Interpersonal emotion regulation contagion: Effects on strategy use and affect
Thesis
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts in the
Graduate School of The Ohio State University
By
Kara Alise Christensen, A.B.
Graduate Program in Psychology
The Ohio State University
2015
Thesis Committee
Amelia Aldao, Ph.D., Advisor
Jennifer Crocker, Ph.D.
Michael Vasey, Ph.D.
Copyrighted by
Kara Alise Christensen
2015
Abstract
Recent research suggests that people frequently rely on others in order to regulate
their affective states (e.g., Zaki & Williams, 2013). Although such interpersonal
regulation may help enhance psychological and physical well-being, there is growing
evidence suggesting there may also be negative consequences. First, there is some
evidence that the use of maladaptive emotion regulation strategies may be contagious.
For example, when one member of a dyad uses rumination, the other increasingly adopts
this strategy as well (e.g., Haeffel & Hames, 2014; Stone & Gibb, 2015). Second, the
joint use of rumination has been linked with the presence of symptoms of mental
disorders (e.g., Rose, Schwartz-Mette, Glick, Smith, & Luebbe, 2014). Despite these
advances, much remains to be understood about the joint utilization of other ER
strategies, such as worry (putatively maladaptive) and acceptance (putatively adaptive).
Doing so is particularly important because such strategies play a central role in mental
health and well-being (e.g., Aldao et al., 2010). Because maladaptive strategies have a
stronger link with mental health than putatively adaptive strategies, I expected an
asymmetric contagion effect, such that worry would “spread” more than acceptance. I
induced 74 female undergraduates to use worry or acceptance (within-subjects) before
interacting with a female confederate who was engaging in either worry or acceptance
(between-subjects). Then I examined two effects while watching disgust-eliciting videos:
1) use of emotion regulation strategies, and 2) affective ratings. I found that participants
ii
who interacted with a worrying confederate reported more use of worry than those who
interacted with an accepting confederate. When participants were induced to accept their
emotions, they had greater anxiety and disgust when they interacted with a worrying
confederate as compared to an accepting confederate. However, when participants were
induced to worry about their emotions, interacting with an accepting confederate had no
impact on their emotional experience. These effects were more pronounced in chronic
worriers, which suggests that these individuals might be at greater risk for negative
contagion effects of maladaptive strategies. In all, these findings build upon the literature
proposing that maladaptive strategies play a stronger role in mental health than the
adaptive ones and suggest that chronic worriers may be more sensitive to contagion
effects of maladaptive strategies than non-chronic worriers.
iii
Acknowledgments
I gratefully acknowledge all of the guidance and support given to me in completing this
project by my advisor, Amelia Aldao, and my colleagues, Lee Dunn, Ilana Seager, Andre
Plate, and Anne Wilson. I am also much indebted to our hardworking undergraduate
research assistants who allowed us to collect this data, in particular Jennifer Merz, Briana
Smoot, and Brittany Woods. Finally, I would like to thank my committee members,
Theodore Beauchaine, Jennifer Crocker, and Michael Vasey, for their constructive
feedback and advice in preparing and writing my thesis.
iv
Vita
2007................................................................Academic Magnet High School
2011................................................................A.B., Psychology with Honors, The
University of Chicago
2013 to present ..............................................Distinguished University Fellow, The Ohio
State University
2013 to present ..............................................Graduate Teaching Association, Department
of Psychology, The Ohio State University
Publications
Aldao, A., & Christensen, K. (2015). Linking the expanded process model of emotion
regulation to psychopathology by focusing on behavioral outcomes of regulation.
Psychological Inquiry, 26(1), 27-36.
Christensen, K. & Aldao, A. (2015). Tipping points for adaptation: Connecting emotion
regulation, motivated behavior, and psychopathology. Current Opinion in
Psychology, 3, 70-74.
v
Dixon-Gordon, K.L., Bernecker, S., & Christensen, K. (2015). Recent innovations in the
field of interpersonal emotion regulation. Current Opinion in Psychology, 3, 3642.
Holsen, L.M., Lawson, E.A., Christensen, K.A., Makris, N., Klibanski, A., & Goldstein,
J.M. (2014). Food motivation circuitry hypoactivation associated with
endogenous ghrelin secretion in women with anorexia nervosa. Psychiatry
Research: Neuroimaging, 223(2), 94-103.
Southward, M., Christensen, K., Fettich, K., Weissman, J., Berona, J., & Chen, E.Y.
(2014). Loneliness mediates the relationship between emotional dysregulation and
bulimia nervosa/ binge eating disorder psychopathology in a clinical sample.
Eating and Weight Disorders- Studies on Anorexia, Bulimia, and Obesity, 19(4),
509-513.
Chen, E., Fettich, K., Tierney, M., Cummings, H., Berona, J., Weissman, J., Ward A.,
Christensen, K., Southward, M., Gordon, K., Mitchell, J., & Coccaro, E. (2012).
Factors associated with suicidal ideation in severely obese bariatric surgeryseeking individuals. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 42(5), 541-549.
Fields of Study
Major Field: Psychology.
vi
Table of Contents
Abstract ...................................................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................... iv
Vita................................................................................................................................................................ v
Fields of Study .......................................................................................................................................... v
Table of Contents .................................................................................................................................. vii
List of Tables............................................................................................................................................ ix
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................x
Chapter 1: Introduction....................................................................................................................... 1
Expanding the Literature on Interpersonal ER ....................................................................................... 4
Chapter 2: Methods ............................................................................................................................... 9
Participants ............................................................................................................................................................ 9
Self-Report Measures......................................................................................................................................... 9
Apparatus ............................................................................................................................................................ 10
Research Protocol ............................................................................................................................................ 11
Confederate Believability .............................................................................................................................. 14
vii
Statistical Analysis ........................................................................................................................................... 15
Chapter 3: Results............................................................................................................................... 16
Manipulation Checks ....................................................................................................................................... 16
Main Analyses .................................................................................................................................................... 18
Secondary Analyses: Examining Individual Differences .................................................................. 22
Chapter 4: Discussion........................................................................................................................ 27
Limitations .......................................................................................................................................................... 33
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................................... 35
References .............................................................................................................................................. 36
Appendix A: Fast Friends Prompts ............................................................................................... 43
Appendix B: Emotion Regulation Induction Transcripts ..................................................... 44
viii
List of Tables
Table 1: Baseline block differences .................................................................................. 16
Table 2: Post-induction differences in ER and affect ....................................................... 17
Table 3: GEE models predicting post-video ER use and affect (Wald’s χ²)..................... 18
Table 4: Habitual worry predicting post-video ER use and affect (Wald's χ²) ................. 23
Table 5: Habitual acceptance predicting post-video ER use and affect (Wald’s χ²)......... 26
ix
List of Figures
Figure 1: Dyadic Interactions study flow.......................................................................... 11
Figure 2: Use of worry during the videos ......................................................................... 20
Figure 3: Experience of anxiety during the videos ........................................................... 21
Figure 4: Experience of disgust during the videos............................................................ 22
Figure 5: Three-way interaction predicting use of worry ................................................. 24
x
Chapter 1: Introduction
In the past two decades, there has been an exponential increase in research
utilizing the emotion regulation (ER) framework (i.e., the process by which individuals
alter the onset, duration, and intensity of their emotions; Gross, 1998; 2013). However,
ER has primarily been studied as an intrapersonal process, despite the evidence that these
processes often occur in social contexts (Gross, 1998, 2013; Zaki & Williams, 2013).
Studying interpersonal processes is important given that relationships play critical
roles in many aspects of our lives, beginning as children when we develop bonds with our
parents, continuing through adolescence, as our peer groups become more prominent, and
extending into adulthood, as we develop romantic relationships. Many theories
conceptualize interpersonal difficulties as being central to psychological dysfunction,
including depression (Klerman, Weissman, & Rounsaville, 1984), anxiety disorders
(Parrish & Radomsky, 2011), personality disorders (Linehan, 1993), and suicidal ideation
(Joiner, 2005). Thus, it comes as no surprise that psychologists have been inquiring about
the functions social interactions serve vis-a-vis psychological functioning (see Hofmann,
2014; Rimé, 2009b; Zaki & Williams, 2013). Given the personal, social, and economic
costs of mental disorders, it is clear that understanding how people use, or fail to
appropriately use, their social relationships to bolster well-being is an important task for
the ER literature.
