It’s not (really) the medium, it’s the message : interpersonal emotion regulation across in-person and digitally-mediated contexts

Introduction: The field of emotion regulation (ER) has grown exponentially over the past two decades. Yet, the literature to date has largely focused on the independent efforts of an individual in the ER process, and social processes – specifically, interpersonal emotion regulation (IER) – are comparatively understudied. Moreover, given the ubiquity of digital technologies and the ease and convenience with which they afford opportunities for social connection, how these modes of communication may be used for IER is worthy of exploration. The current research utilized an intensive longitudinal design to better understand the extent to which in-person and digitally-mediated methods of communication may be associated with different emotional and social outcomes, as well as the role of IER in this relationship. Methods: A sample of 237 emerging adults completed brief surveys twice daily for seven days. Surveys assessed modes of communication used for IER, specific IER strategies used in the interaction, positive and negative emotions, and satisfaction with responses. Multilevel modeling assessed the association of mode of communication with support satisfaction and emotions. Multilevel mediation assessed whether these relationships could be explained by differences in IER strategies. Results: Compared to in-person communication, those who used an overall greater proportion of digital communication across the study period reported lower satisfaction and higher negative emotions. Positive IER strategies significantly mediated the relationship between mode of communication and socioemotional outcomes, both within time points and on average across the study period. That is, digital (versus in-person) communication was associated with reports of lower satisfaction and positive emotions, and this was explained, in part, by lower levels of positive IER strategies (and specifically, less laughter) in digital interactions. Conclusions: This is the first known study to examine IER over digital and in-person methods of communication, as well as provide context into the reasons why negative outcomes have previously been linked to digital communication. Future research that considers additional within- and between-person factors associated with mode of communication is required. This research additionally highlights the need to examine the burgeoning field of IER as it occurs across diverse methods of communication.Arts and Social Sciences, Irving K. Barber Faculty of (Okanagan)Psychology, Department of (Okanagan)Graduat