Emotion

© 2022 American Psychological Association 2023, Vol. 23, No. 4, 1048–1060

ISSN: 1528-3542 https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0001132

Interpersonal Emotion Regulation Flexibility: Effects on Affect in Daily

Life

Ashley M. Battaglini, Katerina Rnic, Taylyn Jameson, Ellen Jopling, and Joelle LeMoult
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.

Department of Psychology, The University of British Columbia

Although the emotion regulation (ER) literature is vast, two emerging areas are particularly noteworthy.
First, as opposed to the traditional blanket characterization of ER strategies as adaptive or maladaptive,
theoretical models have highlighted the adaptability of greater ER flexibility (i.e., flexibly implementing
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

ER strategies based on the context). Second, instead of focusing on how individuals independently regu-
late emotions, researchers are increasingly examining how ER can occur with the help of another per-
son, a process known as interpersonal emotion regulation (IER). This study is the first to integrate these
two emerging areas of research and to apply the two main theories of ER flexibility to investigate the
effect of IER flexibility on negative and positive affect. A sample of 384 adults (Mage = 38.58 years,
SD = 13.82) residing predominantly in North America completed this 14-day daily diary study. As
expected, greater repertoire and greater responsivity to feedback were associated with more adaptive
affective outcomes (i.e., less negative affect and/or more positive affect). However, unexpected findings
also emerged: Greater context sensitivity did not significantly predict affect, and the covariation of
within-strategy variability and environmental variability predicted higher negative affect. Findings pro-
vide initial evidence that IER adaptiveness is influenced by one’s ability to flexibly implement IER strat-
egies (i.e., IER flexibility). The results also highlight the components of IER flexibility (namely greater
repertoire and responsivity to feedback) that predict daily adaptive affective consequences.

Keywords: emotion, affect, emotion regulation, emotion regulation flexibility, interpersonal emotion
regulation

Supplemental materials: https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0001132.supp

Individuals must regularly manage their emotions to effectively
respond to their environment. The process of implementing strat-
egies to modulate emotions is known as emotion regulation (Gross,
1998). Importantly, there are two key emerging areas within this
body of literature. The first is the increased emphasis on emotion
regulation flexibility. Historically, researchers have categorized
emotion regulation strategies as adaptive or maladaptive based on
their consequences. However, researchers have criticized the blanket
characterization of strategies as adaptive or maladaptive across
This article was published Online First September 1, 2022.
Ashley M. Battaglini https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0498-6204
Katerina Rnic https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7132-4489
Taylyn Jameson https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8088-623X
Ellen Jopling https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5518-2364
Joelle LeMoult https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0931-2855
There has been no dissemination (e.g., conference presentation) of this
data or its interpretation prior to this article’s submission. The data, code,
and preregistration of the study’s hypotheses, design, and analytic plan can
be found on the Open Science Framework (Battaglini, 2022): https://osf.io/
yfz9r/?view_only=6db19703141f4c398dd125e65d94650b.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Ashley M.
Battaglini, Department of Psychology, The University of British Columbia,
2136 West Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada. Email: ashley.battaglini@
psych.ubc.ca
contexts. Instead, emotion regulation adaptiveness may be deter-
mined by one’s ability to flexibly implement emotion regulation
strategies based on context, a process known as emotion regulation
flexibility (Aldao et al., 2015; Bonanno & Burton, 2013).
The second emerging area within the emotion regulation literature
is the focus on adults’ interpersonal emotion regulation (Zaki & Wil-
liams, 2013). Previously, researchers had predominantly conceptual-
ized emotion regulation as an intrapersonal process, whereby
individuals regulate their own emotions. However, individuals do
not always regulate emotions independently (Zaki & Williams,
2013). Indeed, emotion regulation can occur with the help of another
person, a process known as interpersonal emotion regulation (IER;
Zaki & Williams, 2013; also see Eisenberg et al., 1998, for a review
of the rich and longstanding interpersonal emotion regulation litera-
ture in children). IER can be divided into extrinsic and intrinsic IER.
In extrinsic IER, an individual attempts to regulate another person’s
emotions, whereas in intrinsic IER, an individual engages in social
contact to regulate their own emotions (Zaki & Williams, 2013).
Given our interest in understanding the association between imple-
menting IER strategies and one’s own affect, we investigated intrin-
sic IER exclusively (e.g., Zelic et al., 2017); thus, going forward, we
use the shorthand “IER” to describe intrinsic IER.
Despite the importance of both the emotion regulation flexibility
and IER literatures, to date, they have largely remained independ-
ent. The present study amalgamates these literatures in order to