1
Thus, interpersonal ER constitutes an important shift in approach to the study of
dysfunction in adults. Notably, since this work is in its infancy, it is not surprising that
the conceptualization and operationalization of interpersonal ER is characterized by
substantial heterogeneity (e.g., Dixon-Gordon, Bernecker, & Christensen, 2015). For
example, the term “interpersonal ER” has been used to describe both deliberate attempts
to alter one’s/others emotions through social contact (e.g., Niven, Totterdell, & Holman,
2009) as well as indirect results of emotional expression (e.g. anxiety-transfer, Parkinson
& Simons, 2012).
There is a possibility that through the use of ER strategies in social contexts,
individuals may begin to converge in similarity of strategy use, through what may be
termed “ER contagion.” For example, one member of a dyad may, over time, adopt
certain ER strategies (i.e. rumination) from the other member (e.g., Haeffel & Hames,
2014; Stone & Gibb, 2015). Work on ER contagion is critical given that people often
engage with others who may habitually apply different strategies than they do and may
further take their regulation cues from others (for better or worse). For example, people
may even choose to switch strategies as a result of social interaction. Furthermore, the
mismatches in response from regulation partners may lead to increases or decreases in
affect (e.g., Parkinson & Simons, 2012). Previous research suggests that social
interactions may fulfill an affiliative function (Rimé, 2009a) and thus, engaging in similar
strategies may serve as a form of mimicry by which individuals feel increased levels of
emotional closeness (Fischer & Manstead, 2010). Interacting with others may also help
the individual trying to regulate their emotions reduce the level of threat they feel
(Blascovich, Mendes, Hunter, & Salomon, 1999) and signal safety by tacitly validating
2
the choice of ER strategy. By contrast, interacting with someone using a different
strategy may signal incorrect usage of a strategy.
The literature to date has primarily focused on the interpersonal use of
rumination, termed co-rumination, which has been defined as the excessive discussion of
problems with others and includes engaging in problem talk and speculation, rehashing
the past, and dwelling on negative affect (Rose, 2002). Relatedly, the intrapersonal use of
rumination (focusing on causes and consequences of distress) has been positively
associated with a wide range of mental disorders and, as such, is considered to be
maladaptive (e.g., Aldao, Nolen-Hoeksema, & Schweizer, 2010; Nolen-Hoeksema,
Wisco, & Lyubomirsky, 2008). Notably, its joint use has detrimental associations with
mood and physiology, including increases in prospective depression and anxiety (Rose,
2002; Rose, Carlson, & Waller, 2007), as well as in stress hormone levels, such as
cortisol (Byrd-Craven, Geary, Rose, & Ponzi, 2008) and salivary alpha-amylase (ByrdCraven, Granger, & Auer, 2011). Additionally, it has been found to mediate the
relationship between social support and workplace burnout (Boren, 2013). Furthermore,
in a study of adolescents, co-rumination has been found to be a double-edged sword: girls
who reported engaging in higher levels of co-rumination also endorsed greater closeness
in their friendships; however, they also reported more symptoms of depression and
anxiety six months later (Rose et al., 2007).
Germane to this thesis, in one study examining the “contagion” effects of
rumination in a sample of college freshmen who had been randomly assigned to live with
each other, those who had been paired a roommate who reported high levels of
rumination were more likely themselves to develop higher levels of rumination after three
3
months (Haeffel & Hames, 2014). Furthermore, this change in rumination corresponded
with an increase in depression symptoms. Interestingly, those paired with a roommate
with low levels of rumination experienced decreases in their own levels of rumination.
Expanding the Literature on Interpersonal ER
As the topic of interpersonal ER is a relatively newer area of inquiry, there are
several potential areas for growth. First, the extant literature has primarily adopted a
correlational approach (e.g., Haeffel & Hames, 2014; Rose, 2002; Rose et al., 2007;
Stone & Gibb, 2015) and thus, much remains to be uncovered about the mechanisms
underlying the development and maintenance of patterns of this process. In other words,
while the link between some co-regulatory processes and mental health is relatively clear,
the mechanisms underlying the reinforcement of these processes over time remain to be
identified. Pursuing such an understanding is essential given both the physiological and
mental health outcomes that are associated with co-regulatory behavior (e.g., ByrdCraven et al., 2008; Rose, 2002; Rose et al., 2007).
Second, because the majority of this literature is on co-rumination, much less is
known about the joint use of other ER strategies that are associated with mental health.
Recent meta-analytic work has suggested that strategies such as reappraisal, acceptance
and problem solving are effective at modifying affect in controlled laboratory settings
and have negative association with symptoms of psychological disorders, which has lead
to their classification as adaptive (e.g., Aldao et al., 2010; Webb et al., 2012). By
contrast, strategies such as rumination, avoidance, and suppression are less effective at
changing affect in the lab and share positive associations with symptoms of psychological
disorders, which has lead to their classification as maladaptive. The strategy of worry, a
4
form of future-oriented perseverative thought akin to rumination, is a core feature of
generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) and contributes to the intensification and
maintenance of symptoms (e.g., Borkovec, Alcaine, & Behar, 2004).
Notably, putatively adaptive strategies tend to have a weaker link to mental health
than the putatively maladaptive strategies, thus suggesting that the detrimental effects of
maladaptive strategies might be more pronounced than the beneficial effects of adaptive
strategies (e.g., Aldao & Nolen-Hoeksema, 2012, Aldao, Jazaieri, Goldin, & Gross, 2014;
Plate, Aldao, Quintero, & Mennin, in prep). Thus, it is sensible to expect that there may
be an asymmetry in the associations between ER and affective outcomes. Of particular
importance is the examination of whether the asymmetry in the association between
strategies and mental health is also reflected when these strategies are used
interpersonally. It is possible that such interpersonal use may lead to the adoption of
strategies intrapersonally (e.g., Haeffel & Hames, 2014; Stone & Gibb, 2015) and thus,
that we might also expect maladaptive strategies to be more contagious than adaptive
strategies.
In this thesis, I have sought to further the research on the interpersonal use of ER
strategies by adopting an experimental approach to better understand the underlying
mechanism of contagion. In particular, I tested whether the intrapersonal induction of a
strategy and subsequent interaction with a confederate using the same or a different
strategy influenced the use of strategies and self-reported affect during disgust-eliciting
film clips. I expanded the examination of interpersonal ER strategies beyond corumination to include a similar putatively maladaptive strategy, worry (i.e., perseverative
thought about uncertain future outcomes), and a putatively adaptive strategy, acceptance
5
(i.e., non-judgmental allowance of emotional experience) (e.g., Aldao et al., 2010;
Borkovec et al., 2004; Hayes, Strosahl, & Wilson, 1999).
I focused on the ER strategy of worry in order to expand our understanding of the
ways in which people utilize social support. While the co-rumination research has begun
to address how people affiliate to seek clarity about past events, there are still gaps in our
understanding about how people utilize social contacts to seek clarity about future events.
Thus, studying the future-oriented ER strategy of worry allows us to understand more
about how people use ER interpersonally when anticipating situations and how this may
influence future affect. Much like rumination, worry results in the paradoxical
perpetuation of undesired negative affect (i.e. anxiety, e.g., Borkovec et al., 2004;
Mennin & Fresco, 2013; Roemer, Orsillo, & Salters-Pedneault, 2008). In an unpublished
master’s thesis, habitual co-worry was associated with higher levels of depression and
anxiety in female adolescents and lower symptoms in males (Dombrowski, 2014). It may
be transferred interpersonally (see review in Parkinson & Simons, 2012), making it an
important target for research focusing on interpersonal contagion effects.
In contrast to worry, acceptance is an ER strategy that entails allowing oneself to
experience emotions without judging or seeking to change them (Hayes et al., 1999).
Although no studies have measured the joint use of acceptance, the positive associations
of acceptance with psychological adjustment suggest that it could be a promising source
of interpersonal ER. Individuals who engage in higher levels of acceptance have lower
symptoms of various forms of psychopathology (Aldao et al., 2010), including anxiety
(McLaughlin, Mennin, & Farach, 2007), depression (Jimenez, Niles, & Park, 2010) and
borderline personality disorder (Wupperman, Neumann, & Axelrod, 2008). In addition,
6
the use of mindfulness has been associated with better interpersonal functioning (Brown,
Ryan, & Creswell, 2007).
Despite the growing emphasis upon the use of acceptance in therapeutic settings
and as a component of treatment for those with interpersonal difficulties (e.g., Fresco,
Mennin, Heimberg, & Ritter, 2013; Hayes et al., 1999; Linehan, 1993; Segal, Williams,
& Teasdale, 2012), there has been no systematic examination of how acceptance might
influence strategy use and/or affect in interpersonal situations. Similarly, there is little
information regarding whether ER strategies such as acceptance might be “contagious.”
