SHAME AND INTERPERSONAL EMOTION REGULATION Page 1

Shame on me for needing you: A multistudy examination of links between receiving

interpersonal emotion regulation and experiencing shame

Benjamin A. Swerdlow, Devon Sandel, Sheri L. Johnson

University of California, Berkeley

Author Note

Benjamin A. Swerdlow, Department of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley. Devon

Sandel, Department of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley. Sheri L. Johnson,

Department of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley.

Support for the lead author’s time was provided by NIMH T32 MH020006-16A1 (PIs: Sheri

Johnson & James Gross). We would like to express our gratitude to Drs. Iris Mauss and Dacher

Keltner for their valuable feedback on earlier drafts of this manuscript. Portions of these data were presented at the 2018 annual meeting of the Society for Affective Science.

Correspondence concerning this article should be sent to Benjamin A. Swerdlow, Department of

Psychology, 2121 Berkeley Way West #1650, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720.

Email can be sent to: [email protected].

This is a preprint of a manuscript that is currently undergoing peer review. Do not cite without

the authors’ permission. SHAME AND INTERPERSONAL EMOTION REGULATION Page 2

Abstract

Recent theory and research have drawn attention to interpersonal dimensions of emotion regulation. Yet, few empirical investigations of the outcomes of interpersonal emotion regulation have been conducted. We propose that one negative affective outcome of received interpersonal emotion regulation of conceptual and practical interest is shame. In the present series of studies, participants from six, disparate samples were asked to report on experiences of receiving interpersonal emotion regulation using autobiographical recall and ecological sampling paradigms (total analyzed n = 1868; total analyzed k = 2515 instances of receiving interpersonal emotion regulation). We sought to quantify the frequency and distinctiveness of shame as an outcome of receiving interpersonal emotion regulation. We used an exploratory-confirmatory approach to identify robust and generalizable correlates of shame. We considered individual

(e.g., trait external shame-proneness), situational (e.g., desire for regulation), relational (e.g., perceived closeness with the provider) and interaction-specific (e.g., perceptions of provider hostility) variables. Our results indicate that it is not uncommon for people to experience receiving interpersonal emotion regulation as shame-inducing, and these perceptions are distinct from their evaluations of the overall effectiveness of the interaction. The most robust correlates of shame across studies and samples were interaction-specific ratings of responsiveness and hostility, which were negatively and positively correlated with shame, respectively. We discuss the conceptual, methodological, and practical implications of these findings for studying interpersonal emotion regulation and shame.

Keywords: interpersonal emotion regulation; shame; shame-proneness SHAME AND INTERPERSONAL EMOTION REGULATION Page 3

Shame on me for needing you: A multistudy examination of the association between receiving

interpersonal emotion regulation and experiences of shame

Imagine the following three scenarios. (1) You ask a close friend for support before a nerve-wracking exam and are bolstered by their expressions of confidence in your abilities. (2)

You consider venting your frustrations to a coworker after a challenging day at work, but you worry that expressing your negative emotions could reflect poorly on you. (3) You approach a loved one for comfort after a loss but are confounded by their dismissiveness. These three scenarios reflect the diversity of experiences of seeking interpersonal emotion regulation, emphasizing not only the potential of interpersonal emotion regulation to convey emotional benefits, but also ways in which it may go awry, yielding negative personal or social outcomes for the provider, the receiver, or both.

Whereas emotion regulation research traditionally has focused on intrapersonal processes

(Campos, Walle, Dahl, & Main, 2011), there is now considerable interest in interpersonal processes involved in emotion regulation (e.g., Dixon-Gordon, Bernecker, & Christensen, 2015;

Netzer, Van Kleef, and Tamir, 2015; Niven, 2017; Zaki & Williams, 2013), consistent with compelling evidence that social and emotional functioning are fundamentally reciprocal (Beckes