1048
1
 INTERPERSONAL EMOTION REGULATION FLEXIBILITY
introduce the construct of IER flexibility and to test its association
with affect in daily life. Specifically, we defined IER flexibility
based on the two leading emotion regulation flexibilities theories
(Aldao et al., 2015; Bonanno & Burton, 2013) and then used this
definition to investigate whether the flexible implementation of
four IER strategies (i.e., coreappraisal, codistraction, corumina-
tion, and coproblem-solving) was associated with short-term
changes in negative and positive affect. Toward this goal, we first
describe the components of emotion regulation flexibility.
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.
Emotion Regulation Flexibility
Presently, there are two central theories of emotion regulation
flexibility. In the initial theory, Bonanno and Burton (2013) pos-
ited three interrelated components of emotion regulation flexibil-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
ity: context sensitivity, repertoire, and feedback.
Context sensitivity is the appropriate alignment of emotion regu-
lation strategy with context (Bonanno & Burton, 2013). Empirical
evidence supports the importance of context sensitivity for intraper-
sonal emotion regulation strategies. For example, whereas cognitive
reappraisal had historically been characterized as a uniformly adapt-
ive strategy, more recent evidence suggests that its adaptiveness
depends on context: It is adaptive in uncontrollable situations but
maladaptive in controllable situations (Haines et al., 2016; Troy
et al., 2013). Indeed, emotion-focused coping strategies (i.e., strat-
egies used to change emotions; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Troy
et al., 2013), such as cognitive reappraisal, may be beneficial in
uncontrollable contexts because changing emotions may hold more
utility in these situations than problem-focused coping strategies
(i.e., strategies used to change the situation; Lazarus, 1993), such as
problem-solving. Although researchers have not yet examined
whether controllability influences the adaptiveness of IER strategies,
there is reason to investigate it as a possibility. For one, IER strat-
egies have affective outcomes that tend to parallel those of their
intrapersonal emotion regulation counterparts (e.g., Christensen
et al., 2020; Zelic et al., 2017); thus, it is possible that their adaptive-
ness is moderated by the same constructs. In addition, investigating
the influence of controllability on IER would allow us to draw con-
nections between inter- and intrapersonal emotion regulation given
the prevalence of controllability in the intrapersonal emotion regula-
tion literature (Haines et al., 2016; Troy et al., 2013). Moreover,
researchers have documented that receiving support from another
person is associated with adaptive outcomes in uncontrollable con-
texts (e.g., Valentiner et al., 1994).
Repertoire, the second determinant of emotion regulation flexi-
bility as proposed by Bonanno and Burton (2013), describes the
range of emotion regulation strategies that one has at their dis-
posal. There are two types of repertoire considered: categorical
and temporal variability. Categorical variability is operationalized
as the number of strategies implemented. Empirical evidence indi-
cates that greater categorical variability of intrapersonal emotion
regulation strategies is associated with enhanced well-being and
lower internalizing symptoms (Eldesouky & English, 2018;
Lougheed & Hollenstein, 2012; Southward & Cheavens, 2020).
Temporal variability is assessed based on both within-strategy var-
iability (e.g., day-to-day fluctuations in the implementation of
each strategy) and between-strategy variability (e.g., variability in
the amount that different emotion regulation strategies are used
each day). For instance, within-strategy variability is the amount
1049
that one engages in any given IER strategy over time; greater fluc-
tuations in the use of that strategy over time is quantified as higher
within-strategy variability. Between-strategy variability is the
degree to which one engages in different IER strategies on a given
day (Blanke et al., 2020); greater variability in the degree different
strategies are used in a given day is quantified as higher between-
strategy variability. Both within- and between-strategy variability
of intrapersonal emotion regulation strategies predict lower nega-
tive affect (Blanke et al., 2020). However, researchers have not yet
examined whether repertoire of IER strategies is associated with
daily adaptive affective outcomes.
The third component of Bonanno and Burton (2013) theory is
feedback: when an individual incorporates internal feedback (i.e.,
their affective state) and then changes their emotion regulation
strategy use accordingly (Bonanno & Burton, 2013). Experimental
and cross-sectional studies on intrapersonal emotion regulation
strategies show that higher feedback predicts greater life satisfac-
tion, whereas lower feedback is associated with elevated depres-
sive and anxiety symptoms (Birk & Bonanno, 2016; Chen &
Bonanno, 2021). Similar to the other facets of Bonanno and Bur-
ton’s (2013) theory, researchers have not yet examined the associ-
ation between feedback and affect in the context of IER strategies.
Aldao et al. (2015) advanced the second main emotion regula-
tion flexibility theory, which builds on the contributions of
Bonanno and Burton (2013) by positing that emotion regulation
flexibility is determined based on the joint fluctuation of emotion
regulation variability and environmental changes. One study to
date has investigated the consequences of intrapersonal emotion
regulation variability and affect. Blanke et al. (2020) found that
intrapersonal within-strategy variability did not consistently pre-
dict negative affect, whereas intrapersonal between-strategy vari-
ability predicted lower negative affect. Strikingly, a study has yet
to investigate the covariation of IER variability and environmental
changes in predicting affect.
Overall, emotion regulation flexibility is a promising direction
for future research, evidenced by studies that have supported the
importance of defining emotion regulation adaptiveness as the
ability to flexibly implement emotion regulation strategies. How-
ever, a shift is needed in the application of emotion regulation flex-
ibility theory to IER strategies.
Interpersonal Emotion Regulation
IER strategies were derived from the broader intrapersonal emo-
tion regulation literature and translated to a dyadic form. The most
commonly studied IER strategies include corumination, codistrac-
tion, coproblem-solving, and coreappraisal. Corumination is
defined as repeatedly discussing one’s problems and feelings with
another person (Rose, 2002). Codistraction is characterized as
engaging in a conversation with another person about neutral in-
formation in order to direct one’s focus away from problems and
feelings (Zelic et al., 2017). Coproblem-solving occurs in an inter-
action where another person helps to solve one’s problem (Waller
et al., 2014). Finally, coreappraisal occurs when another person
helps to change one’s interpretation of a situation in a way that
impacts emotional response (Horn & Maercker, 2016).
Researchers have documented that IER strategies (i.e., corumina-
tion, codistraction, coproblem-solving, and coreappraisal) are used
day to day (Liu et al., 2021) and may influence markers of
 1050 BATTAGLINI, RNIC, JAMESON, JOPLING, AND LEMOULT
psychological well-being (e.g., affect, Niven et al., 2009; or clinical
symptoms, Christensen et al., 2020) in ways that parallel their
intrapersonal counterparts (Gross, 1998). For instance, coreap-
praisal, coproblem-solving, and codistraction generally predict
adaptive outcomes, as measured by either reduced negative affect
(Stone et al., 2019; Zelic et al., 2017) or fewer clinical symptoms
(Christensen et al., 2020). In contrast, corumination generally pre-
dicts maladaptive psychological outcomes, as measured by either
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.
increased negative affect (Zelic et al., 2017) or greater clinical
symptoms (Rose, 2002). However, no study to date has examined
the impact that the flexible implementation of IER has on affect in
day-to-day life.
The Current Study
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This preregistered study is the first to establish the concept of
IER flexibility and to test whether IER flexibility is associated
with short-term (i.e., day-to-day) adaptive outcomes. While doing
so, we addressed the notable limitations of the field in two ways.
First, we included the most commonly studied interpersonal strat-
egies: coreappraisal, coproblem-solving, corumination, and codis-
traction (Rose, 2002; Stone et al., 2019; Zelic et al., 2017).
Second, whereas emotion regulation flexibility research has
focused on long-term longitudinal and experimental designs, we
sought to strengthen ecological validity by studying IER flexibility
as it unfolds day to day and in a naturalistic setting. Naturalistic
designs are critical as they enable researchers to extend examina-
tions of what participants do in the laboratory to assess what par-
ticipants actually do in everyday life. Thus, we implemented an
intensive 14-day longitudinal (i.e., daily diary) design to assess the
association of day-to-day IER flexibility with daily negative and
positive affect.
This study had four research aims. The first three aims applied
the components of emotion regulation flexibility posited by
Bonanno and Burton (2013) to IER, and the fourth aim applied the
definition of emotion regulation flexibility posited by Aldao et al.
(2015) to IER. Aim 1 tested the association between context sensi-
tivity and affect. We predicted that the perceived controllability of
negative events would moderate the association between IER strat-
egy use and affect. Considering the similarities between intraper-
sonal emotion regulation and IER strategies (i.e., IER constitutes
the properties of intrapersonal emotion regulation translated to a
dyadic context), the limited IER research to date, and the fact that
this study was the first to investigate context sensitivity with IER
strategies, the hypotheses for Aim 1 were based on the intraperso-
nal emotion regulation and coping literature (Haines et al., 2016;
Lazarus, 1993; Troy et al., 2013). At lower levels of perceived
controllability of an event, an event cannot easily be modified;
thus, changing one’s emotional response (i.e., implementing emo-
tion-focused coping strategies) is expected to be most adaptive
(Lazarus, 1993; Troy et al., 2013). As such, we expected emotion-
focused intrapersonal emotion regulation strategies of coreap-
praisal and codistraction to be more beneficial (i.e., associated
with lower negative affect and higher positive affect) in uncontrol-
lable as compared to controllable contexts (Lazarus & Folkman,
1984; Troy et al., 2013). Alternatively, problem-solving is a strat-
egy that is centered around changing a situation (i.e., problem-
focused coping; Lazarus, 1993) and is likely to be most beneficial
in contexts that can be controlled. Thus, we expected higher levels
of coproblem-solving to be more beneficial (i.e., associated with
lower negative affect and higher positive affect) in controllable as
compared to uncontrollable contexts. Although corumination is
also considered an emotion-focused coping strategy, corumination
tends, on average, to predict greater negative affect and reduced
positive affect (Battaglini et al., 2021; Zelic et al., 2017). Given
that uncontrollable events also predict greater negative affect (van
der Stouwe et al., 2019), the compounding effect of corumination
and uncontrollable events is expected to be associated with less
adaptive affective outcomes (i.e., higher negative affect and lower
positive affect).
Aim 2 investigated the association between repertoire range and
affect. Both categorical and temporal variability were examined, in
line with past empirical and theoretical research (Blanke et al., 2020;
Bonanno & Burton, 2013; Eldesouky & English, 2018). We
hypothesized that higher categorical and temporal variability in IER
strategy use would predict lower negative affect and higher positive
affect compared to lower categorical and temporal variability.
For Aim 3, we investigated the association between day-to-day
feedback and affect, in line with the description of feedback pro-
vided by Bonanno and Burton (2013). We assessed whether affect
the previous day would moderate the association between change
in IER strategy use and affect the subsequent day. We hypothe-
sized that at higher levels of negative affect the day prior, greater
change in IER strategy use from one day to the next would predict
reduced negative affect. We also hypothesized that at lower levels
of positive affect the day prior, greater change in IER strategy use
from one day to the next would predict higher positive affect.
However, given that it is unclear whether feedback influences al-
ready adaptive levels of affect, we did not make an a priori predic-
tion regarding moderation effects of lower levels of negative
affect or higher levels of positive affect the day prior.
Aim 4 investigated the flexibility of emotion regulation concep-
tualized as the covariation of IER variability and environmental
change (defined as the number of events experienced, a change in
event type, or a change in the stressfulness of the event from one
day to the next; Aldao et al., 2015). We predicted that higher cova-
riation of IER variability and environmental change would predict
lower negative affect and higher positive affect (see Table 1 and
Figures S1–S4 in the online supplemental material for an outline
of the study hypotheses).
To test these hypotheses, we recruited adults at the start of the
COVID-19 pandemic to complete daily diaries each day online for
14 days. During each daily diary, participants reported (a) their
affect; (b) whether an event occurred that day; (c) the pleasantness,
