmed in other studies (Gökdağ et al., 2018; Pruessner et al., 2019). However, none of the studies found Social Modeling to have significant associations with dimensions of psychological distress (Altan-Atalay & Sarıtaş-Atalar, 2019; Gökdağ et al., 2018; Koç et al., 2019; Pruessner et al., 2019). Lastly, studies have consistently indicated a weak but positive association between Soothing and dimensions of psychological distress (Altan-Atalay & Sarıtaş-Atalar, 2019; Gökdağ et al., 2018; Koç et al., 2019). Therefore, these mixed findings and the limited number of studies on IER highlight the importance of conducting further research to uncover how these strategies relate to psychological distress.

Hofmann et al. (2016) have suggested that the excessive use of IER strategies prevents individuals from using other adaptive coping mechanisms at times of distress. This may lead to the perception of self as lacking the capacity to cope with difficult situations (Hofmann, 2014). This negative self-image, in turn, can be associated with a proneness for psychological distress, “a state of emotional suffering characterized by symptoms of depression (e.g., lost interest; sadness; hopelessness) and anxiety (e.g., restlessness; feeling tense)” (Drapeau et al., 2011, p. 105). In the current study, psychological distress was conceptualized as a negative emotional state characterized by symptoms of depression, anxiety and stress. In other words, Hofmann et al. (2016) proposed that frequently relying on IER interferes with the development of coping self-efficacy by preventing the individual from developing and practicing with adaptive ER strategies, which, in turn, increases psychological distress. However, this relationship had not been empirically investigated yet.

Method

Results

Basic descriptive information, reliability, and Pearson’s correlations of the key study variables are presented in Table 1. As the table indicates, only Soothing dimension of IER is significantly associated with psychological distress and NMRE. NMRE indicated a negative association with psychological distress.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Descriptive statistics, reliability coefficients, and Pearson’s correlations.

	Mean	SD	Α	EPA	PT	PTS S	SM	NMRE	DASS
EPA	20.80	3.57	.85
PT	12.42	3.90	.74	.17*
S	15.72	5.15	.89	.39**	.37**
SM	17.02	4.41	.86	.30**	.43**	.42**
NMRE	98.28	16.09	.84	.02	.10	−.25**	.12
DASS	82.07	23.42	.96	.02	−.09	.19**	−.05	−.61**

EPA= Enhancing Positive Affect, SM= Social Modeling, S= Soothing, PT= Perspective Taking, NMRE= Negative Mood Regulation Expectancies, DASS = Depression Anxiety Stress Scale.

**p < .01, *p < .05.

Mediation analyses: Role of NMRE

Four different mediation analyses were conducted using PROCESS macro (Model 4) with bootstrapping sample technique proposed by Hayes (2013). Given that the sample consisted of predominantly female participants and included diverse age groups, age and gender were held constant. The results indicated that NMRE mediated the relationship between Soothing dimension of IER and psychological distress. However, we did not find such a pattern for other dimensions of IER (see Table 2). Specifically, the mediation analysis conducted to test if NMRE has a mediator role in the association between Soothing and psychological distress showed that the absolute indirect effect of NMRE was between .23 and 1.15. This indicates that NMRE significantly mediated the relationship between Soothing and psychological distress since the confidence interval did not include zero (B = .68, SE =.23, 95% CI [.23, 1.15], p <.05) (see Table 2).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Direct and indirect effects of IER’s dimensions on psychological distress by NMRE.

IV	M	DV	Effect of IV on M(a)	Effect of M on DV (b)	Direct Effects(c')	Indirect Effect (c-c')	Total Effect (c)
EPA	NMRE	PD	.15	−.89***	.30	−.14	.16
S	NMRE	PD	−.78***	−.87***	.24	.68***	.92**
PT	NMRE	PD	.44	−.88***	−.16	−.39	−.55
SM	NMRE	PD	.54*	−.90***	.22	−.48	−.26

EPA= Enhancing Positive Affect, PT= Perspective Taking, S= Soothing, SM= Social Modeling, NMRE= Negative Mood Regulation Expectancies, PD= Psychological Distress.

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Discussion

The present study sought to explore the mediating role of NMRE in the relationship of IER with psychological distress. The results have indicated that, among the dimensions of IER, only Soothing has a significant association with NMRE, indicating that individuals who frequently use Soothing as an ER strategy tend to have low levels of NMRE. The results have also revealed that NMRE significantly mediates the relationship of Soothing with psychological distress. Notably, individuals with frequent use of Soothing may be more likely to have low confidence in their coping resources, and subsequently, may show a greater vulnerability for psychological distress. Relying on others at times of distress to receive sympathy and comfort may be related to elevations in psychological distress since these individuals may fail to develop confidence in their skills for the management of negative emotions successfully without the instrumental or emotional help of others. Utilizing Soothing as a major ER strategy may interfere with the development of an awareness of own ER strategies, and thus elevations in the subjectively felt distress following exposure to a threat or in response to the anticipation of a threat. It is also possible that frequent use of IER strategies following failures and losses may prevent such individuals from developing and using successful intra-personal ER strategies, which subsequently makes them vulnerable to psychological distress in the long run.

