Developmental differences in children’s interpersonal emotion regulation

Previous research on interpersonal emotion regulation (ER) in childhood has been rather unsystematic, focusing mainly on children’s prosocial behaviour, and has been conducted in the absence of an integrative emotion theoretical framework. The present research relied on the interpersonal affect classification proposed by Niven, Totterdell, and Holman (2009) to investigate children’s use of different interpersonal ER strategies. The study drew on two samples: 180 parents of children aged between 3 and 8 years reported about a situation where their child was able to change what another person was feeling in order to make them feel better. In addition, 126 children between 3- and 8-years old answered two questions about how they could improve others’ mood. Results from both samples showed age differences in children’s use of interpersonal ER strategies. As expected, ‘affective engagement’ (i.e., focusing on the person or the problem) and ‘cognitive engagement’ (i.e., appraising the situation from a different perspective) were mainly used by 7-8 years-old, whereas ‘attention’ (i.e., distracting and valuing) was most used by 3-4 and 5-6 years-old. ‘Humor’ (i.e., laughing with the target) remained stable across the different age groups. The present research provides more information about the developmental patterns for each specific interpersonal emotion regulation strategy

Machine learning uncovers the most robust self-report predictors of relationship quality across 43 longitudinal couples studies

Given the powerful implications of relationship quality for health and well-being, a central mission of relationship science is explaining why some romantic relationships thrive more than others. This large-scale project used machine learning (i.e., Random Forests) to 1) quantify the extent to which relationship quality is predictable and 2) identify which constructs reliably predict relationship quality. Across 43 dyadic longitudinal datasets from 29 laboratories, the top relationship-specific predictors of relationship quality were perceived-partner commitment, appreciation, sexual satisfaction, perceived-partner satisfaction, and conflict. The top individual-difference predictors were life satisfaction, negative affect, depression, attachment avoidance, and attachment anxiety. Overall, relationship-specific variables predicted up to 45% of variance at baseline, and up to 18% of variance at the end of each study. Individual differences also performed well (21% and 12%, respectively). Actor-reported variables (i.e., own relationship-specific and individual-difference variables) predicted two to four times more variance than partner-reported variables (i.e., the partner’s ratings on those variables). Importantly, individual differences and partner reports had no predictive effects beyond actor-reported relationship-specific variables alone. These findings imply that the sum of all individual differences and partner experiences exert their influence on relationship quality via a person’s own relationship-specific experiences, and effects due to moderation by individual differences and moderation by partner-reports may be quite small. Finally, relationship-quality change (i.e., increases or decreases in relationship quality over the course of a study) was largely unpredictable from any combination of self-report variables. This collective effort should guide future models of relationships

Adoption, attachment and relationship concerns: a study of adult adoptees

Given ongoing controversy regarding the psychosocial adjustment of adoptees, this study examined the impact of adoptive status and family experiences on adult attachment security, and the role of attachment in predicting relationship outcomes. Adults who were adopted as infants (N = 144), and a comparison sample of non-adoptees (N = 131), completed measures of attachment security at recruitment and again six months later; other measures assessed parental bonding and adoptees’ reunion experiences (Time 1), and relationship variables (e.g., loneliness, relationship quality; Time 2). Insecurity was higher for adoptees and for those reporting negative childhood relationships with parents. For adoptees only, recent relationship difficulties also predicted insecurity. Attachment dimensions were more important than adoptive status in predicting relationship variables, and mediated the effects of adoptive status. The results support the utility of attachment theory in understanding adoptees’ relationship concerns