controllability, and stressfulness of the event; and (d) IER strat-
egies implemented that day.
Method
Participants
The sample consisted of 384 participants (Mage = 38.58 years,
SD = 13.82; see Supplemental Table S1) who were recruited from
April to July 2020 as part of the larger “COVID-19 and Wellbeing
Study.” Advertisements were posted online to recruit participants
living in Canada and the United States. However, individuals liv-
ing in other countries could participate if they were fluent in
 INTERPERSONAL EMOTION REGULATION FLEXIBILITY
English and were above the age of 18 years old. For research
Aims 1 and 4, only a subset of the sample could be used to test the
specific aims. For Aim 1, only participants who reported negative
events (n = 235) could be included. For Aim 4, only participants
who reported negative, neutral, or positive events (n = 334) could
be included. An a priori power analysis was not conducted because
the data were collected to answer a range of research questions,
not exclusively the research questions in this study. Our sample
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.
size, which is consistent with recent recommendations (Lakens,
2021), was based on the number of participants recruited during
the time the study was running, past daily diary research (e.g., Seo
& Patall’s, 2021, work showing that a sample of 20 participants
was enough to obtain a medium effect size at Level 1 using multi-
level models [MLMs]), authors’ previous experience with inten-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
sive longitudinal research (also reported in Blanke et al., 2020;
Wenzel et al., 2021), and resource constraints. Additionally, the
sample size exceeded statistical recommendations for obtaining
accurate estimates (i.e., regression coefficients, standard errors,
variances) using our analytic approaches (i.e., multilevel modeling
and regression; Austin & Steyerberg, 2015; Maas & Hox, 2005),
which recommend a sample greater than 50 participants (or Level
2 units) for MLMs and at least two participants per variable in
regression models.
Materials
Affect
We used the 20-item version of the Positive and Negative Affect
Schedule (Watson et al., 1988) to assess affect. The negative affect
items were distressed, upset, guilty, scared, hostile, irritable,
ashamed, nervous, jittery, and afraid. The between-person reliability
was Rkf = .98, and the within-person reliability was Rc = .82 (Cran-
ford et al., 2006).1 The positive affect items were interested, excited,
strong, enthusiastic, proud, alert, inspired, determined, attentive, and
active. The between-person reliability was Rkf =.99, and the within-
person reliability was Rc = .88 (Cranford et al., 2006). Participants
reported each emotion they experienced that day (consistent with
Shahar & Herr, 2011) on a scale from 1 (very slightly or not at all)
to 5 (extremely).
Event Type, Pleasantness, Controllability, and Stressfulness
Participants were asked to report on the most significant event
that occurred each day (consistent with Genet & Siemer, 2012)
and to indicate the type, pleasantness, controllability, and stressful-
ness of the event (Kircanski et al., 2015). Participants selected the
one category that best described the event: close friendship, social
life, romantic relationship, family relationship, education, work,
finances, health of self, health of family, health of friends, recrea-
tion, and other. Next, they rated the pleasantness, controllability,
and stressfulness of the event using items that were derived from
past research (e.g., Kircanski et al., 2015). Participants were asked
to report the pleasantness of the most significant event they experi-
enced that day on a scale from 1 (very unpleasant) to 5 (very
pleasant). Pleasantness ratings of 1 and 2 were considered nega-
tive events in our analysis for research Aim 1. In addition, partici-
pants reported the controllability of the event on a scale from 1
(very uncontrollable) to 5 (very controllable) and the stressfulness
1051
of the event on a scale from 1 (not at all stressful) to 5 (extremely
stressful).
Interpersonal Emotion Regulation
We assessed whether an event occurred that day and the degree
to which participants implemented each IER strategy across all
interpersonal interactions, including all in-person conversations,
online or text messaging, and phone or video calls. Specifically,
participants rated the amount that they implemented each of the
four IER strategies (i.e., coreappraisal, coproblem-solving, codis-
traction, and corumination) during their interactions that day. Par-
ticipants rated their use of each IER strategy on a scale from 1 (not
at all) to 5 (very much so). See the online supplemental materials
for additional details.
The COVID-19 Pandemic
Participants for this study were recruited during the COVID-19
pandemic. The World Health Organization declared the COVID-
19 outbreak a global pandemic on March 11, 2020, and data col-
lection for this study took place between April 20, 2020 and July
20, 2020. The pandemic was associated with many significant life-
style changes: Physical distancing requirements were instated, and
nonessential in-person businesses and schools were closed in
many places worldwide. To better understand how participants
interacted with others during the COVID-19 pandemic, partici-
pants reported the amount of time they spent each day interacting
in person, via online or text messaging, and via phone or video
calls. Across the 14 days, participants spent the most time interact-
ing with others in person (M = 311.19 min, SD = 253.50), fol-
lowed by messaging (M = 89.14 min, SD = 109.47) and calls (M =
49.24 min, SD = 68.60). A one-way repeated-measures analysis of
variance, with modality (in person, messaging, calls) as the
within-subject factor, was conducted to examine whether time
spent interacting with others significantly differed across modal-
ities. Results showed a significant difference across modalities,
F(1.28, 476.47) = 285.76, p , .001. Pairwise comparisons with a
Bonferroni adjustment showed that participants interacted with
others significantly more in person compared to via messaging,
p , .001, 95% confidence interval (CI) [188.97, 255.13], or calls,
p , .001, 95% CI [228.49, 295.41]. Participants also interacted
with others significantly more via messaging than calls, p , .001,
95% CI [25.60, 54.20].
Procedure
This study received approval from the University of British Co-
lumbia (UBC) Behavioural Research Ethics Board. After obtain-
ing consent, participants completed the baseline questionnaire,
which assessed demographic characteristics and other measures as
part of the larger study. Participants who also consented to com-
plete the daily diaries were sent the diaries through email at 5 p.m.
each day for 14 days after the completion of the baseline question-
naire. Participants did not receive remuneration for their
participation.
1
All within- and between-person reliabilities were calculated using the
psych R package (Revelle, 2021).
 1052 BATTAGLINI, RNIC, JAMESON, JOPLING, AND LEMOULT
Data Analysis
As described in the online supplemental materials, the data were
cleaned prior to conducting analyses based on our preregistration
and study inclusion criteria. All analyses were conducted using R
Version 4.4 (R Core Team, 2021) and the lme4 (Bates et al., 2015)
and lmerTest (Kuznetsova et al., 2017) R packages. Using random
intercepts and slopes, MLMs were conducted to test research aims
with a nested structure to the data, in which days (Level 1) were
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.
nested within people (Level 2). All continuous variables at Level 1
were person-mean centered to examine within-person deviations
from the participant’s average, and Level 2 variables were grand-
mean centered to parse out between-person effects (Bolger & Lau-
renceau, 2013). Regression analyses were used for research aims
without a nested structure to the data (Blanke et al., 2020). The
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
analyses were conducted independently for negative affect and pos-
itive affect (see Blanke et al., 2020; Thompson et al., 2012). Details
regarding the computation of predictors can be found in Table 1.
Transparency and Openness
In line with transparency and openness, the data, code, and preregis-
tered hypotheses, design, and analytic plan for this study can be found
on the Open Science Framework (Battaglini, 2022): https://osf.io/
yfz9r/?view_only=6db19703141f4c398dd125e65d94650b. Above and
in the online supplemental materials, we report how we determined
our sample size and a detailed description of our data inclusion/
exclusion criteria and data cleaning procedure, and we explicitly
describe the measures used for this study. There were no study
manipulations to report.
Results
Preliminary Analyses
To calculate the intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), uncon-
ditional models were conducted for negative and positive affect.
The ICCs for research Aims 2 and 3 were conducted separately
from Aims 1 and 4 as the latter aims were analyzed with subsets of
the total sample based on events reported. Specifically, only partici-
pants who reported negative events could be included in Aim 1,
and only participants who reported negative, neutral, or positive
events could be included in Aim 4. The ICCs for negative affect
ranged from .53 to .58, indicating that 53% to 58% of the variability
in negative affect was due to between-person variance. The ICCs
for positive affect were approximated to .53, indicating that 53% of
the variability in positive affect was due to between-person var-
iance. Participants completed an average number of 7.29 (SD =
3.99) diaries across the 14 days. Between-person and within-person
correlations of the main study variables can be found in the online
supplemental materials (see Supplemental Table S3).
Research Aim 1: Context Sensitivity (Bonanno &
Burton, 2013)
Consistent with past research that investigated context sensitiv-
ity (Haines et al., 2016; Troy et al., 2013), we tested whether the
controllability of a negative event would moderate the association
between IER strategy use and affect at occasion t. For these
analyses, participants (n = 235) were included if they reported a
negative event; a total of 474 negative events were reported.2 To
assess context sensitivity, we conducted MLMs predicting affect
as a function of the degree to which the IER strategy was imple-
mented, the controllability of the event, and their interaction at
Level 1. A separate MLM was conducted for each IER strategy
(i.e., coreappraisal, codistraction, coproblem-solving,3 corumina-
tion). Contrary to expectations, perceived controllability of the
negative event did not significantly moderate the association of
IER strategy use (i.e., coreappraisal, codistraction, coproblem-
solving, corumination) with negative affect at occasion t, jbsj #
.48, ps $ .270, or with positive affect at occasion t, jbsj # .33,
ps $ .501 (see Supplemental Table S4).
Research Aim 2: Repertoire (Bonanno & Burton, 2013)
Repertoire was indexed based on both categorical and temporal
variability, as is consistent with theory and empirical research
(Blanke et al., 2020; Bonanno & Burton, 2013).4 A higher number of
strategies implemented indicated greater categorical variability. Par-
ticipants reported using an average of two IER strategies per day
(M = 1.77, SD = 1.41). MLMs were conducted with categorical vari-
ability predicting negative and positive affect. In line with our predic-
tion, categorical variability predicted less negative affect, b = 1.12,
p , .001, 95% CI [1.68, .49]. This suggests that on days when
participants employed more IER strategies than their average, they
reported less negative affect. In contrast, categorical variability did
not significantly predict positive affect, b = .03, p = .942, [.63, .71].
To assess temporal variability, within- and between-strategy
variability were analyzed based on past research (Blanke et al.,
2020).5 To assess within-strategy variability, negative and positive
affect (averaged across the 14 days) were regressed on within-
strategy variability. Because the average amount of strategy use
tends to be related to variability, the average amount of IER strat-
egy use across the 14 days was entered as a covariate to separate
this effect from variability (consistent with Blanke et al., 2020). In
contrast to our expectations, within-strategy variability did not sig-
nificantly predict negative affect, b = .20, p = .845, 95% CI
[2.23, 2.24], or positive affect, b = 1.96, p = .108, [4.19,
.36].
2
Even though the sample (n = 235) was included in these analyses, only
participants who had data for variables in the model could be analyzed.
Whereas the majority of the models contained all 235 participants, the
models examining corumination consisted of n = 234 participants.
3
This model was near singular. To account for singularity, in an
exploratory analysis, we conducted a fixed slope model instead of a random
slope model. This was supported by a likelihood ratio test that showed that
random slopes did not significantly improve model fit, v2(2)= 0.01, p =
.994. Results were consistent with the original analyses reported, whereby
perceived controllability of the negative event did not significantly
moderate the association of coproblem-solving with negative affect at
occasion t, b = 0.09, p = .824, 95% CI [0.76, 0.63].
4
Although the full sample (n = 384) was eligible for inclusion in these
analyses, only participants who had data for assessing categorical
variability could be analyzed (n = 383).
5
Although the entire sample (n = 384) was eligible for inclusion in the
within-strategy variability analyses, only participants who had data for
computing within-strategy variability could be analyzed (n = 378).
Additionally, for between-strategy variability analyses, only participants
who had data for computing between-strategy variability could be analyzed
(n = 383).

Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.
Table 1
Flexibility Constructs, Definitions, Research Aims, Hypotheses, and Computed Predictors
Flexibility construct
Context sensitivity
Repertoire
Categorical variability
Temporal variability
Within-strategy variability
Between-strategy
variability
Feedback
IER-environmental covariation
IER (within-strategy variabili-
ty)-environmental covariation
(number of events experienced)
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Definition
Appropriate alignment of emotion
regulation strategy with context
The number of strategies
implemented each day
Fluctuations in the implementation
of each strategy across the
14-days
Fluctuations in the use of different
IER strategies at one time point
When an individual incorporates
internal feedback (i.e., their
affective state) and then
changes their IER strategy
use accordingly
Joint fluctuation of the
implementation of each strategy
across the 14 days and the
number of distinct event types
experienced
Research aim Hypothesis
1 We predicted that the perceived controll- Context sensitivity was indexed as the
ability of negative events would mod-
erate the association between IER
strategy use and affect.
2 We hypothesized that higher categorical
and temporal variability in IER strat- Categorical variability was computed by
egy use would predict lower negative
affect and higher positive affect com-
pared to lower categorical and tempo-
ral variability.
Between-strategy variability was
measured as the standard deviation
of IER strategies used each day
(Blanke et al., 2020).
3 We hypothesized that at higher levels of
negative affect the day prior, greater
change in IER strategy use from one
day to the next would predict reduced
negative affect. We also hypothesized
that at lower levels of positive affect
the day prior, greater change in IER
strategy use from one day to the next
would predict higher positive affect.
4 We predicted that higher covariation of
IER variability and environmental
change would predict lower negative
affect and higher positive affect.
Computed predictors
interaction of the controllability of the
event and the degree to which the IER
strategy was implemented.
recoding IER strategies, whereby 1
(no use of the strategy) was recoded
as 0, indicating that the strategy was
not implemented that day, and values
25 were recoded as 1, indicating
that the strategy was implemented
that day. Categorical variability was
quantified based on the total number
of IER strategies participants used
each day (Eldesouky & English,
2018).
Within-strategy variability was
computed as the standard deviation
of each IER strategy used across the
14 days, averaged across IER strat-
egies for each participant (Blanke
et al., 2020).
Day-to-day changes in IER strategy use
were indexed by the average of the
absolute value of the difference in the
amount each IER strategy was used
from one day to the next (i.e., from
time t-1 to t).
INTERPERSONAL EMOTION REGULATION FLEXIBILITY
Within-strategy variability was
computed as the standard deviation
of each IER strategy used across the
14 days, averaged across IER strat-
egies for each participant (Blanke
et al., 2020). Environmental vari-
ability was indexed based on the
number of distinct event types
reported by each participant across
the 14 days.
(table continues)
1053
 1054 BATTAGLINI, RNIC, JAMESON, JOPLING, AND LEMOULT

