A problem shared is a problem halved? On the dyadic nature of emotion regulation

The present dissertation sought to shed light on the paradoxical finding that while most people are strongly inclined to share their emotions with others and perceive this as helpful, it often does not make them feel better in the long run. Whether or not sharing is beneficial in the long run critically depends on the type of support that listeners provide. Generally, two different types of support are distinguished: Listeners may offer socio-affective support, which includes comfort and validation, or cognitive support, which is directed at changing the way the other thinks about the emotional experience. Whereas socio-affective support increases temporary feelings of closeness and perceived benefits, only cognitive support is effective in fostering long-term recovery.
Our studies demonstrate that (1) sharers are strongly motivated to receive socio-affective support, (2) listeners are inclined to provide socio-affective support, though are guided by sharers’ emotional intensity, support needs and situational demands, and (3) sharers may play an active role in eliciting the support that they desire. As such, sharing may come to center around support that alleviates temporary distress and fosters interpersonal closeness, but does not facilitate long-term recovery. Furthermore, we demonstrated that despite sharers’ typical preference for socio-affective support, sharers might be receptive of cognitive support when provided by a virtual human, thereby pointing to a fruitful area for future research. Thus, by revealing a preponderance of socio-affective support provision, the present dissertation provides insight into why sharers typically perceive sharing as beneficial even though it may not engender emotional recovery.