Given the beneficial aspects of acceptance as an intrapersonal ER strategy, it becomes
important to examine how it functions interpersonally. Thus by examining its use in
tandem with that of worry, I sought to shed light onto the mechanisms by which people
can switch from one to the other as a function of interacting with others modeling this
form of regulation.
Given the potential ability of worry to be contagious (e.g., Parkinson & Simons,
2012), I predicted that there would be an interaction effect between the type of ER
strategy induced in the participant and the type of ER strategy used by the confederate.
Specifically, I hypothesized that when participants were induced to accept their emotions,
those who interacted with an accepting confederate would report greater use of
acceptance and lower experience of anxiety and disgust than those who interacted with a
worrying confederate. Similarly, I expected that when participants were induced to
worry, those who interacted with a worrying confederate would report greater use of
worry and greater experience of anxiety and disgust than those who interacted with an
accepting confederate. However, given the literature on asymmetric relationships among
7
the strategies and mental health, I expected that the contagion effects of worry would be
more pronounced than the contagion effects of acceptance, such that the confederate’s
use of worry would result in greater use of worry and negative affect than the
confederate’s use of acceptance would result in greater use of acceptance and lower
negative affect.
I also had two exploratory hypotheses regarding individual differences in habitual
ER use. I predicted that those high in worry and those high in acceptance would be more
susceptible to contagion effects of the ER strategy that matched their habitual use (worry
and acceptance, respectively) than those who were low in these ER strategies.
.
8
Chapter 2: Methods
Participants
The sample consisted of 74 female undergraduate students drawn from the
Research Experience Program (REP) pool at The Ohio State University from September
to December 2014. Given the gender effects found with co-rumination (e.g., Rose et al.,
2007) and co-worry (e.g., Dombrowski, 2014), I used only female participants to avoid
confounding effects of gender. Seven participants were excluded from final data analysis
(data loss due to computer programming error, N = 4; participant inattention, N= 1, selfidentifying as a gender other than female, N=2). The final analytic sample thus consisted
of 67 participants. Participants in the final sample ranged in age from 18 to 21 years (Mage
= 18.6 years, SD = .812 years). 77.6% of participants identified as Caucasian (N=52),
11.9% as African American (N = 8), 11.9% as Asian (N=8), 7.5% as Other (N=5), and
1.5% as American Indian (N=1). There were 30 participants randomized to the
acceptance confederate interaction and 37 participants randomized to the worry
confederate interaction. The Ohio State University Institutional Review Board approved
all procedures and measures for this study and participants provided informed consent
before beginning the study.
Self- Report Measures
ER measures.
9
Penn State Worry Questionnaire (PSWQ). The PSWQ (Meyer, Miller, Metzger,
& Borkovec, 1990) is a 16-item self-report measure that assesses trait worry as a
unidimensional construct. It captures the generality, excessiveness, and uncontrollability
of worry. Items are scored on a 5-point scale, with higher scores indicating more
pervasive and uncontrollable worry. The PSWQ has been extensively used to identify
individuals with pathological levels of worry (Meyer et al., 1990). In this sample, it
showed excellent internal reliability (α = .94).
Acceptance and Action Questionnaire (AAQ). The AAQ (Hayes et al., 2004) is
a 9-item self-report measure of experiential avoidance, conceptualized as the tendency to
avoid internal experiences, such as emotions and thoughts. Lower scores indicate greater
acceptance of emotional experience. The AAQ shows adequate convergence with other
measures of ER (Hayes et al., 2004). In this sample, it had good internal reliability (α =
.89).
Apparatus
Participants completed the study while seated in front of a 46” Samsung LED TV
in a quiet testing room with no windows. All audio was played via a speaker system
installed in the ceiling of the testing room. Video and audio recordings of the study
session were captured using the MindWare system (MindWare Technologies, Gahanna,
OH).
10
Figure 1: Dyadic Interactions study flow
Research Protocol
“Fast Friends” affiliative task. Participants first completed an affiliative
exercise (“Fast Friends”) with the confederate, during which they answered five
questions about personal preferences (Appendix A; modified from Aron, Melinat, Aron,
Vallone, & Bator, 1997). In each exchange, the confederate responded first as to reduce
the likelihood of a situation in which participants directly addressed the confederate and
revealed the deception. The purpose of this task was to facilitate feelings of social
closeness between the confederate and the participant through the use of self-disclosure.
Such exposure was intended to perpetuate the idea that the confederate was another
research participant and to create an environment that allowed the participant to feel
comfortable in engaging in self-disclosure about emotions.
An undergraduate research assistant played the part of the confederate. For
purposes of verisimilitude, she was filmed in one of the laboratory research rooms while
wearing university apparel and connected to the physiological recording equipment. I
11
created the responses to the Fast Friends clips by compiling responses submitted by
undergraduate research assistants from the Psychopathology and Affective Sciences
(PAS) Lab.
Baseline Film Clip. The baseline film clip (“Slot Eyeball Buffet”) was a twominute clip showing contestants from the television show “Fear Factor” television
contestants eating animal eyeballs. This clip was specifically selected to elicit high levels
of anxiety and disgust. The first film clip was utilized to induce social sharing. To set up
expectations about the future film clips, participants were told that the images that they
would view in the future clips would intensify. Thus, the baseline clip was important for
inducing anticipatory anxiety and setting the tone for the remainder of the study. 1
Experimental Blocks. Participants completed each block twice, once for worry
and once for acceptance (the order was counterbalanced). Each block consisted of 1) ER
induction phase, 2) interpersonal regulation phase, 3) film clip watching phase (see
Figure 1).
1. ER Induction Phase. Participants listened to one ER induction per
experimental block over speakers in the experimental room. Each pre-recorded induction
began with instructions asking participants to listen closely and focus their attention on
the prompts they would be hearing. They were then asked to focus on the thoughts or
feelings that they may have. Both audiotapes contained 12 prompts read at 15-second
intervals (Appendix B). During the worry block, participants listened to a 3:45 long
audiotape emphasizing bodily sensations they may be having and the negative outcomes
1
Prior to the inclusion of the videos in the study, undergraduate research assistants viewed and rated the
videos on several dimensions including desire to eat, anxiety, disgust, and anxiety. They all elicited
substantial levels of disgust and they did not differ from each other on any dimensions (all p’s >.1).
12
of this experience on the present and future. A sample prompt for worry was “Think
about: How much you will dread watching the video.”
During the acceptance block participants listened to a 3:45 audiotape emphasizing
the importance of allowing themselves to experience their feelings and provided a series
of decentering acceptance-related prompts. Decentering entails altering one’s relationship
to thoughts (as opposed to altering the thoughts themselves) and has been associated with
beneficial outcomes, such as decreased reliance on repetitive thoughts and lower
emotional reactivity (Feldman, Greeson, & Senville, 2010). A sample prompt for
acceptance was “Think about: How you are capable of observing without reacting.”
2. Interpersonal Phase. After listening to the induction tape, participants were
told that they would interact with the participant they met earlier in the study (i.e., the
confederate) again before watching another video. During this interaction, the pair
responded to three questions addressing how they believed they would feel in the future,
their concerns about the upcoming videos, and what they believed they might see next.
The confederate always responded first to reduce the risk of exposing the deception. The
confederate only used one strategy (either acceptance or worry; between-subject)
throughout the study.
3. Film Clip Watching Phase. After interacting with the confederate, participants
watched a two-minute disgust film clip. The two counterbalanced experimental film clips
consisted of contestants eating slugs and drink bile (Fear Factor, “Eat Slugs, Drink Bile”,
2:00) and of contestants chewing intestines, spitting the intestinal juice in a cup, and
drinking it (Fear Factor, “Intestine Chew, Chug and Milk”, 2:00). Participants were told
before the video began to focus their eyes on images on the screen without looking away.
13
Following that, participants were instructed to sit quietly for two-minutes without moving
while a fixation cross was displayed on the screen.
Assessment of affect and ER. Participants completed state level measures of
affect (anger, anxiety, feelings of control, hunger, disgust, excitement, and sadness) on a
100 point visual analogue scale, ranging from 0 ‘Not at all’ to 100 ‘Extremely’ at the
following time points: T1) prior to the baseline disgust video, T2) after the baseline
disgust video, T3) after the first ER induction and T4) after watching a 2-minute disgust
video (Figure 2). Time points 3-4 repeated for the second ER block. Of particular interest
were ratings of use of ER strategies (T2, T3, T4) and affect during the experimental block
(T2-T4).