To assess between-strategy variability, MLMs were conducted

codes indicated 0 = no change and 1 =

et al., 2020). Environmental variabili-
ty was indexed as the change in event
measured as the standard deviation of
IER strategies used each day (Blanke
to test the association between between-strategy variability and

type (from t-1 to t), where dummy

affect. At Level 1, between-strategy variability and the average
Between-strategy variability was

amount of IER strategy use each day were used to predict affect.
Computed predictors

The average amount of IER strategy use each day was included as
a covariate at Level 1 to separate its effects from between-strategy

change in event type.

variability (as recommended by Blanke et al., 2020). In line with
our hypothesis, between-strategy variability significantly predicted
less negative affect, b = 3.31, p , .001, 95% CI [4.79, 1.74].
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.

This suggests that on days when participants had greater between-

strategy variability than usual, meaning greater fluctuations in the
use of multiple IER strategies, they reported less negative affect.
Contrary to our prediction, between-strategy variability did not
significantly predict positive affect, b = .80, p = .408, [1.14,
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

2.73] (see Supplemental Table S5).

Research Aim 3: Feedback (Bonanno & Burton, 2013)

Hypothesis

Consistent with the theoretical formulation of feedback

(Bonanno & Burton, 2013),6 we predicted that the association
between day-to-day changes in IER use and affect would be mod-
erated by affect the previous day (Bonanno & Burton, 2013). To
test this hypothesis, we conducted MLMs predicting affect at time
t as a function of change in IER strategy use (from t-1 to t), affect
at t-1, and their interaction at Level 1.7 In line with our hypothesis,
negative affect at t-1 significantly moderated the association
measured as the standard deviation

indexed as the difference in event

between change in IER strategy use (from t-1 to t) and negative

of IER strategies used each day
Between-strategy variability was

Environmental variability was

affect at time t, b = .11, p = .017, 95% CI [.20, .02]. Thus,

stressfulness (from t-1 to t).

the association between change in IER strategy use (from t-1 to t)

Research aim

and less negative affect at time t was greater at higher levels of

(Blanke et al., 2020).

negative affect at t-1. Furthermore, the simple slopes analysis

showed that this association was significant at all levels of t-1 neg-
ative affect, b = 4.10, p , .001, [5.56, 2.64], for 1 standard
deviation above the mean, b = 3.61, p , .001, [5.02, 2.20],
at the mean, and b = 3.12, p , .001, [4.59, 1.65], for 1 stand-
ard deviation below the mean (Figure 1a).
Additionally, positive affect at t-1 significantly moderated the
different IER strategies each day

different IER strategies each day

and difference in event stressful-

association between change in IER strategy use (from t-1 to t) and

and change in event type from

ness from one day to the next

positive affect at time t, b = .14, p = .012, 95% CI [.24, .03].