The current results did not indicate NMRE to be a significant mediator in the association of Enhancing Positive Affect, Perspective Taking and Social Modeling with psychological distress. First of all, different from the other dimensions, Enhancing Positive Affect aims to upregulate others’ emotions rather than own emotions and thus might not have any association with how the individuals evaluate their own resources for ER. Contrarily, both Social Modelling and Perspective Taking are used with the aim of downregulation of negative emotions. However, both have the potential to give the individual an opportunity for the acquisition of certain emotion regulation skills and thus may not be associated with the feeling of being vulnerable at the face of negative emotions, which is a characteristic associated with low NMRE (Catanzaro, 1993).

Inconsistent with the studies that were conducted with Western cultures (Hofmann et al., 2016), the current study also failed to show significant associations between dimensions of IER and psychological stress except for Soothing. The present findings can be interpreted from two different perspectives. First, the current findings may be associated with the nature of the strategies that are assessed in the current study. That is, as Dixon-Gordon et al. (2018) also argued, IER strategies that are investigated within the scope of the current study refer to the regulation of one’s emotion through others without a deliberate effort to do so. In other words, the IER measure does not capture purposeful or explicit help-seeking from others at times of distress purposefully or explicitly. This may explain why the current study did not find significant associations between IER dimensions and psychological stress except for Soothing.

Secondly, culture might have a role in these findings since it influences the adaptiveness of turning to others at times of distress (Hofmann, 2014). Different from the original study, the participants of the current study are of Turkish origin and as Ford and Gross (2019) stated, the meaning and implications of ER strategies may vary depending on the cultural characteristic and in particular the functions and closeness of interpersonal relationships (emphasizing the importance of relational versus autonomous self-construal) (Ford & Gross, 2019; Liddell & Williams, 2019). Specifically, Turkish families put a strong emphasis on emotional dependency and interpersonal closeness (Kagitcibasi, 2007) and individuals’ use of other people (parents in particular) as ER sources for a long time. Moreover, the continuation of the close relationship with others and depending on others at times of stress had been reported to be associated with better outcomes in terms of ER strategies in the Turkish sample (Saritas-Atalar & Altan-Atalay, 2017). In light of these, it can be stated that relying on others at times of distress may not necessarily be maladaptive among Turkish speaking individuals.

It should be noted that the current results indicate that Soothing dimension of IER has a significant relationship with psychological distress, which are in line with studies conducted with Turkish sample (Gökdağ et al., 2018; Koç et al., 2019). This may stem from the maladaptive nature of Soothing as an IER strategy regardless of cultural characteristics. Soothing may take place in the form of reassurance-seeking, and the link between excessive reassurance-seeking and psychopathology (e.g., depression) has been well-documented in previous studies (Dixon-Gordon et al., 2018). Also, Soothing might be considered as a form of explicit social support (e.g., emotional comfort, instrumental aid) since individuals openly seek help from others to alleviate their distress. Studies have indicated that explicit social support aggravates depression in collectivistic cultures since disclosure of negative emotions has the potential to hinder relationships (Taylor et al., 2007).

The current study is exploratory in nature since, to the authors’ knowledge, it is the first to investigate the mechanism through which IER influences psychological distress. Moreover, it also opens a door for cross-cultural explanations for the association between IER and psychological distress since the results are based on a non-western sample and are partially in contradiction with the findings of the only study conducted with a Western sample (Hofmann et al., 2016). Several limitations of the present study should also be noted. Firstly, this study is based on correlational design and self-reported measures, which prevent us from making cause-effect inferences. Secondly, the data was collected from a community sample, which involves some bias regarding the demographic variables, such as access to the internet and education level. Moreover, the data were collected from a relatively small number of individuals. Both of these issues limit the generalizability of the results to the whole Turkish population. Therefore, future studies can utilize separate temporal assessments of the variables for a stronger mediation test (Maric et al., 2012). Also, longitudinal designs can be conducted to understand the developmental trends in IER capacities and clarifying the direction of prediction among measured variables. Furthermore, although we suggested that culture may have a role in current findings, we did not measure the self-construal (relational versus autonomous) of participants. Future studies can investigate the role of self-construal on the association between IER and psychological distress. Next, the results indicate that IER has a low correlation with other study variables. This suggests that other variables (e.g., intrapersonal ER) may also play a crucial role in this relationship. Hence, the examination of the contribution of such factors to the relationship between IER and NMRE is important to understand the nature of IER and its role in the development of vulnerability to psychological disorders. Finally, as the study is the first to explore the mediating role of NMRE on the association between IER and psychological distress, confirmatory studies are needed on this issue.

In conclusion, the findings of this study indicate that NMRE mediated the association only between the Soothing dimension of IER and psychological distress. The findings from the current study contribute to cross-cultural issues in IER. The results may also have important implications for developing intervention methods to treat certain clinical and subclinical forms of psychological distress that are related to relying on maladaptive ER strategies (i.e. Soothing). Notably, providing individuals with alternative coping strategies and enhancing coping self-efficacy (NMRE) may have significant benefits for individuals.