Confederate Believability
At the conclusion of the study, participants were asked three open-ended
manipulation check questions (“Did you notice anything unusual about the study?”; “Did
you notice anything unusual about the other participant?”; “What do you think was the
purpose of the study?”). Three research assistants blinded to study purpose and
participant conditions coded the responses to all three of these questions on a 5-point
Likert scale (0 = Not at all, .25 = mostly not, .5 = neutral, .75 = mostly believed, 1 = fully
believed) for each participant to create a score that reflected how much the subject
believed the confederate to be a true research participant. There was a relatively strong
association between the three raters (Cramer’s V = .485; Healey, 2015). I averaged the
score of the raters for the overall believability score. The mean believability score of the
sample was .64 (SD = .34) suggesting that the majority of participants believed the
manipulation.
14
Statistical Analysis
First, I examined the questionnaire data to make sure it met assumptions of
normality and identified and removed outliers (3+/- standard deviations from the mean).
If trait variables were substantially skewed, I applied transformations (e.g., square root,
logarithmic, inverse) to create a skew of <2.
Then, I ran t-tests to determine if there were differences in affect pre-baseline
video and in affect and spontaneous ER during the baseline video. For my manipulation
check of ER induction, I ran t-tests examining group differences in affect and ER use
post-induction.
To test my main analyses, I ran generalized estimating equation (GEE; Ghisletta
& Spini, 2004) models predicting emotion and/of use of ER strategies during the disgust
videos with interpersonal interaction (confederate acceptance, confederate worry) and
induction (acceptance, worry). I included believability as a covariate. I also examined
how the habitual use of worry and/or acceptance moderated the interactions between
induction and interaction.
15
Chapter 3: Results
Manipulation Checks
Baseline block differences. I ran a series of independent sample t-tests to
determine if there were differences during the baseline disgust film clip in terms of use of
ER strategies and affect (Table 1). 2 There were no differences between participants
assigned to interact with a worrying or accepting confederate in terms of use of worry, t
(65) = -.564, p = .570, CI = -15.680, 8.777, d = -.140; use of acceptance, t (65) = -1.260,
p = .212, CI = -20.221, 4.580, d = -.313; anxiety, t (65) = .527, p = .600, CI = -8.180,
14.037, d = .131; and disgust, t (65) = -.337, p = .737, CI = -18.923, 13.460, d = .084.
Confederate Acceptance
Mean (SD)
Confederate Worry
Mean (SD)
18.900 (24.547)
60.233 (23.747)
18.766 (24.941)
49.133 (35.468)
22.351 (25.220)
68.054 (26.439)
15.838 (20.600)
51.864 (30.866)
Post-baseline video
Use of worry
Use of acceptance
Anxiety
Disgust
Table 1: Baseline block differences
2
There were no significant differences before the baseline video in self-reported anxiety, t (65) = -.041, p =
.967, CI = -12.393, 11.894, d = .010, or disgust, t (65) = -.740, p = .462, CI = -4.135, 1.899, d = -.184.
16
Post-ER induction differences. To determine if the ER induction was successful,
I ran t-tests comparing the acceptance and worry inductions in terms of use of ER
strategies and affect (Table 2). There was significantly greater use of worry following the
worry induction than following the acceptance induction, t (132) = 2.587, p = .011, CI =
2.616, 19.623, d = .450. Conversely, there was significantly greater use of acceptance
following the acceptance induction than the worry induction, t (132) = -2.397, p = .018,
CI = -20.595, -1.973, d = -.417. Moreover, there was significantly greater anxiety and
disgust following the worry induction compared to the acceptance induction, t (132) = 3.030, p = .003, CI = -22.376, -4.699, d = -.527, and t (132) = -6.247, p < .001, CI = 35.215, -18.277, d = -1.087, respectively.
Use of
worry
Use of
acceptance
Anxiety
Disgust
Acceptance
Induction
Mean (SD)
18.522
(23.706)
68.896
(23.769)
13.239
(22.293)
7.716 (17.200)
Worry
Induction
Mean (SD)
29.806
(30.373)*
57.776
(25.946)*
26.776
(28.995)**
34.463
(30.533)***
^ < .1, * < .05, **<.01, *** <.001
Table 2: Post-induction differences in ER and affect
17
Post-video differences. Given that there were no differences between the
confederate ER groups following the ER interaction 3, I chose to use the post-video
ratings for my main analyses of subsequent emotional experience and ER during the film
clip. I ran four models predicting 1) use of worry, 2) use of acceptance, 3) experience of
anxiety, and 4) experience of disgust during the disgust videos with induction type (noinduction baseline, worry induction, acceptance induction) and confederate ER strategy
(confederate worry, confederate acceptance), and their interaction (Table 3). I controlled
for believability in all the analyses. I applied Bonferroni corrections to all post-hoc
comparisons.
Believability
Induction type
Confederate ER
Induction type *
confederate ER
Use of worry
0.487
5.987*
3.862*
5.590^
Use of acceptance
2.916^
1.195
0.172
2.129
Anxiety
0.098
4.735^
1.069
10.858**
Disgust
1.574
1.768
1.680
6.913*
^ < .1, * < .05, **<.01, *** <.001
Table 3: GEE models predicting post-video ER use and affect (Wald’s χ²)
Main Analyses
Predicting ER outcomes.
Use of worry. When predicting use of worry, there was a main effect of induction
type, Wald’s χ² =5.987, p = .050. Post hoc comparisons revealed that worry was greater
during the worry video than during the baseline video, mean difference = 7.409, SE =
There was no main effect of confederate ER strategy on post-interaction anxiety or disgust, Wald’s χ² =
1.543, p =.214 and Wald’s χ² = 1.832, p =.176, respectively
3
18
3.082, p =. 049, CI = -14.787, -.030. It did not differ between the worry video and
acceptance video, mean difference = 1.56, SE = 2.774, p =1.000, CI = -5.076, 8.204 or
between the acceptance video and the baseline video, mean difference = 5.845, SE = 3.196, p = .202, CI = -13.495, 1.805. There was also a main effect of confederate ER use,
Wald’s χ² = 3.862, p = .049, such that those participants who interacted with the worrying
confederate reported greater usage of worry than those who interacted with the accepting
confederate, mean difference = 11.217, SE = 5.708, p = .049, CI = .030, 22.404.
Importantly, there was a marginal interaction between induction type and
confederate ER strategy, Wald’s χ² = 5.590, p = .061 (Figure 2). During the acceptance
and worry blocks, participants who interacted with a worrying confederate reported
significantly greater use of worry than those who interacted with an accepting
confederate, mean difference = 16.715, SE = 6.634, p = .012, CI = -29.718, -3.711, and
mean difference = 14.532, SE = 7.080, p = .040, CI = -28.409, -.654, respectively. There
was no difference in use of worry during the baseline block, mean difference = 2.404, SE
= 6.335, p = .704, CI = -10.011, 14.812.
19
Figure 2: Use of worry during the videos
Use of acceptance. When predicting use of acceptance, there were no significant
main effects of induction type or confederate ER strategy use, Wald’s χ² = 1.194, p = .550
and Wald’s χ² = .172, p = .678, respectively. There was also no significant two-way
interaction between induction type and confederate ER strategy, Wald’s χ² = 2.129, p =
.345.
Predicting affective outcomes.
Anxiety. When predicting the experience of anxiety, there were no main effects of
ER induction, Wald’s χ² = 4.735, p = .094, or of confederate ER strategy, Wald’s χ² =
1.069, p = .301. However, the two-way interaction between confederate ER strategy and
induction type was significant, Wald’s χ² = 10.858, p = .004 (Figure 3).
Post hoc comparisons revealed that during the acceptance block, participants who
interacted with a worrying confederate reported higher levels of anxiety than those who
interacted with an accepting confederate, mean difference = 13.894, SE = 5.243, p = .026,
20
CI = 1.658, 26.130. Interestingly, during the worry block, the type of strategy used by the
confederate had no effect on anxiety levels, mean difference = 7.488, SE = 6.577, p =
.255, CI = -5.403, 20.379.
Figure 3: Experience of anxiety during the videos
Disgust. When predicting the experience of disgust, there were no significant
main effects of induction type or confederate ER, Wald’s χ² = 1.768, p = .413 and Wald’s
χ² = 1.680, p = .195, respectively. There was a significant two-way interaction between
induction type and confederate ER, Wald’s χ² = 6.913, p = .032 (Figure 4).
As was the case with anxiety, post hoc comparisons revealed that during the
acceptance block, participants who interacted with a worrying confederate reported
higher levels of disgust than those who interacted with an accepting confederate, mean
difference = 17.697, SE = 7.727, p = .022, CI = 2.552, 32.841. Also similar to the results
for anxiety, during the worry block, the type of strategy used by the confederate had no
21
effect on disgust levels, mean difference = 8.649, SE = 8.264, p = .295, CI = -7.548,
24.846.
