Is switching how you manage others' feelings bad for you?
People who regulated others' emotions very differently from one relationship to another reported less close relationships, lower mood and more emotional exhaustion.
Source
You spin me right round: cross-relationship variability in interpersonal emotion regulation
Study at a glance
- Design
- Cross-sectional — One-off online survey; each person rated their interpersonal emotion regulation toward a romantic partner, a friend/relative and a coworker, and variability across these was scored as circular 'spin'.
- N
- N=1211 · 1211 participants in the final sample; empathy measures came from a random subgroup of 228 and attachment measures from a subgroup of 273; 50 partner-report pairs were used to validate self-reports.
- Population
- UK-recruited members of the public and university staff/students aged 16-71, mostly women
- Outcome
- Relationship closeness (Inclusion of Other in the Self), positive mood, emotional exhaustion; empathy and attachment style as predictors of spin
Structured fields used in claim comparison tables when every cited study has a complete layer.
What they did
Adults completed an online survey rating how often, over the past four weeks, they had tried to make a romantic partner, a friend or relative, and a coworker feel better or worse, using thinking-based or behaviour-based strategies. Each relationship was placed on a two-dimensional map (improve vs worsen, cognitive vs behavioural) and a person's 'spin' was the circular standard deviation of their positions across relationships. Spin was then related to closeness, mood and exhaustion, and random subgroups also completed empathy and attachment questionnaires.
What they found
Higher spin was linked to lower relationship closeness (beta = -0.14), lower positive mood (beta = -0.11) and higher emotional exhaustion (beta = 0.11), after controlling for age, gender, number of relationships and overall amount of regulation. People higher in empathic concern and perspective taking had lower spin, and people higher in anxious attachment had higher spin, but avoidant attachment was not related to spin. Across the sample, all strategy types were used most with romantic partners and least at work.
The limits
What it doesn't show
All data are self-reported and collected at a single time point, so the study cannot show that spin causes poorer wellbeing; unhappy or exhausted people might simply behave less consistently. The effects are small, the sample was mostly women recruited online, and only three relationship types were sampled. Spin was computed from one retrospective survey rather than repeated daily reports, so variability within a relationship over time is not captured. The partner-report validation used only a small number of pairs.
Key terms
- Interpersonal emotion regulation
- Deliberate attempts by one person (the agent) to change how another person (the target) feels, either to improve or to worsen their feelings.
- Spin
- A single score for how much a person's behaviour shifts across situations on a two-dimensional map, calculated as a circular standard deviation of angles.
- Flux
- Variability in one dimension of behaviour (for example, only improving strategies) across situations, measured as an ordinary standard deviation.
- Anxious attachment
- A relationship style marked by worry that partners will not be available, a strong need for closeness and fear of rejection.
- Behavioural lability vs flexibility
- Lability is poorly controlled, unstable variation in behaviour; flexibility is variation that fits the demands of different situations.
Flashcards
0 of 11 answers reviewed
Research intelligence for this paper
See its role on concept claims, tensions it is part of, placement history, and related discoveries.
Quiz yourself
What did 'spin' measure in this study?
Common questions
Doesn't adapting to different relationships sound healthy?
That was one of the two possibilities the authors considered, but the data fit the other view: people with more cross-relationship variation reported worse wellbeing and less closeness, suggesting it reflects instability rather than skilful tailoring.
Is the result just because some people use more hurtful strategies?
Partly ruled out: spin predicted outcomes after controlling for the overall amount of regulation, and variability in improving, cognitive and behavioural strategies also predicted lower closeness, not just variability in worsening strategies.
How big are the effects?
Small: standardised betas of about 0.11 to 0.14 for the wellbeing and closeness outcomes, meaning spin explains only a small share of the differences between people.
More on Emotion