Emphasizing the Social in Social Emotion Regulation: A Call for Integration and Expansion.

The Future of Affective Science Special Issues illuminate where the field of Affective Science is headed in coming years, highlighting exciting new directions for research. Many of the articles in the issues emphasized the importance of studying emotion regulation, and specifically, social emotion regulation. This commentary draws on these articles to argue that future research needs to more concretely focus on the social aspects of social emotion regulation, which have been underexplored in affective science. Specifically, we discuss the importance of focusing on social goals, strategies and tactics, and outcomes relevant to social emotion regulation interactions, more closely considering these processes for all individuals involved. To do so, we draw on research from neighboring subdisciplines of psychology that have focused on the social aspects of interactions. Moreover, we underscore the need to better integrate components of the process model of social emotion regulation and approach empirical inquiry more holistically, in turn illuminating how piecemeal investigations of these processes might lead to an incomplete or incorrect understanding of social emotion regulation. We hope this commentary supplements the research in the special issues, further highlighting ways to advance the field.

Physiological synchrony in supportive discussions: An examination of co-rumination, relationship type, and heterogeneity.

During times of stress, we look to close others for support. Social support conversations are critical for relationship maintenance and well-being. Yet, certain ways of talking about problems-such as co-ruminating-can exacerbate stress. Since social support and co-rumination are both dyadic processes, it is important to examine physiological responses during these conversations in a dyadic manner. Little research has examined physiological synchrony of the sympathetic nervous system (SNS) during social support conversations or co-ruminative conversations. The current research capitalizes on an experimental manipulation of co-rumination using a sample of close friends (147 dyads) and romantic partners (113 dyads) to examine physiological covariation in the context of support. Across both samples, dyads exhibited significant physiological covariation in pre-ejection period reactivity (PEP). Contrary to our hypothesis, dyads in the co-rumination condition did not show more covariation. Close friend dyads did, however, exhibit more covariation as compared to romantic dyads. We also found significant variability in physiological covariation across dyads, with a minority of dyads exhibiting negative covariation of PEP reactivity. The homogeneity of the samples limits the generalizability of the findings and highlights the need for more diverse samples in future work. These findings underline the need for further exploration into the mechanisms that contribute to distinct patterns of physiological synchrony, the conditions in which negative synchrony occurs, and what predicts especially strong positive synchrony. This work extends our understanding of physiological synchrony of the sympathetic nervous system during support conversations and emphasizes the importance of considering heterogeneity in physiological processes.

Decomposing variance in co-rumination using dyadic daily diary data.

It is unknown how co-rumination, or perseverating on problems or feelings with another person, unfolds in the daily lives of romantic couples. Using a variance decomposition procedure on data from a 14-day dyadic diary, we assessed how much variance in co-rumination was attributable to temporally stable and varying factors, as well as whether co-rumination is better measured as a couple-level or individual-level process. Within-person, within-couple fluctuations in co-rumination contributed most (~33%) to the total variance and summary scores based on these fluctuations were reliable. Stable between-couple differences accounted for ~14% of the total variance and could also be reliably assessed. However, within-couple agreement in co-rumination was low, such that the reliability at the level of within-couple change was inadequate. Research is needed to understand these divergent perceptions of co-rumination and potential downstream consequences. We conclude by considering how these results inform theory and can be applied to similar dyadic constructs.

Within-person Changes in Co-rumination and Rumination in Adolescence: Examining Heterogeneity and the Moderating Roles of Gender and Time.

Although previous work has consistently identified positive associations between co-rumination and rumination during adolescence, little to no research has examined how this relationship operates on the person-specific level. The current study aimed to extend current developmental theories of co-rumination and rumination by examining within-person associations between these constructs. Survey data was collected from 1502 adolescents (Mage = 13.20; 52% girls; 52% non-Hispanic White) every six-months across the span of 3.5 years. The results showed that at time-points when adolescents reported co-ruminating more than their usual level, they reported concurrent increases in rumination. This association was stronger for boys and strengthened over time. Despite substantial between-person heterogeneity, 97% of adolescents showed positive associations between co-rumination and rumination. This research has important implications for mental health professionals, school systems, and parents who may look to teach adolescents about effective emotion-regulation.

The associations of COVID-19 percent positivity rate, relationship quality, and season with daily anxiety and depression in couples living in NYC.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic changed nearly every aspect of daily life and had detrimental effects on mental health. Yet, impacts have been heterogeneous. We tested whether fluctuations in local COVID-19 percent positivity rates were associated with daily anxiety and depression in couples living in NYC, as well as whether these associations varied by relationship quality or season. We expected that adverse impacts of COVID-19 may be attenuated by high-quality relationships and during warmer months, or that people may habituate over time. Methods: Data on seven-day rolling average COVID-19 percent positive rate each day in NYC were merged with a 14-day dyadic diary study of cohabiting couples living in NYC between August 2020 through April 2021 (232 individuals from 116 couples; mean age 28.42 years, 52.59% female, 53.02% White). Dyadic multilevel models estimated the association COVID-19 positivity rate, season (sine and cosine of the calendar date), baseline relationship quality, and all two-and three-way interactions of these variables with daily anxiety and depression. Covariates included weekend and COVID-positive case within the couple. Results: Anxiety and depression mirrored COVID-19 positivity rates, and there was some evidence for habituation over time. Significant two-and three-way interactions suggested that being in a high-quality relationship buffered the association of COVID-19 positivity rate with both anxiety and depression during months when cases were low. Anxiety was elevated for individuals in high- (v. low-) quality relationships during the December-January surge. Conclusion: Seven-day rolling average COVID-19 percent positivity rate was associated with daily anxiety and depression among couples living in NYC. There was some evidence that individuals habituated to this stressor over time and that high-quality relationships were protective for mental well-being; however, there was some suggestion that couples in high-quality relationships may have engaged in processes such as co-rumination during surges, worsening their daily anxiety.