Figure 4: Experience of disgust during the videos
Secondary Analyses: Examining Individual Differences
I ran the same models predicting ER strategy (i.e., use of worry, use of
acceptance) and affective outcomes (i.e., anxiety, disgust) during the videos using
habitual use of worry (Table 4) and habitual use of acceptance (Table 5) while controlling
for believability. I applied Bonferroni corrections to all post-hoc comparisons.
Habitual worry (PSWQ). There was a main effect of habitual worry on use of
worry, Wald’s χ² = 12.884, p < .001, and experience of anxiety, Wald’s χ² = 10.100, p =
.001, such that higher habitual worry predicted greater worry and anxiety in response to
the videos (Table 4). It did not predict the use of acceptance, Wald’s χ² = 1.617, p = .204,
or the experience of disgust, Wald’s χ² = 1.308, p = .253. There was a two-way
22
interaction between habitual worry and induction type predicting use of worry, Wald’s χ²
= 11.396, p = .003; however, it was qualified by a three-way interaction among induction
type, confederate ER strategy, and habitual worry, Wald’s χ² = 10.475, p = .005.
Believability
PSWQ
Induction type
Confederate ER
Induction type *
confederate ER
PSWQ * induction
type
PSWQ * confederate
ER
PSWQ * induction
type * confederate ER
Use of worry
Use of acceptance
Anxiety
Disgust
1.748
12.884***
1.540
0.034
11.396**
2.161
1.617
18.178***
0.018
2.000
0.927
10.100***
0.362
0.141
1.242
2.470
1.308
3.163
0.042
2.482
0.471
16.563***
0.603
4.016
0.362
0.000
0.071
0.191
10.475**
1.201
2.655
1.092
^ < .1, * < .05, **<.01, *** <.001
Table 4: Habitual worry predicting post-video ER use and affect (Wald's χ²)
I broke down the three-way interaction by using a median split for the PSWQ to
examine effects in participants low and high in habitual worry (Figure 5). In the low
habitual worry group, there were no significant main effects of induction type or
confederate ER strategy and no interaction between induction type and confederate ER
strategy (all p’s > .163).
In the high habitual worry group, there was a marginal main effect of confederate
strategy, Wald’s χ² = 3.808, p = .051, such that those participants who interacted with the
23
worrying confederate reported more worry compared to those who interacted with the
accepting confederate, mean difference = 5.376, SE = 7.880, p = .051, CI = -.067,
30.820. This was qualified by a significant two-way interaction between induction type
and confederate ER strategy, Wald’s χ² = 6.320, p = .042. During the acceptance block,
participants who interacted with the worrying confederate reported greater use of worry
than those who interacted with the accepting confederate, mean difference = 28.882, SE =
9.237, p = .002, CI = 10.778, 46.986. There was no difference when participants were
interacting with the worrying confederate or during the baseline by confederate ER
strategy (all p’s > .185). Taken together, these findings such that habitual worriers seem
to be more susceptible to the contagion effects of worry.
Figure 5: Three-way interaction predicting use of worry
24
There was also a two-way interaction between habitual worry and induction type
predicting use of acceptance Wald’s χ² = 16.563, p < .001. I again used a median split to
examine effects of those high and low in habitual worry. During the acceptance video,
those high in habitual worry reported lower use of acceptance than those low in habitual
worry, mean difference = -18.903, SE = 5.812, p = .001, CI = -30.294, -7.511, suggesting
difficulty in “letting go” of their typical pattern of ER. Interestingly, during the worry
video, participants high and low in habitual worry had no difference in use of acceptance,
mean difference = .583, SE = 6.290, p = .926, CI = -11.746, 12.912. The three-way
interaction was not significant (p = .561).
There were no other significant two-way interactions between PSWQ and
induction type or habitual worry and confederate ER (all p’s > .134) or three-way
interactions on experience of anxiety or disgust (all p’s > .265).
Habitual acceptance (AAQ). There was a main effect of habitual acceptance on
worry, Wald’s χ² = 14.297, p < .001; anxiety, Wald’s χ² = 13.289, p <.001; and disgust,
Wald’s χ² = 24.248, p = <.001 (Table 5). Participants reporting lower habitual use of
acceptance reported higher worry, anxiety, and disgust. There was no main effect of
habitual acceptance on use of acceptance during the videos, Wald’s χ² = .262, p = .609.
There were no two-way interactions between AAQ and induction type or habitual
acceptance and confederate ER (all p’s > .118) or three-way interactions on any of the
measured outcomes (all p’s >.194).
25
Use of worry
Believability
AAQ
Induction type
Confederate ER
Induction type *
confederate ER
AAQ * induction type
AAQ * confederate ER
AAQ * induction type *
confederate ER
1.255
14.297***
0.487
0.338
1.125
Use of
acceptance
2.624
0.262
2.434
2.395
3.319
Anxiety
1.905
2.439
3.281
3.672
0.141
0.705
1.548
0.000
0.345
Disgust
0.469
3.149^
13.289*** 24.248***
1.772
1.470
0.012
2.340
0.855
0.772
1.840
1.517
0.000
^ < .1, * < .05, **<.01, *** <.001
Table 5: Habitual acceptance predicting post-video ER use and affect (Wald’s χ²)
26
Chapter 4: Discussion
The findings from this thesis suggest that interpersonal use of worry and
acceptance may indeed have contagious properties; however, these effects might be
different for the use of ER strategies and affective outcomes. When examining the use of
worry during the videos, I found a main effect of confederate ER strategy, such that,
across blocks (worry and acceptance), participants who interacted with the worrying
confederate reported greater worry than those who interacted with the accepting
confederate. There were no differences in use of acceptance. When predicting anxiety
and disgust, I found an interaction between interaction type and confederate ER, such that
in the acceptance block, participants reported greater anxiety and disgust when they
interacted with the worry confederate as compared to the accepting confederate, but there
were no effects in the worry block. Thus, confederate worry and acceptance may
influence the use of worry regardless of ER induction, but might influence affect only
when participants received the acceptance induction.
Several possibilities might account for why participants may have experienced
contagion effects of confederate worry and acceptance on the ER outcome of worry.
During these interactions, participants might have experienced a motivation to use the
other person as a gauge for their behavior and/or read the other’s behavior as a “safety
signal” (e.g., Blascovich et al., 1999). This process has been termed “social appraisal”, in
which we judge another person’s responses to a situation in order to determine if our
27
response was appropriate and adapt accordingly (e.g., Parkinson, 2011). In this manner,
when participants interacted with a worrying confederate, it may have signaled that there
was danger and that they should respond similarly by worrying. By the same token, when
participants interacted with an accepting confederate, it may have signaled greater safety
and encouraged decreased worry.
A second, non-mutually exclusive possibility is that contagion effects might have
occurred instead through the mimicry of facial expressions and body postures of the
confederate (Hatfield, Cacioppo, & Rapson, 1994). Such effects could be explained via
the facial feedback hypothesis (e.g., Strack, Martin, & Stepper, 1988), whereby
participants might have unconsciously mimicked the expression of the worrying
confederate, resulting in subsequent use of worry and negative affect, but the accepting
confederate may not have provided the same degree of facial feedback, resulting in less
use of worry. Future studies could utilize coders to determine the degree to which
different ER strategies are associated with patterns of facial expressions and body
posture. Similarly, studies using facial electromyography could also help investigators
estimate the degree of concordance.
Differentiating between whether the mechanism of contagion in this thesis was
through linguistic content or facial/bodily mimicry was not possible as the participants
were able to see and communicate with the confederate via webcam. However, future
studies may be able to further differentiate the two mechanisms by isolating the way
interpersonal content is delivered. For example, investigators could ask participants to
interact with each other with digital media that does not have face-to-face contact (e.g.,
online chat, texting, email). In this regard, a recent study showed that college students
28
only conduct 30% of their social sharing through face-to-face interactions (Choi & Toma,
2014). As such, digital media may be constitute a very ecologically valid approach to
determining whether contagion effects are driven by linguistic processes, mimicry, or
both.
Although participants who interacted with the accepting confederate reported
lower use of worry compared to those who interacted with a worrying confederate,
confederate strategy had no effect on actual use of acceptance. In other words, regardless
of ER induction, participants who interacted with an accepting confederate were able to
maintain lower levels of worry and participants who interacted with a worrying
confederate maintained high levels, but this did not extend to the use of acceptance. This
suggests that contagion effects may be stronger in modifying use of maladaptive ER
strategies than adaptive ER strategies.
