Recent conceptual and empirical advances have focused on interpersonal dimensions of emotion regulation and, more specifically, to the features of attempted support transactions that shape the outcomes of enacted support. We conducted 2 autobiographical recall studies to investigate receivers' evaluations of intrinsic interpersonal emotion regulation interactions, to ascertain the number of dimensions required to capture variation in those evaluations, and then to examine associations of those dimensions with perceived benefits of the interactions. To do so, we developed a new questionnaire, the Interpersonal Regulation Interaction Scale (IRIS). In Study 1 (n ϭ 390), an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) of the IRIS yielded 4 dimensions, which we labeled responsiveness, hostility, cognitive support, and physical presence. Each dimension was uniquely associated with perceived benefits of receiving interpersonal emotion regulation. In Study 2, we collected multiple, diverse samples (ns ϭ 199 -895) and found support for the replicability and generalizability of key findings from Study 1, including the factor structure and associations with perceived benefits. In summary, across 2 studies and multiple, diverse samples, we identified 4 conceptually and practically important dimensions of receivers' evaluations of interpersonal emotion regulation interactions and developed a brief measure that taps interaction variability in these dimensions.
Clinical science has benefited tremendously from taking seriously the proposition that putatively maladaptive behaviors serve psychological functions, prominently among these affect regulation (AR). These functionalist accounts have not only advanced basic clinical science, but also formed the bedrock for the development of effective treatments. Drawing heavily on reinforcement learning theory, we aim to elucidate functional relationships between maladaptive behavior and affect regulation. Specifically, we take the view that maladaptive behaviors are frequently motivated and reinforced by hedonic AR functions (i.e., decreasing negative affect and increasing positive affect), but are also susceptible to becoming stimulus-bound habits. We review empirical evidence from one such behavior, non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI). We close with a brief reflection on future directions.
Prior research has indicated that ideal affect (i.e., the affective states that people value and would ideally like to experience) may be relevant to mental health outcomes. Studies to date, however, have not used comprehensive multivariate models that account for covariation among facets of ideal affect and incorporate multiple clinical outcomes. In the present studies, we used structural equation modeling to examine the multivariate effects of ideal affect on symptoms of depression, anxiety, and alcohol abuse in 2 moderately large samples of undergraduates (N = 293 and N = 146). Exploratory results of Study 1 indicated that valuation of high arousal positive affective states was significantly associated with lower depression symptoms but higher anxiety and alcohol abuse symptoms and that valuation of high arousal negative states was specifically associated with greater anxiety symptoms. These results were shown to be structurally invariant across samples and ethnicities in Study 2, which also found that ideal-actual affect discrepancies were significantly associated with symptoms of depression and anxiety. These findings support and extend the hypothesis that ideal affect is implicated in clinical outcomes by highlighting the importance of jointly considering multiple facets of ideal and actual affect as they relate to a range of clinical syndromes. (PsycINFO Database Record
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.