Joint fluctuation of the use of

Joint fluctuation of the use of

Thus, the association between change in IER strategy use (from t-

1 to t) and more positive affect at time t was greater at lower levels
Definition

one day to the next

of positive affect at t-1. The simple slopes analysis was not signifi-
cant, jbsj # .93, ps $ .337. However, the Johnson-Neyman test
for the regions of significance (Hayes & Matthes, 2009; Johnson
& Neyman, 1936) showed that when t-1 positive affect was below
Note. IER = interpersonal emotion regulation.

17.94 (3.24 standard deviations below the mean), greater change

in IER strategy use (from t-1 to t) predicted higher positive affect
variability)-environmental cova-

variability)-environmental cova-
riation (change in event stress-

6
riation (change in event type

Even though the entire sample (n = 384) was included in these

analyses, only participants who had data for computing the lagged
Flexibility construct

predictors could be analyzed (n = 328).

fulness from t-1 to t)

7
IER (between-strategy

IER (between-strategy

As an exploratory analysis, the average amount of IER strategy use

Table 1 (continued)

each day was included at Level 1. The direction of moderation effects

remained the same for both negative and positive affect, though they were
from t-1 to t)

only marginally significant for negative affect. Negative affect at t-1

moderated the association between change in IER strategy use (from t-1 to
t) and negative affect at time t, b = 0.09, p = .067, 95% CI [0.18, 0.00].
Positive affect at t-1 moderated the association between change in IER
strategy use (from t-1 to t) and positive affect at time t, b = 0.14, p = .012,
95% CI [0.24, 0.02].
 INTERPERSONAL EMOTION REGULATION FLEXIBILITY 1055

Figure 1
Research Aim 3: Feedback Associated With Negative and Positive Affect
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Note. Panel a: The association between change in interpersonal emotion regulation strategy use (from t-1 to t) and less negative affect was stronger at
higher levels of t-1 negative affect but was significant at all observed levels of t-1 negative affect. Panel b: Positive affect (at t-1) significantly moderated
the association between change in interpersonal emotion regulation strategy use (from t-1 to t) and positive affect. Because the simple slopes analysis was
not significant, the Johnson-Neyman test for the regions of significance is presented to elucidate the interaction. Results showed that when t-1 positive
affect was below 17.94, greater change in interpersonal emotion regulation strategy use (from t-1 to t) predicted higher positive affect. Additionally,
when t-1 positive affect was above 25.12, participants who reported a greater change in interpersonal emotion regulation strategy use (from t-1 to t)
reported less positive affect. However, this range is beyond the range of observable data. Negative affect (t-1), positive affect (t-1), and change in inter-
personal emotion regulation strategy use were person-mean centered.