When examining affective outcomes, I found significant differences during the
acceptance block, such that, those participants who interacted with the worrying
confederate reported greater anxiety and disgust than those who interacted with the
accepting confederate. This suggests contagion effects of worry in that those who
interacted with the worrying confederate had higher negative affect, even if they had been
induced to accept. There were no differences in affect between confederate ER groups
when participants received the worry induction. This suggests that acceptance failed to
“undo” the emotional effects of worry when participants were induced to worry resulting
in similar levels of negative affect as those who interacted with the worry confederate.
The discrepancy between patterns of contagion from ER in 1) ER strategy and 2)
affective outcomes is interesting and requires investigation. One possibility is that
29
participants may need a more powerful acceptance interaction in order to experience
effects on future adaptive ER strategy use. This idea is consistent with meta-analytic
findings suggesting that the relationship between adaptive strategies and
psychopathology has a smaller effect size than maladaptive strategies (Aldao, Jazaieri,
Goldin, & Gross, 2014; Aldao et al., 2010). In other words, it might take a bigger “dose”
of acceptance to undo the effects of one “dose” of worry.
Another possibility is that this asymmetry might have occurred as a result of
interpersonal characteristics. Participants might have been susceptible to social
conformity (e.g,. Cialdini & Trost, 1998), such that when interacting with a worrying or
accepting confederate, they felt more pressure to conform to the other person’s behavior,
thus resulting in the surface level changes of greater worry for those who interacted with
the worrying confederate and less worry for those who interacted with the accepting
confederate. This may not have resulted in affective changes. Those who were induced to
worry may have reported less use of worry following the confederate acceptance
interaction, however, they may not have actually experienced affective changes if they
were mimicking only surface-level attributes of their partner (e.g., worry or non-worry).
Interestingly, the individual differences analyses suggest that high habitual
worriers may be more susceptible to the contagion effects of worry than low habitual
worriers. I found that for low habitual worriers, the experimental manipulations did not
create significant differences among participants when predicting the subsequent use of
worry; however, for those with chronic worry, I observed an interaction between
induction type and ER strategy, such that during the acceptance block (but not the worry
block), participants who interacted with the worrying confederate reported greater worry
30
during the video than those who interacted with the accepting confederate. This suggests
that for those who have low chronic worry, the type of person one interacts with does not
particularly influence the choice of future ER strategies. Those with worry as a more
consistently used strategy in their repertoire, however, are more influenced by interacting
with another worrying person.
Meta-analytic work may provide an explanation for this finding, as individuals
with GAD, of which worry is a central feature, have an attentional bias towards
threatening stimuli, such that they identify threats more readily (Bar-Haim, Lamy,
Pergamin, Bakermans-Kranenburg, & van IJzendoorn, 2007). Further, an experimental
paradigm of attention modification suggests that induced attentional bias to engagement
with threat results in increases in worry (Hirsch et al., 2011). Indeed, current theories of
those with pathological levels of worry (e.g., GAD) respond faster to and identify more
threats in their environment than those without pathological levels (e.g., Borkovec et al.,
2004). The current finding may support this theory. It is possible that these high worry
individuals may be more vulnerable to the contagion effects of worry because they are
more vigilant to cues that may signal danger (i.e., another person’s use of worry). They
also may be more attuned to the facial expressions of another person, as research suggests
that those high in anxiety recognize fear better than those low in anxiety (Surcinelli,
Codispoti, Montebarocci, Rossi, & Baldaro, 2006). Thus, these high habitual worriers
may have greater vigilance to cues and more accuracy in identifying expressions that
signal danger, which prompt greater subsequent use of worry.
The findings from this study also help to enrich our understanding of the
relationships between interpersonal ER and mental health outcomes. Both co-rumination
31
and co-worry have been linked to increased symptoms of depression and anxiety (e.g.,
Dombrowski, 2014; Rose, 2002; Rose et al., 2007). Furthermore, rumination may spread
through the intrapersonal adoption of the strategy by another (e.g., Haeffel & Hames,
2014; Stone & Gibb, 2015). Understanding interpersonal ER is critical towards
improving mental health outcomes, as difficulties in interpersonal relationships are
observed in disorders such as depression (Hames, Hagan, & Joiner, 2013), anxiety
disorders (Rappaport, S, & D’Antono, 2014), obsessive-compulsive disorder (Rappaport
et al., 2014), and eating disorders (Arcelus, Haslam, Farrow, & Meyer, 2013). Further,
interpersonal difficulties and problems with interpersonal ER have been theorized to
contribute to the development and maintenance of symptoms of anxiety (e.g., Hofmann,
2014) and depression (e.g., Marroquín, 2011). Individuals who are ineffective or
inappropriately use interpersonal ER may experience difficulties in managing their
symptoms or experience exacerbations. My findings suggest that those high in habitual
worry, which may serve as a proxy for symptoms of GAD, are more vulnerable to
contagion effects. It is possible that those who experience greater difficulties in ER may
be more vulnerable to the effects of maladaptive strategies used interpersonally, more
likely to adopt such strategies, more likely to experience negative affect, and
subsequently experience increased intensification of symptoms of psychopathology or
maintenance of current symptoms. As such, it is critical to learn more about other
patterns of interpersonal ER across different forms of psychopathology.
Given the differential effects on the use of ER strategies and on affective
experience, it becomes important for future studies to assess the consequences on
contagion effects on downstream processes of emotion processing such as physiology
32
and behavioral response. For example, there is a vast literature showing that worry leads
to increases in physiological reactivity and decreases in physiological flexibility (i.e.,
heart rate variability; Borkovec et al., 2004) and a growing literature suggesting that
acceptance is associated with greater physiological flexibility (e.g., Aldao & Mennin,
2012). On an interpersonal level, there is also work suggesting that social support can
reduce physiological reactivity (Thorsteinsson & James, 1999; Willemen, Goossens,
Koot, & Schuengel, 2008), and that the use of suppression during a conversation leads to
increase in partner’s physiological reactivity (Butler et al., 2003).
Equally important is the examination of behavioral outcomes of interpersonal ER
(e.g., Aldao & Christensen, 2015; Christensen & Aldao, 2015). Dysregulated behaviors
(e.g., aggression, overeating, substance use) are of particular interest given that they form
the core of many mental health conditions (e.g, alcohol and substance use disorders,
eating disorders, borderline personality disorder; American Psychiatric Association,
2013), yet comparatively little is known about social facilitation of such behaviors. For
example, recent studies suggest that people tend to eat more in groups than alone (see
review in Herman, 2015); however, much remains to be understood about the role
interpersonal ER may play in the implementation of dysregulated behaviors. Future
studies may examine how the use of different strategies interpersonally increases or
reduces the likelihood of engaging in dysregulated behaviors.
Limitations
This thesis had several limitations that ought to be addressed in future research.
First, the sample consisted only of female, undergraduate students. I restricted this
sample to remove the confounding effects of gender, due to the noted differences in
33
patterns of co-rumination observed among women as compared to men (e.g., Rose, 2002;
Rose et al., 2007), so it is unclear if the same relations observed in this sample would
hold for males. Future research should examine if similar patterns of emotion and ER
transmission are also present across both genders. For instance, it has been suggested that
women may experience more emotion contagion compared men (e.g., Hatfield et al.,
1994); however, these findings may be limited (e.g., Wild, Erb, & Bartels, 2001). For
example, in one study, researchers found that women showed greater imitative responses
and verbally reported emotional contagion than men to happy vs. angry faces, but not to
happy vs. sad faces (Sonnby-Borgström, Jönsson, & Svensson, 2008). In regards to
gender differences in interpersonal ER, in a study examining co-worry, men who reported
higher levels of co-worry reported lower symptoms of depression and anxiety, while
women reported higher levels of symptoms. Taken together, these findings suggest the
importance of examining gender as a moderator.
The use of undergraduate students also restricted the variability among individual
differences in maladaptive ER. As such, the analyses may have lacked the power to
detect how these differences interacted with the experimental manipulation to predict
outcomes. Future studies may seek to examine the effects of the experimental
manipulation in clinical samples that are associated with increased bids for external ER
sources. This could include disorders with noted increased reassurance-seeking
behaviors, such GAD (Beesdo-Baum et al., 2012), depression (Starr & Davila, 2008), and
obsessive-compulsive disorder (Parrish & Radomsky, 2011).
Finally, this study utilized only disgust-eliciting film clips. I focused on the
emotion of disgust because it been frequently studied in the context of interpersonal
34
situations, as it has been theorized to help solidify in-group bonds in response to violation
of group norms (c.f. Peters, Kashima, & Clark, 2009). Furthermore, people are
significantly more likely to share disgust content than happy content (Peters et al., 2009).