COVID-19 distress and interdependence of daily emotional intimacy, physical intimacy, and loneliness in cohabiting couples.

Introduction: COVID-19 has had a profound impact on relationship functioning, though effects have been heterogeneous. Reasons for divergent effects on relationship functioning remain unclear. Theoretical models suggest that it is not just stress exposure that leads to adverse relationships outcomes, but also subjective response to these stressors. Using data from a 14-day intensive longitudinal study of romantic dyads, we hypothesized that COVID-19-related distress would adversely impact one's own and one's partner's report of relationship functioning, on average. Interdependence at the between-couple and within-couple level was also examined. Methods: Participants were 104 female-male romantic couples cohabiting the New York metropolitan area (Mage = 28.86, SDage = 7.69) between August 2020 - April 2021. Couples reported COVID-19 distress during a baseline interview and daily relationship functioning for 14 days. Multilevel models were specified for six outcomes simultaneously: female and male partner daily physical intimacy, emotional intimacy, and loneliness. Interrelationships of the intercepts of the six outcomes were specified, reflecting between-couple associations of each partner's stable outcome tendencies. Interrelationships of the daily residuals of the six outcomes were also specified, reflecting within-couple associations at the daily level. Results: Female partner COVID-19 distress was inversely associated with her own emotional and physical intimacy and positively associated with her own and her partner's loneliness. Male COVID-19 distress was associated with his own loneliness only. There was significant interdependence at the between- and within-couple level, such that greater loneliness in either partner was associated with less intimacy in each member of the couple. Discussion: Only one partner effect for COVID-19 distress emerged, such that female partner distress was associated with male partner loneliness; however, interdependence at the between- and within-couple level suggested that distress may adversely impact relational well-being over time. Future studies should examine reciprocal relationships between COVID-19-related distress and relationship functioning.

Modeling heterogeneity in the simultaneous emotional costs and social benefits of co-rumination.

Co-rumination is the act of perseverating on problems or negative emotions with another person. Past research has shown that co-rumination has tradeoffs, as it is related to more anxiety and depressive symptoms, yet also heightened feelings of closeness and better relationship quality. However, there has been little repeated measures work, leaving unknown the influence of within-person changes in co-rumination on individuals' functioning. Using data from 1,504 adolescents collected as part of a seven-wave study over 4 years, we hypothesized that at times when adolescents coruminated above their own average level of co-rumination, they would report more anxiety and depressive symptoms, as well as increased closeness with friends at concurrent timepoints. Moreover, we investigated heterogeneity in these effects, exploring whether there was variability in whether adolescents experienced simultaneous costs and benefits of increased co-rumination. The results reveal that the average adolescent reported associated increases in anxiety symptoms, depressive symptoms, and closeness with friends at times when they reported coruminating at higher-than-typical levels. Yet, there was significant heterogeneity in these effects, as some adolescents solely experienced costs of co-rumination and others experienced just benefits. Moreover, adolescents who experienced stronger-than-average effects of co-rumination on anxiety and depressive symptoms reported less of an increase in closeness with friends. These findings offer important insight into how co-rumination is associated with social-emotional functioning and have implications for recommending best practices for seeking support and discussing problems with close others. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

A Tailored Behavioral Intervention to Promote Adherence to the DASH Diet.

Objectives: In this study, we evaluated the effects of a Transtheoretical model (TTM)-based tailored behavioral intervention (TBI), a non-tailored intervention (NTI) or usual care (UC) on: (1) the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) dietary pattern in 533 individuals with uncontrolled hypertension; and (2) the change from baseline to 6 months in proportion of participants in action or maintenance stages of change (SOC). Methods: This was a randomized clinical trial. Diet was evaluated using the validated Harvard DASH score calculated from Willett Food Frequency Questionnaires (range 8-40). The randomized groups were compared using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test, with adjustment for clustering by physician and baseline DASH scores. Results: At 6 months, compared to UC, TBI had a 1.28 point increase in DASH score (p ≤ .01) while NTI was not significant. At 6-month follow-up, TBI was more effective in advancing dietary SOC when compared to UC (56% vs 43%, p < .01) and NTI was not effective (46% vs 43%, p = .64). Conclusions: A phone-delivered tailored TTM-based intervention achieved greater improvement in DASH score and dietary SOC, suggesting that TTM-based tailored interventions can increase patients' dietary adherence.