at time t. Additionally, when t-1 positive affect was above 25.12
(4.54 standard deviations above the mean), greater change in IER
strategy use (from t-1 to t) predicted less positive affect, although
this range was beyond the range of observable data (Figure 1b;
Supplemental Table S6).
Research Aim 4: Covariation of Interpersonal Emotion
Regulation Strategy Variability and Environmental
Variability (Aldao et al., 2015)
In accordance with the theory articulated by Aldao et al. (2015),
we hypothesized that greater covariation of IER strategy variabili-
ty and environmental variability would predict lower negative
affect and higher positive affect. The analyses were conducted in
line with suggestions made by Aldao et al. (2015). Participants
(n = 334) who reported the occurrence of events were included in
these analyses, with a total of 1,090 (negative, neutral, or positive;
see Supplemental Table S2) events reported. Within-strategy vari-
ability was regressed onto the number of distinct event types, and
residuals were saved. Positive residuals indicate greater covaria-
tion of IER variability and environmental variability, whereas nega-
tive residuals indicate lower covariation of IER and environmental
variability (Aldao et al., 2015). The residuals were included as the
predictor in regression models predicting negative and positive
affect, respectively.8 Contrary to expectations, greater covariation
of within-strategy IER variability and environmental variability sig-
nificantly predicted higher negative affect, b = 2.91, p = .001, 95%
CI [.77, 5.23], and did not significantly predict positive affect, b =
.38, p = .719, [1.90, 2.58].
In terms of the covariation of between-strategy variability and
environmental variability, an MLM was conducted with between-
strategy variability regressed onto the change in event type (from
t-1 to t).9 The residuals from this model were saved and used in
8
Although n = 334 participants were eligible for inclusion in these
analyses, only participants that had within-strategy variability data could be
analyzed for the within-strategy variability analyses (n = 251, which is
appropriate for unbiased estimates using regression analyses; Austin &
Steyerberg, 2015). For between-strategy variability, only participants with
data for the lagged predictors could be analyzed (n = 156, which is
sufficient for accurate estimates when conducting MLM; Maas & Hox,
2005).
9
This model was near singular. To account for singularity, in an
exploratory analysis, we extracted the residuals from a fixed slope model
instead of a random slope model. This was supported by a Likelihood ratio
test (LRT) which showed that random slopes did not significantly improve
model fit v2(2) = 0.08, p = .961. The residuals from the fixed slope model
were then used to predict affect. Results were consistent with the original
analyses reported, whereby the covariation of between-strategy IER
variability and environmental variability (change in event type from t-1 to
t) did not significantly predict negative affect, b = 2.85, p = .231, 95% CI
[7.59, 2.50], or positive affect, b = 2.16, p = .450, 95% CI [7.66,
3.62].
 1056 BATTAGLINI, RNIC, JAMESON, JOPLING, AND LEMOULT
MLMs to predict negative and positive affect, respectively. The
residuals were person-mean centered at Level 1 and grand-mean
centered at Level 2. Contrary to our prediction, the covariation of
between-strategy IER variability and environmental variability
(change in event type from t-1 to t) did not significantly predict
negative affect, b = 2.92, p = .219, 95% CI [7.26, 1.58], or pos-
itive affect, b = 2.08, p = .467, [8.18, 3.01].
Furthermore, we conducted an MLM with between-strategy var-
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.
iability regressed onto the difference in event stressfulness (from
t-1 to t).10 The residuals from this model were used as predictors
for MLMs predicting negative and positive affect, respectively.
The residuals were person-mean centered at Level 1 and grand-
mean centered at Level 2. Contrary to our hypothesis, greater
covariation of between-strategy IER variability and environmental
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
variability (indexed based on the difference in event stressfulness)
did not significantly predict negative affect, b = 3.09, p = .222,
95% CI [8.46, 2.02], or positive affect, b = 2.14, p = .478,
[8.01, 4.17] (see Supplemental Table S7).
Additional Analyses That Were Not Preregistered
We conducted several follow-up nonpreregistered analyses in
order to test the robustness of our findings. We examined whether
any demographic characteristics of the sample were associated
with the number of daily diaries completed, and we found that sig-
nificant effects remained when relevant demographic characteris-
tics were included as covariates. Similarly, we conducted
exploratory analyses to account for the differences in the number
of daily diaries completed and found the pattern of significant
results remained the same. Given the number of analyses con-
ducted, we used the Benjamini Hochberg approach to account for
the false discovery rate from conducting multiple tests (Benjamini
& Hochberg, 1995). Notably, all significant effects remained.
Finally, to verify the null findings that we reported above, we con-
ducted a Bayesian analysis known as the Bayes factor, and all
Bayes factor results supported the null hypotheses. Additional
details on all supplemental analyses can be found in the online
supplemental materials.
Discussion
This study was the first to reconceptualize the adaptiveness of
IER based on one’s ability to flexibly implement IER strategies
given contextual demands. IER flexibility has notable empirical
and practical contributions. The interaction of IER strategies with
contextual factors is largely absent in the IER literature to date,
and investigating IER flexibility fills this gap. This empirical shift
may also inform recommendations regarding the use of IER in
daily life. Whereas the current literature has evaluated the adap-
tiveness of particular strategies based on their intransient out-
comes, findings from the current study suggest there are affective
benefits to flexibly accounting for internal and environmental fac-
tors when implementing IER strategies. Thus, IER flexibility has
the potential to provide a more thorough understanding of IER
adaptiveness in daily life.
As expected, based on Bonanno and Burton (2013), both reper-
toire (i.e., greater categorical variability and between-strategy vari-
ability) and feedback predicted adaptive affective outcomes.
Interestingly, whereas past research measured feedback as an
immediate process unfolding in the laboratory (Birk & Bonanno,
2016), the present study examined feedback as it unfolds day-
to-day. It is unclear whether feedback has the same meaning across
these different timescales. It is possible our metric of feedback pro-
vides a slower, top-down feedback process whereby an individual
assesses internal affective information and modifies the degree to
which IER strategies are implemented from one day to the next.
Overall, these findings suggest that there are benefits to implement-
ing a breadth of IER strategies (repertoire) and adjusting IER strat-
egy use (feedback), which is akin to findings from the extant
intrapersonal emotion regulation flexibility research (e.g., South-
ward & Cheavens, 2020). It is interesting to consider whether fac-
tors related to one’s social network might facilitate or thwart IER
flexibility. A large social network, for example, may offer more
opportunities to implement a broader range of IER strategies,
which may promote greater categorical variability, between-strat-
egy variability, and feedback. Indeed, the social support literature
shows that greater social support offers a myriad of beneficial out-
comes (e.g., reduced mortality risk; Shor et al., 2013). Alterna-
tively, it may be that social networks high in closeness or
attunement could facilitate greater IER flexibility because IER may
be encouraged. Interestingly, physical distancing requirements dur-
ing the COVID-19 pandemic may have restricted the size of one’s
social network and altered the modality in which some people
communicated (e.g., digital instead of in-person). Digital commu-
nication can limit nonverbal behaviors that facilitate interpersonal
intimacy (Andersen et al., 2006). Although research by Battaglini
and colleagues (2021) documented that individuals engage in IER
across in-person and digital modalities, future work should con-
tinue to explore the influence of communication modality on asso-
ciations between IER and affect. Additionally, future research
may seek to determine which characteristics of one’s support net-
work (e.g., size, closeness) enhance IER flexibility, even beyond
the context of COVID-19.
The remaining components of IER flexibility showed mixed
findings regarding their association with affect. First, contrary to
our expectations based on Aldao et al. (2015), the covariation of
IER within-strategy variability and environmental variability,
defined as the number of distinct event types, prospectively pre-
dicted higher negative affect and did not predict positive affect.
Moreover, the covariation of IER between-strategy variability and
environmental variability did not significantly predict affect. There
are three possible explanations for these unexpected findings. One
possibility is that, unlike intrapersonal emotion regulation, there
may be other factors contributing to the adaptiveness of the cova-
riation of IER and environmental variability. For instance, IER-
environmental covariation may be more adaptive when IER
involves more self-disclosure about the environmental change,
perhaps resulting in a richer discussion and the use of IER strat-
egies to directly regulate the emotions elicited by the environmen-
tal change. Consistent with this proposition, researchers have
10
The pre-registration for the analysis of the covariation of between-
strategy variability and environmental variability in predicting affect did
not correctly indicate the variables that were included at Level 2 and grand-
mean centered. Indeed, only the predictors of the model can be grand-mean
centered at Level 2; therefore, change in event type, difference in event
stressfulness, and the residuals were grand-mean centered at Level 2 in
their respective models, as described above.
 INTERPERSONAL EMOTION REGULATION FLEXIBILITY
documented that certain aspects of a dyadic interaction influence
the adaptiveness of corumination (e.g., talking about the problem
may be more adaptive than focusing on negative affect; Rose
et al., 2014). A second possibility for the unexpected findings is
that there are multiple ways of defining environmental variability
(Aldao et al., 2015). In the current study, we defined environmen-
tal variability as the number of distinct event types, day-to-day
change in event type, and day-to-day change in event stressfulness.
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.
These may not be the facets of environmental variability that are
most relevant to IER flexibility. Thus, additional research is
needed to investigate meaningful markers of environmental
change in the context of IER flexibility. Third, participants
reported on the most significant event they experienced that day.
Thus, we indexed variability of events across all diaries, rather
than within one single day, which may partially explain this unex-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
pected finding for research Aim 4. Furthermore, the lockdown
(closing of schools and nonessential businesses) and physical dis-
tancing requirements necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic
may have restricted the range of possible events individuals expe-
rienced. To expand variability in examining IER-environmental
covariation, future research may consider investigating these ques-
tions post-COVID-19 pandemic.
Also contrary to our expectations, repertoire showed mixed find-
ings regarding its association with affect. Specifically, when reper-
toire was defined as within-strategy variability (Bonanno & Burton,
2013), it did not significantly predict negative or positive affect,
which is consistent with past research (Blanke et al., 2020). In con-
trast, when repertoire was defined as categorical variability or
between-strategy variability, it predicted less negative affect. Taken
together, these findings suggest that the use of a greater number of
IER strategies (categorical variability) and the variable use of IER
across strategies (between-strategy variability) is more adaptive than
the variable use of individual strategies (within-strategy variability).
These findings underscore the importance of having a broad range
of IER strategies accessible rather than a limited range (e.g., using
predominantly one IER strategy). In addition, it is important to note
that although greater categorical and between-strategy variability
predicted less negative affect, it did not predict positive affect. Inter-
estingly, this is consistent with previous work documenting that neg-
ative and positive affect are orthogonal in nature (Kercher, 1992;
Watson et al., 1988). This may indicate affective differentiation
regarding the adaptiveness of repertoire, which may have implica-
tions for individuals’ regulatory goals (Sheppes et al., 2014). For
instance, greater categorical variability and between-strategy vari-
ability may be effective for down-regulating negative affect, but not
for up-regulating positive affect. Future research is required to inves-
tigate the association between regulatory goal attainment (e.g.,
down-regulating or up-regulating affect; Sheppes et al., 2014) and
the implementation of IER flexibility.
Finally, in terms of context sensitivity (Bonanno & Burton, 2013),
the perceived controllability of negative events did not moderate the
association of coreappraisal, codistraction, coproblem-solving, or
corumination with negative or positive affect. One possible explana-
tion for these findings is that the association between IER strategy
use and affect may be moderated by other contexts, such as perceived
agency in one’s ability to regulate their own emotions. The imple-
mentation of IER (reducing one’s burden of regulating in silo) may
predict adaptive affective outcomes in contexts where one experien-
ces low agency in their ability to regulate independently. To date,
1057
past research has documented that context controllability influences
the adaptiveness of cognitive reappraisal (i.e., cognitive reappraisal is
associated with maladaptive outcomes in more controllable contexts
and adaptive outcomes in less controllable contexts; Haines et al.,
2016; Troy et al., 2013), but it has yet to be examined with other
strategies. Interestingly, these findings may not translate to coreap-
praisal. It is possible that there are differences in the process and out-
comes of intrapersonal emotion regulation versus IER. Alternatively,
the day-to-day controllability of events may have been diluted by the
COVID-19 pandemic, which may be perceived as an uncontrollable
context (Usher et al., 2020). Future research is needed to investigate
whether context sensitivity is unique to intrapersonal emotion regula-
tion strategies (e.g., cognitive reappraisal; Haines et al., 2016; Troy
et al., 2013) or whether it applies to IER in particular contexts only,
including post-COVID-19 pandemic.
Overall, findings from the current study suggest that not all compo-
nents of intrapersonal emotion regulation flexibility predicted the
adaptiveness of IER flexibility in day-to-day life. This may be due, in
part, to the fundamental differences between intrapersonal emotion
regulation and IER. For example, given the dyadic nature of IER, the
type of relationship (e.g., friend vs. romantic partner) may play a role
in predicting the adaptiveness of IER strategies in day-to-day life
(White & Shih, 2012). In addition, the quality of the relationship may
impact the effectiveness of IER. Although this has yet to be investi-
gated with respect to most IER strategies (e.g., coreappraisal, codis-
traction, coproblem-solving), research shows that corumination has
maladaptive consequences in low-quality relationships, but not in
high-quality relationships (Guassi Moreira et al., 2016). Moreover,
individuals may prefer to implement some IER strategies over others,
which could result in a mismatch between the strategy preferred by
the IER receiver and provider. Finally, unlike intrapersonal emotion
regulation, IER is more likely to be a verbal process, which can affect
the way information is processed and its emotional effects (Stanton &
Low, 2012). These are interesting directions for future research that
would allow us to better understand the bounds of adaptive IER
flexibility.
Limitations and Future Directions
There are multiple strengths and limitations of this study. First,
although there are strengths of the daily diary design (e.g., daily
assessments mitigate participant burden), future research could
examine the adaptiveness of IER flexibility on a shorter timescale
using ecological momentary assessment (EMA). EMA would
facilitate the temporal ordering of event occurrence, affect, and
subsequent event-specific emotion regulation that occur in close
proximity. EMA would also facilitate the assessment of multiple
events (of varying valence) each day. Second, the present study
assessed the adaptiveness of IER flexibility based exclusively on
its short-term affective consequences. Long-term longitudinal
designs are needed to elucidate the long-term effects of IER flexi-
bility (e.g., on psychopathology symptoms), which is another indi-
cator of emotion regulation adaptiveness (Aldao et al., 2010).
Third, although this study investigated a breadth of IER strategies,
future research on IER flexibility should incorporate additional
IER strategies as the IER literature expands to elucidate these con-
structs. Seminal to reaching this goal is the establishment of vali-
dated measures of state IER. In the current study, state IER items
were derived from intrapersonal emotion regulation measures or
 1058 BATTAGLINI, RNIC, JAMESON, JOPLING, AND LEMOULT
trait IER questionnaires. It is noteworthy that some IER strategies
(e.g., coreappraisal) are assessed in the past tense, whereas others
(e.g., codistraction) are assessed based on the act of using the strat-
egy. Future research might examine whether differences in the