Future studies may expand beyond the regulation of disgust to the regulation of other
emotions, such as fear or sadness. It may also expand type of regulatory partner to
include friends, parents, or romantic partners to assess if contagion effects differ
according to type of dyadic relationship.
Conclusion
The present study provides an important conceptual step forward for our
understanding of contagion effects of the interpersonal use of ER strategies by consisting
of an experimental manipulation of intrapersonal and interpersonal ER. The findings
speak to an asymmetry in outcomes with more prominent effects occurring on use of
worry and affect. Furthermore, it suggests that the contagion effects are stronger in
influencing future use of a maladaptive strategy (worry) than an adaptive strategy
(acceptance). Future research may expand upon this study by examining other forms of
interpersonal ER, altering the medium through with the interpersonal interaction is
delivered, and assessing these relationships in clinical populations. This line of inquiry
has important potential implications for improving our interventions for those with
difficulties with ER and helping to facilitate more effective use of social support.
35
References
Aldao, A., & Christensen, K. A. (2015). Linking the expanded process model of emotion
regulation to psychopathology by focusing on behavioral outcomes of regulation.
Psychological Inquiry, 26(1), 27–36.
Aldao, A., Jazaieri, H., Goldin, P. R., & Gross, J. J. (2014). Adaptive and maladaptive
emotion regulation strategies: Interactive effects during CBT for social anxiety
disorder. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 28(4), 382–389.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2014.03.005
Aldao, A., & Mennin, D. S. (2012). Paradoxical cardiovascular effects of implementing
adaptive emotion regulation strategies in generalized anxiety disorder. Behaviour
Research and Therapy, 50(2), 122–130. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2011.12.004
Aldao, A., Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Schweizer, S. (2010). Emotion-regulation strategies
across psychopathology: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review,
30(2), 217–237. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2009.11.004
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental
disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing.
Arcelus, J., Haslam, M., Farrow, C., & Meyer, C. (2013). The role of interpersonal
functioning in the maintenance of eating psychopathology: A systematic review
and testable model. Clinical Psychology Review, 33(1), 156–167.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2012.10.009
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.
http://doi.org/10.1177/0146167297234003
Bar-Haim, Y., Lamy, D., Pergamin, L., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., & van
IJzendoorn, M. H. (2007). Threat-related attentional bias in anxious and
nonanxious individuals: A meta-analytic study. Psychological Bulletin, 133(1), 1–
24. http://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.1.1
36
Beesdo-Baum, K., Jenjahn, E., Höfler, M., Lueken, U., Becker, E. S., & Hoyer, J. (2012).
Avoidance, safety behavior, and reassurance seeking in generalized anxiety
disorder. Depression and Anxiety, 29(11), 948–957.
http://doi.org/10.1002/da.21955
Blascovich, J., Mendes, W. B., Hunter, S. B., & Salomon, K. (1999). Social “facilitation”
as challenge and threat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(1), 68–
77. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.1.68
Boren, J. P. (2013). The relationships between co-rumination, social support, stress, and
burnout among working adults. Management Communication Quarterly,
0893318913509283. http://doi.org/10.1177/0893318913509283
Borkovec, T., Alcaine, O., & Behar, E. (2004). Avoidance theory of worry and
generalized anxiety disorder. In R. G. Heimberg, C. L. Turk, & D. S. Mennin
(Eds.), Generalized Anxiety Disorder: Advances in Research and Practice (pp.
77–108). Guilford Press.
Brown, K. W., Ryan, R. M., & Creswell, J. D. (2007). Mindfulness: Theoretical
foundations and evidence for its salutary effects. Psychological Inquiry, 18(4),
211–237. http://doi.org/10.1080/10478400701598298
Butler, E. A., Egloff, B., Wlhelm, F. H., Smith, N. C., Erickson, E. A., & Gross, J. J.
(2003). The social consequences of expressive suppression. Emotion, 3(1), 48–67.
http://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.3.1.48
Byrd-Craven, J., Geary, D. C., Rose, A. J., & Ponzi, D. (2008). Co-ruminating increases
stress hormone levels in women. Hormones and Behavior, 53(3), 489–492.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2007.12.002
Byrd-Craven, J., Granger, D. A., & Auer, B. J. (2011). Stress reactivity to co-rumination
in young women’s friendships: Cortisol, alpha-amylase, and negative affect focus.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28(4), 469–487.
http://doi.org/10.1177/0265407510382319
Choi, M., & Toma, C. L. (2014). Social sharing through interpersonal media: Patterns
and effects on emotional well-being. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 530–
541. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.026
Christensen, K. A., & Aldao, A. (2015). Tipping points for adapation: Connecting
emotion regulation, motivated behavior, and psychopathology. Current Opinion
in Psychology, 3, 70–74.
Cialdini, R. B., & Trost, M. R. (1998). Social influence: Social norms, conformity and
compliance. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of
37
social psychology, Vols. 1 and 2 (4th ed.) (pp. 151–192). New York, NY, US:
McGraw-Hill.
Dixon-Gordon, K., Bernecker, S., & Christensen, K. A. (2015). Recent innovations in the
field of interpersonal emotion regulation. Current Opinion in Psychology, 3, 36–
42.
Dombrowski, C. (2014). Gender differences in co-rumination, co-worry, and
internalizing symptoms in late adolescence. Master’s Theses. Retrieved from
http://digitalcommons.uconn.edu/gs_theses/542
Feldman, G., Greeson, J., & Senville, J. (2010). Differential effects of mindful breathing,
progressive muscle relaxation, and loving-kindness meditation on decentering and
negative reactions to repetitive thoughts. Behaviour Research and Therapy,
48(10), 1002–1011. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2010.06.006
Fischer, A., & Manstead, A. (2010). Social functions of emotion. In M. Lewis, J. M.
Haviland-Jones, & L. F. Barrett (Eds.), Handbook of Emotions (pp. 456–470).
Guilford Press.
Fresco, D. M., Mennin, D. S., Heimberg, R. G., & Ritter, M. (2013). Emotion regulation
therapy for generalized anxiety disorder. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice,
20(3), 282–300. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpra.2013.02.001
Ghisletta, P., & Spini, D. (2004). An introduction to generalized estimating equations and
an application to assess selectivity effects in a longitudinal study on very old
individuals. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 29(4), 421–437.
Gross, J. J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integrative review.
Review of General Psychology, 2(3), 271–299. http://doi.org/10.1037/10892680.2.3.271
Gross, J. J. (2013). Emotion regulation: Taking stock and moving forward. Emotion,
13(3), 359–365. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0032135
Haeffel, G. J., & Hames, J. L. (2014). Cognitive vulnerability to depression can be
contagious. Clinical Psychological Science, 2(1), 75–85.
http://doi.org/10.1177/2167702613485075
Hames, J. L., Hagan, C. R., & Joiner, T. E. (2013). Interpersonal processes in depression.
Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 9(1), 355–377.
http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050212-185553
Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Rapson, R. L. (1994). Emotional Contagion. Cambridge
University Press.
38
Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K. D., & Wilson, K. G. (1999). Acceptance and commitment
therapy: An experiential approach to behavior change (Vol. xvi). New York,
NY, US: Guilford Press.
Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K., Wilson, K. G., Bissett, R. T., Pistorello, J., Toarmino, D., …
McCurry, S. M. (2004). Measuring experiential avoidance: A preliminary test of a
working model. The Psychological Record, 54(4), 553–578.
Healey, J. (2015). The Essentials of Statistics: A Tool for Social Research. Cengage
Learning.
Herman, C. P. (2015). The social facilitation of eating. A review. Appetite, 86, 61–73.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2014.09.016
Hirsch, C. R., MacLeod, C., Mathews, A., Sandher, O., Siyani, A., & Hayes, S. (2011).
The contribution of attentional bias to worry: Distinguishing the roles of selective
engagement and disengagement. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 25(2), 272–277.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2010.09.013
Hofmann, S. G. (2014). Interpersonal emotion regulation model of mood and anxiety
disorders. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 38(5), 483–492.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-014-9620-1
Jimenez, S. S., Niles, B. L., & Park, C. L. (2010). A mindfulness model of affect
regulation and depressive symptoms: Positive emotions, mood regulation
expectancies, and self-acceptance as regulatory mechanisms. Personality and
Individual Differences, 49(6), 645–650. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.05.041
Joiner, T. (2005). Why people die by suicide. Cambridge, MA, US: Harvard University
Press.
Klerman, G. L., Weissman, M. M., & Rounsaville, B. J. (1984). Interpersonal
psychotherapy of depression (Vol. 86). New York: Basic.