& Coan, 2012). One result is the emerging field of interpersonal emotion regulation research, which focuses on the “slice of interpersonal interactions deliberately devoted to influencing one's own (intrinsic) or others’ (extrinsic) emotions” (Dixon-Gordon, Bernecker, & Christensen, 2015, p. 37). In the present study of interpersonal emotion regulation, we focused on experiences of receiving interpersonal emotion regulation of negative emotions. SHAME AND INTERPERSONAL EMOTION REGULATION Page 4

Research indicates that interpersonal emotion regulation is used regularly in everyday life and can effectively downregulate momentary negative affect (e.g., Heiy and Cheavens, 2014;

Levy-Gigi and Shamay-Tsoory, 2017). Interpersonal emotion regulation tendencies also have been linked cross-sectionally to wellbeing and adjustment to stress (e.g., Cheung, Gardner, &

Anderson, 2015; Horn & Maercker, 2016) and cross-sectionally and longitudinally to social connectedness (e.g., Debrot, Schoebi, Perrez, & Horn, 2013; Rose, Carlson, & Waller, 2007;

Williams, Morelli, Ong, & Zaki, 2018).

Potential positive outcomes of receiving interpersonal emotion regulation notwithstanding, interpersonal emotion regulation also entails a host of social and communication challenges compared to intrapersonal emotion regulation efforts. For example, effective interpersonal emotion regulation may depend on communicating one’s emotion regulation goals to another person and the other apprehending those emotion goals and responding accordingly. Katherine Dixon-Gordon and colleagues (2015) discuss such challenges in terms of a transactional process of encoding and decoding. Problems arising during either encoding or decoding could yield negative outcomes.

Prior research has suggested that some manifestations of interpersonal emotion regulation do produce undesirable outcomes. For example, tendencies to engage in co-rumination and co- brooding, which involve dwelling on negative emotions and problems with another person, have been found to be associated with and to predict symptoms and episodes of depression in adolescents (e.g., Rose, Carlson, & Waller, 2007; Spendelow, Simonds, & Avery, 2017; Stone,

Hankin, Gibb, & Abela, 2011) and poorer adjustment to a recent major life stressor in adult romantic couples (Horn & Maercker, 2016). Self-reported tendencies to engage in reassurance- seeking in hypothetical interpersonal emotion scenarios predicted greater self-injury over the SHAME AND INTERPERSONAL EMOTION REGULATION Page 5 course of a two-week daily diary study (Dixon-Gordon, Haliczer, Conkey, & Whalen, 2018).

Among mother-daughter dyads, the combination of high maternal problem-solving and low maternal validation during conflict conversations significantly moderated the relationship between daughters’ negative affect and daughters’ borderline symptoms, such that daughters’ negative affect was only associated with borderline symptoms when maternal problem-solving was high and maternal validation was low (Dixon-Gordon et al., 2017). These findings suggest that some patterns of interpersonal emotion regulation may be associated with greater distress.

One potential specific negative outcome of receiving interpersonal emotion regulation is that of shame. Shame has been conceptualized as a self-conscious, aversive emotion associated with negative attributions about the whole self (e.g., I am a terrible person; Izard, 1971;

Tangney, 1991; Tracy & Robins, 2007). Shame is thought to be triggered by failures to attain standards or ideals, particularly when we simultaneously perceive ourselves as negatively evaluated by others and our role in the social hierarchy as threatened (Gilbert, 2003;

Gruenewald, Kemeny, Aziz, & Fahey, 2004; Tracy & Robins, 2007). For example, shame has been theorized to be elicited by situations in which social rank and power are threatened, potentially motivating submission displays and social withdrawal as a means of appeasement

(Gilbert, 2003; Gruenewald, Kemeny, Aziz, & Fahey, 2004; Martens, Tracy, & Shariff, 2012; but see also de Hooge, Zeelenberg, & Breugelmans, 2010 for an account of how and when shame can motivate approach behavior).

There are compelling conceptual reasons to think that interpersonal emotion regulation could induce shame on the part of the receiver. Seeking interpersonal emotion regulation effectively places the seeker in the role of supplicant, conversely placing the provider in a position of authority to either grant or deny the seeker’s request and thereby producing power SHAME AND INTERPERSONAL EMOTION REGULATION Page 6 asymmetry (Anderson & Berdahl, 2002). At the same time, even the most genuine proffer of interpersonal emotion regulation may convey an implicit message of deficiency or inadequacy.