phrasing of items influences the findings reported here. Fourth, a
considerable strength of this study is the assessment of IER with
others generally, without restricting participants to report on one
type of relationship (e.g., with a romantic partner). This allows a
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.
broader and more thorough assessment of IER as it occurs with
others more generally. Future research may explore whether there
are different affective outcomes of IER flexibility across different
types of relationships.
Taken together, this study informs a notable future direction for
the field of emotion regulation. This is the only study to date to find
that the flexible implementation of IER strategies is important for
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
mitigating negative affect and/or enhancing positive affect. In addi-
tion, we found that some components of IER flexibility, but not
others, were associated with adaptive affective outcomes. As such,
additional research is needed to better understand the components
that determine the day-to-day adaptiveness of IER flexibility, spe-
cifically. Additionally, a strength of this current study is examining
IER flexibility in adults during the COVID-19 pandemic when
emotion regulation may be necessary to manage the consequences
of the pandemic (Restubog et al., 2020; Wen et al., 2021). How-
ever, future research should extend the generalizability of our find-
ings by examining our research aims in other samples (e.g.,
adolescents) and contexts (i.e., beyond the COVID-19 pandemic).
Conclusion
The current study presents a shift in the way IER adaptability is
defined. Based on the findings of the current study, we argue that
there is reason to consider flexibility when assessing IER adaptive-
ness. Applying the two core theoretical models of emotion regula-
tion flexibility (Aldao et al., 2015; Bonanno & Burton, 2013) to the
assessment of IER flexibility, this study found that greater IER strat-
egy repertoire (i.e., categorical, between-strategy variability) and
feedback predicted affective benefits (i.e., less negative affect and/or
more positive affect). However, IER flexibility defined by greater
IER-environmental variability, repertoire (i.e., within-strategy vari-
ability), or context sensitivity was not associated with adaptive
affective outcomes. Findings present a novel view of IER flexibility
and provide the first evidence of flexibility components determining
day-to-day IER adaptiveness. As such, the current study marks the
beginning of an emerging area of investigation that has important
implications for emotion regulation theory and research, as well as
implications for the adaptiveness of social support in the context of
emotion regulation.
References
Aldao, A., Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Schweizer, S. (2010). Emotion-regulation
strategies across psychopathology: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psy-
chology Review, 30(2), 217–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2009.11.004
Aldao, A., Sheppes, G., & Gross, J. J. (2015). Emotion regulation flexibil-
ity. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 39(3), 263–278. https://doi.org/10
.1007/s10608-014-9662-4
Andersen, P. A., Guerrero, L. K., & Jones, S. M. (2006). Nonverbal behav-
ior in intimate interactions and intimate relationships. In V. Manusov &
M. L. Patterson (Eds.), The Sage handbook of nonverbal communication
(pp. 259–278). Sage, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412976152.n14
Austin, P. C., & Steyerberg, E. W. (2015). The number of subjects per
variable required in linear regression analyses. Journal of Clinical Epi-
demiology, 68(6), 627–636. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.12
.014
Bates, M., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear
mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1),
1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
Battaglini, A. (2022, January 12). COVID-19 study – Interpersonal emo-
tion regulation flexibility, daily diary, negative and positive affect. osf
.io/yfz9r
Battaglini, A. M., Rnic, K., Tracy, A., Jopling, E., & LeMoult, J. (2021).
Co-rumination across in-person and digital communication: Associa-
tions with affect and relationship closeness in adolescents. Journal of
Adolescence, 89(1), 161–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence
.2021.04.011
Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery
rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of
the Royal Statistical Society B: Methodological, 57(1), 289–300. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x
Birk, J. L., & Bonanno, G. A. (2016). When to throw the switch: The adap-
tiveness of modifying emotion regulation strategies based on affective
and physiological feedback. Emotion, 16(5), 657–670. https://doi.org/10
.1037/emo0000157
Blanke, E. S., Brose, A., Kalokerinos, E. K., Erbas, Y., Riediger, M., &
Kuppens, P. (2020). Mix it to fix it: Emotion regulation variability in daily
life. Emotion, 20(3), 473–485. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000566
Bolger, N., & Laurenceau, J. P. (2013). Methodology in the social scien-
ces. Intensive longitudinal methods: An introduction to diary and expe-
rience sampling research. Guilford Press.
Bonanno, G. A., & Burton, C. L. (2013). Regulatory flexibility: An indi-
vidual differences perspective on coping and emotion regulation. Per-
spectives on Psychological Science, 8(6), 591–612. https://doi.org/10
.1177/1745691613504116
Chen, S., & Bonanno, G. A. (2021). Components of emotion regulation
flexibility: Linking latent profiles to depressive and anxious symptoms.
Clinical Psychological Science, 9(2), 236–251. https://doi.org/10.1177/
2167702620956972
Christensen, K. A., Seager van Dyk, I., Nelson, S. V., & Vasey, M. W.
(2020). Using multilevel modeling to characterize interpersonal emotion
regulation strategies and psychopathology in female friends. Personality
and Individual Differences, 165, Article 110156. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.paid.2020.110156
Connor-Smith, J. K., Compas, B. E., Wadsworth, M. E., Thomsen, A. H.,
& Saltzman, H. (2000). Responses to stress in adolescence: Measure-
ment of coping and involuntary stress responses. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 68(6), 976–992. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
006X.68.6.976
Cranford, J. A., Shrout, P. E., Iida, M., Rafaeli, E., Yip, T., & Bolger, N.
(2006). A procedure for evaluating sensitivity to within-person change:
Can mood measures in diary studies detect change reliably? Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(7), 917–929. https://doi.org/10
.1177/0146167206287721
Eisenberg, N., Cumberland, A., & Spinrad, T. L. (1998). Parental social-
ization of emotion. Psychological Inquiry, 9(4), 241–273. https://doi
.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0904_1
Eldesouky, L., & English, T. (2018). Another year older, another year
wiser? Emotion regulation strategy selection and flexibility across adult-
hood. Psychology and Aging, 33(4), 572–585. https://doi.org/10.1037/
pag0000251
Gelb, Y. (2013). Co-distraction and co-rumination in the friendships of
undergraduate college students [Doctoral dissertation, Alliant Interna-
tional University]. https://doi.org/10.1037/e586212013-001
 INTERPERSONAL EMOTION REGULATION FLEXIBILITY
Genet, J. J., & Siemer, M. (2012). Rumination moderates the effects of
daily events on negative mood: Results from a diary study. Emotion,
12(6), 1329–1339. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028070
Gross, J. J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integra-
tive review. Review of General Psychology, 2(3), 271–299. https://doi
.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.3.271
Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion
regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-
being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 348–362.
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.348
Guassi Moreira, J. F., Miernicki, M. E., & Telzer, E. H. (2016). Relation-
ship quality buffers association between co-rumination and depressive
symptoms among first year college students. Journal of Youth and Ado-
lescence, 45(3), 484–493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-015-0396-8
Haines, S. J., Gleeson, J., Kuppens, P., Hollenstein, T., Ciarrochi, J.,
Labuschagne, I., Grace, C., & Koval, P. (2016). The wisdom to know
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
the difference: Strategy-situation fit in emotion regulation in daily life is
associated with well-being. Psychological Science, 27(12), 1651–1659.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616669086
Hayes, A. F., & Matthes, J. (2009). Computational procedures for probing
interactions in OLS and logistic regression: SPSS and SAS implementa-
tions. Behavior Research Methods, 41(3), 924–936. https://doi.org/10
.3758/BRM.41.3.924
Horn, A. B., & Maercker, A. (2016). Intra- and interpersonal emotion regu-
lation and adjustment symptoms in couples: The role of co-brooding and
co-reappraisal. BMC Psychology, 4(1), Article 51. https://doi.org/10
.1186/s40359-016-0159-7
Jeffreys, H. (1961). The theory of probability (3rd ed.). Oxford University
Press.
Johnson, P., & Neyman, J. (1936). Tests of certain linear hypotheses and
their applications to some educational problems. Statistical Research
Memoirs, 1, 57–93.
Kashdan, T. B., & Steger, M. F. (2006). Expanding the topography of
social anxiety. An experience-sampling assessment of positive emotions,
positive events, and emotion suppression. Psychological Science, 17(2),
120–128. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01674.x
Kercher, K. (1992). Assessing subjective well-being in the old-old: The
PANAS as a measure of orthogonal dimensions of positive and negative
affect. Research on Aging, 14(2), 131–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0164027592142001
Kircanski, K., Thompson, R. J., Sorenson, J., Sherdell, L., & Gotlib, I. H.
(2015). Rumination and worry in daily life: Examining the naturalistic
validity of theoretical constructs. Clinical Psychological Science, 3(6),
926–939. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702614566603
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2017). lmerT-
est package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical
Software, 82(13), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13
Lakens, D. (2021). Sample size justification. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10
.31234/osf.io/9d3yf
Lazarus, R. S. (1993). Coping theory and research: Past, present, and
future. Psychosomatic Medicine, 55(3), 234–247. https://doi.org/10
.1097/00006842-199305000-00002
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping.
Springer.
Liu, D. Y., Strube, M. J., & Thompson, R. J. (2021). Interpersonal emotion
regulation: An experience sampling study. Affective Science, 2, 273–288.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s42761-021-00044-y
Lougheed, J. P., & Hollenstein, T. (2012). A limited repertoire of emotion
regulation strategies is associated with internalizing problems in adoles-
cence. Social Development, 21(4), 704–721. https://doi.org/10.1111/j
.1467-9507.2012.00663.x
Maas, C. J., & Hox, J. J. (2005). Sufficient sample sizes for multilevel
modeling. Methodology, 1(3), 86–92. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241
.1.3.86
1059
Morey, R. D., & Rouder, J. N. (2011). Bayes factor approaches for testing
interval null hypotheses. Psychological Methods, 16(4), 406–419.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024377
Nicolai, K. A., Laney, T., & Mezulis, A. H. (2013). Different stressors, dif-
ferent strategies, different outcomes: How domain-specific stress
responses differentially predict depressive symptoms among adoles-
cents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(8), 1183–1193. https://doi
.org/10.1007/s10964-012-9866-4
Niven, K., Totterdell, P., & Holman, D. (2009). A classification of con-
trolled interpersonal affect regulation strategies. Emotion, 9(4),
498–509. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015962
R Core Team. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical
computing [Computer software]. https://www.R-project.org/
Restubog, S. L. D., Ocampo, A. C. G., & Wang, L. (2020). Taking control
amidst the chaos: Emotion regulation during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 119, Article 103440. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.jvb.2020.103440
Revelle, W. (2021). psych: Procedures for psychological, psychometric,
and personality research [Computer software]. Northwestern University.
Rose, A. J. (2002). Co-rumination in the friendships of girls and boys.
Child Development, 73(6), 1830–1843. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-
8624.00509
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. https://doi
.org/10.1037/a0037465
Seo, E., & Patall, E. A. (2021). Feeling proud today may lead people to
coast tomorrow: Daily intraindividual associations between emotion and
effort in academic goal striving. Emotion, 21(4), 892–897. https://doi
.org/10.1037/emo0000752
Shahar, B., & Herr, N. R. (2011). Depressive symptoms predict inflexibly
high levels of experiential avoidance in response to daily negative affect:
A daily diary study. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 49(10), 676–681.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2011.07.006
Sheppes, G., Scheibe, S., Suri, G., Radu, P., Blechert, J., & Gross, J. J.
(2014). Emotion regulation choice: A conceptual framework and sup-
porting evidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(1),
163–181. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030831
Shor, E., Roelfs, D. J., & Yogev, T. (2013). The strength of family ties: A
meta-analysis and meta-regression of self-reported social support and
mortality. Social Networks, 35(4), 626–638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.socnet.2013.08.004
Southward, M. W., & Cheavens, J. S. (2020). Quality or quantity? A multi-
study analysis of emotion regulation skills deficits associated with bor-
derline personality disorder. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research,
and Treatment, 11(1), 24–35. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000357
Stanton, A. L., & Low, C. A. (2012). Expressing emotions in stressful con-
texts: Benefits, moderators, and mechanisms. Current Directions in Psy-
chological Science, 21(2), 124–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721
411434978
Stone, L. B., Mennies, R. J., Waller, J. M., Ladouceur, C. D., Forbes,
E. E., Ryan, N. D., Dahl, R. E., & Silk, J. S. (2019). Help me feel better!
Ecological momentary assessment of anxious youths’ emotion regula-
tion with parents and peers. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,
47(2), 313–324. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-018-0454-2
Thompson, R. J., Mata, J., Jaeggi, S. M., Buschkuehl, M., Jonides, J., &
Gotlib, I. H. (2012). The everyday emotional experience of adults with
major depressive disorder: Examining emotional instability, inertia, and
reactivity. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 121(4), 819–829. https://
doi.org/10.1037/a0027978
Troy, A. S., Shallcross, A. J., & Mauss, I. B. (2013). A person-by-situation
approach to emotion regulation: Cognitive reappraisal can either help or
hurt, depending on the context. Psychological Science, 24(12),
2505–2514. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613496434
 1060 BATTAGLINI, RNIC, JAMESON, JOPLING, AND LEMOULT
Usher, K., Jackson, D., Durkin, J., Gyamfi, N., & Bhullar, N. (2020). Pan-
demic-related behaviours and psychological outcomes; A rapid literature
review to explain COVID-19 behaviours. International Journal of Men-
tal Health Nursing, 29(6), 1018–1034. https://doi.org/10.1111/inm
.12790
Valentiner, D. P., Holahan, C. J., & Moos, R. H. (1994). Social support,
appraisals of event controllability, and coping: An integrative model.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(6), 1094–1102.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.66.6.1094
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.
van der Stouwe, E. C. D., Groenewold, N. A., Bos, E. H., de Jonge, P.,
Wichers, M., & Booij, S. H. (2019). How to assess negative affective
reactivity to daily life stress in depressed and nondepressed individuals?
Psychiatry Research, 279, 259–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres
.2019.03.040
Waller, J. M., Silk, J. S., Stone, L. B., & Dahl, R. E. (2014). Co-rumination
and co-problem solving in the daily lives of adolescents with major
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
depressive disorder. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Ado-
lescent Psychiatry, 53(8), 869–878. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2014
.05.004
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and valida-
tion of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063
Wen, J. H., Klaiber, P., DeLongis, A., Slavish, D. C., & Sin, N. L. (2021).
Day-to-day associations between nightly sleep and next-day well-being
amid the COVID-19 pandemic in North America. Sleep Health, 7(6),
666–674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sleh.2021.09.007
Wenzel, M., Blanke, E. S., Rowland, Z., & Kubiak, T. (2021). Emotion
regulation dynamics in daily life: Adaptive strategy use may be vari-
able without being unstable and predictable without being autoregres-
sive. Emotion. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/
emo0000967
White, M. E., & Shih, J. H. (2012). A daily diary study of co-rumination,
stressful life events, and depressed mood in late adolescents. Journal of
Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 41(5), 598–610. https://doi
.org/10.1080/15374416.2012.706518
Zaki, J., & Williams, W. C. (2013). Interpersonal emotion regulation. Emo-
tion, 13(5), 803–810. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033839
Zelic, K. J., Ciesla, J. A., Dickson, K. S., Hruska, L. C., & Ciesla, S. N.
(2017). An experimental investigation of co-rumination, problem solv-
ing, and distraction. Behavior Therapy, 48(3), 403–412. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.beth.2016.11.013
Received July 20, 2021
Revision received April 27, 2022
Accepted May 12, 2022 n