Linehan, M. (1993). Cognitive-behavioral treatment of borderline personality disorder.
Guilford Press.
Marroquín, B. (2011). Interpersonal emotion regulation as a mechanism of social support
in depression. Clinical Psychology Review, 31(8), 1276–1290.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2011.09.005
McLaughlin, K. A., Mennin, D. S., & Farach, F. J. (2007). The contributory role of worry
in emotion generation and dysregulation in generalized anxiety disorder.
Behaviour Research and Therapy, 45(8), 1735–1752.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2006.12.004
39
Mennin, D. S., & Fresco, D. M. (2013). What, me worry and ruminate about DSM-5 and
RDoC? The importance of targeting negative self-referential processing. Clinical
Psychology: Science and Practice, 20(3), 258–267.
http://doi.org/10.1111/cpsp.12038
Meyer, T. J., Miller, M. L., Metzger, R. L., & Borkovec, T. D. (1990). Development and
validation of the penn state worry questionnaire. Behaviour Research and
Therapy, 28(6), 487–495. http://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(90)90135-6
Niven, K., Totterdell, P., & Holman, D. (2009). A classification of controlled
interpersonal affect regulation strategies. Emotion, 9(4), 498–509.
http://doi.org/10.1037/a0015962
Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Wisco, B. E., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2008). Rethinking rumination.
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(5), 400–424.
Parkinson, B. (2011). Interpersonal emotion transfer: Contagion and social appraisal.
Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5(7), 428–439.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2011.00365.x
Parkinson, B., & Simons, G. (2012). Worry spreads: Interpersonal transfer of problemrelated anxiety. Cognition & Emotion, 26(3), 462–479.
http://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2011.651101
Parrish, C., & Radomsky, A. (2011). An experimental investigation of factors involved in
excessive reassurance seeking: The effects of perceived threat, responsibility and
ambiguity on compulsive urges and anxiety. Journal of Experimental
Psychopathology, 2(1), 44–62. http://doi.org/10.5127/jep.011110
Peters, K., Kashima, Y., & Clark, A. (2009). Talking about others: Emotionality and the
dissemination of social information. European Journal of Social Psychology,
39(2), 207–222. http://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.523
Rappaport, L. M., S, D., & D’Antono, B. (2014). Naturalistic interpersonal behavior
patterns differentiate depression and anxiety symptoms in the community. Journal
of Counseling Psychology, 61(2), 253–263. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0035625
Rimé, B. (2009a). Emotion elicits the social sharing of emotion: Theory and empirical
review. Emotion Review, 1(1), 60–85. http://doi.org/10.1177/1754073908097189
Rimé, B. (2009b). Interpersonal emotion regulation. In J. Gross (Ed.), Handbook of
Emotion Regulation (pp. 466–485). Guilford Press.
Roemer, L., Orsillo, S. M., & Salters-Pedneault, K. (2008). Efficacy of an acceptancebased behavior therapy for generalized anxiety disorder: Evaluation in a
40
randomized controlled trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
76(6), 1083–1089. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0012720
Rose, A. J. (2002). Co–rumination in the friendships of girls and boys. Child
Development, 73(6), 1830–1843. http://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00509
Rose, A. J., Carlson, W., & Waller, E. M. (2007). Prospective associations of corumination with friendship and emotional adjustment: Considering the
socioemotional trade-offs of co-rumination. Developmental Psychology, 43(4),
1019–1031. http://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.43.4.1019
Rose, A. J., Schwartz-Mette, R. A., Glick, G. C., Smith, R. L., & Luebbe, A. M. (2014).
An observational study of co-rumination in adolescent friendships.
Developmental Psychology, 50(9), 2199–2209. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0037465
Segal, Z. V., Williams, J. M. G., & Teasdale, J. D. (2012). Mindfulness-based cognitive
therapy for depression, second edition. Guilford Press.
Sonnby-Borgström, M., Jönsson, P., & Svensson, O. (2008). Gender differences in facial
imitation and verbally reported emotional contagion from spontaneous to
emotionally regulated processing levels. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology,
49(2), 111–122. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2008.00626.x
Starr, L. R., & Davila, J. (2008). Excessive reassurance seeking, depression, and
interpersonal rejection: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,
117(4), 762–775. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0013866
Stone, L. B., & Gibb, B. E. (2015). Brief report: Preliminary evidence that co-rumination
fosters adolescents’ depression risk by increasing rumination. Journal of
Adolescence, 38, 1–4. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2014.10.008
Strack, F., Martin, L. L., & Stepper, S. (1988). Inhibiting and facilitating conditions of
the human smile: A nonobtrusive test of the facial feedback hypothesis. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(5), 768–777.
http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.5.768
Surcinelli, P., Codispoti, M., Montebarocci, O., Rossi, N., & Baldaro, B. (2006). Facial
emotion recognition in trait anxiety. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 20(1), 110–
117. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2004.11.010
Thorsteinsson, E. B., & James, J. E. (1999). A meta-analysis of the effects of
experimental manipulations of social support during laboratory stress. Psychology
& Health, 14(5), 869–886. http://doi.org/10.1080/08870449908407353
Wild, B., Erb, M., & Bartels, M. (2001). Are emotions contagious? Evoked emotions
while viewing emotionally expressive faces: quality, quantity, time course and
41
gender differences. Psychiatry Research, 102(2), 109–124.
http://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-1781(01)00225-6
Wupperman, P., Neumann, C. S., & Axelrod, S. R. (2008). Do deficits in mindfulness
underlie borderline personality features and core difficulties? Journal of
Personality Disorders, 22(5), 466–482. http://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2008.22.5.466
Zaki, J., & Williams, W. C. (2013). Interpersonal emotion regulation. Emotion, 13(5),
803–810.
42
Appendix A: Fast Friends Prompts
1.
If you were able to live to the age of 90 and retain either the mind or body of a 30year-old for the last 60 years of your life, which would you want?
2.
Your house, containing everything you own, catches fire. After saving your loved
ones and pets, you have time to safely make a final dash to save any one item.
What would it be? Why?
3.
What do you value most in a friendship?
4.
For what in your life do you feel most grateful?
5.
If you could wake up tomorrow having gained any one quality or ability, what
would it be?
43
Appendix B: Emotion Regulation Induction Transcripts
Worry Induction
Before you watch the video again, we will ask you to try your best to focus your
attention on each of the ideas you will be listening to over the next few minutes.
Listen to each item carefully. As you do so, use your imagination and
concentration to focus your mind on each of the ideas. We will ask you to think about
these ideas, focusing on the feelings that you are having. Spend a few moments
visualizing and concentrating on each item. Please continue until the computer tells you it
is time to move on to the next part of the study. [15 seconds per prompt, 3 minutes]
1.
Think About:
How nauseated you will feel when you watch the rest of the video
2.
Think About:
How much you will dread watching the video
3.
Think About:
How difficult it will be for you to eat after the study is over
4.
Think About:
The disgusting content of the videos
5.
Think About:
44
How provocative you find these videos
6.
Think About:
How you might have nightmares
7.
Think About:
How physically sick the video will make you feel
8.
Think About:
The degree of helplessness you feel
9.
Think About:
Yourself having to eat the disgusting things in the video
10.
Think About:
What will happen if you lose control over feelings of disgust and nausea
11.
Think About:
Your stomach churning from disgust
12.
Think About:
How you will feel bad for hours after the experiment
Acceptance Induction
Before you watch the video again, we will ask you to try your best to focus your
attention on each of the ideas you will be listening to over the next few minutes.
Listen to each item carefully. As you do so, use your imagination and
concentration to focus your mind on each of the ideas. We will ask you to think about
these ideas and accept them, without using any judgment, focusing that the feelings that
you are having are temporary and will soon pass once the study is over. Spend a few
45
moments visualizing and concentrating on each item. Please continue until the computer
tells you it is time to move on to the next part of the study.
1.
Think About:
Your physical sensations will soon pass
2.
Think About:
Your feelings as an echo, loud at first, then fading out
3.
Think About:
Not letting yourself get carried away by your emotions
4.
Think About:
How you are capable of observing without reacting
5.
Think about:
Your feelings as a breeze that comes and goes
6.
Think About:
Your anxious feelings melting away like snow in the springtime
7.
Think About:
Your emotional thoughts coming and going
8.
Think About:
How your thoughts right now don’t have to define your experience
9.
Think About:
Yourself as a beach and your feelings as the tides coming and going
10.
Think About:
The nausea you might feel is temporary
46
11.
Think About:
Your feelings as a firework that is intense but quickly over
12.
Think About:
Each of your emotions as a comet, passing through the night sky and out of view
47