Consistent with this notion, visible acts of social support can undermine receivers’ self-esteem and self-efficacy precisely because such acts can convey and evoke negative evaluations regarding receivers’ ability to cope and foster concerns about indebtedness (Bolger,

Zuckermann, & Kessler, 2000; Fisher, Nadler, & Whitcher-Alagna, 1982; Gleason, Iida, Bolger,

& Shrout, 2003; Howland & Simpson, 2010; Kirsch & Lehman, 2015; Shrout et al., 2010; Zee &

Bolger, 2019). In summary, we posited that the combination of potential power asymmetry, negative self-evaluations related to one’s own difficulties self-regulating, and the possibility of negative social evaluation could increase the risk of shame in response to attempted interpersonal emotion regulation interactions (Tracy & Robbins, 2007).

At the same time, research on enacted support has suggested that the pernicious effects of visible support can be tempered under some conditions. For example, prior studies have reported fewer negative consequences of visible support when the support provided is responsive (Maisel

& Gable, 2003) and focused on emotional support (vs. practical support; Bolger & Amarel,

2007), when the intensity of receivers’ distress is high (Girme, Overall, & Simpson, 2013), and when receivers are less concerned about negative social evaluation (Feeney, Van Vleet,

Jakubiak, & Tomlinson, 2017; Kirsch & Lehman, 2015; Zee & Bolger, 2019; Zee et al., 2018).

In other words, it is important to consider not only whether receiving (visible) interpersonal emotion regulation is liable to induce shame, but also the individual and interaction-specific differences that are associated with tendencies to experience receiving interpersonal regulation as shameful. SHAME AND INTERPERSONAL EMOTION REGULATION Page 7

In fact, a number of individual and situational factors are thought to shape propensities toward shame and outcomes of potentially shame-inducing interactions. With respect to individual differences, people vary not only in their propensity to experience shame (shame proneness; e.g., Cohen, Wolf, Panter, & Insko, 2011), but also in the degree to which they experience shame as a painful emotion (shame aversion; e.g., Schoenleber & Berenbaum, 2010).

Individuals who are more prone to experience shame in the context of interpersonal emotion regulation interactions and who experience shame as more painful might be more motivated to avoid interpersonal emotion regulation interactions in anticipation of experiences of shame or to alter their behavior during interpersonal emotion regulation interactions (e.g., attempting to reduce the likelihood of negative social evaluation by minimizing disclosure). Outcomes of shameful experiences may also vary based on situational factors, such as repairability. For example, a moral transgression perceived as repairable might prompt efforts toward self- improvement or apology, whereas a transgression perceived as irreparable might induce feelings of inferiority or despair (Gausel & Leach, 2011).

More generally, functionalist perspectives emphasize that shame can alert us when our behavior threatens our self-image or social image and can motivate us to change our behavior to repair our self-image or maintain our social relationships (Cibich, Woodyatt, & Wenzel, 2016;

Ferguson, 2005; de Hooge, 2014). Shame, then, may fulfill evolutionarily adaptive functions, such as reducing social conflict and motivating behavioral repairs. On the other hand, to the extent that people experience interpersonal emotion regulation interactions as shame-inducing, they might be motivated to avoid these potentially helpful interactions or they might inadvertently compromise the helpfulness of those interactions (e.g., by being overly focused on SHAME AND INTERPERSONAL EMOTION REGULATION Page 8 impression management). In this sense, experiences of shame and shame-proneness may be important barriers in the context of interpersonal help-seeking.

Indeed, theory and empirical research suggest that repetitive or excessive experiences of shame are associated with a multitude of negative psychological, behavioral, and health outcomes (e.g., Gilbert et al., 2010; Gilbert & Irons, 2009; Hastings, Northman, & Tangney,

2002; Tangney, 2001; Velotti, Elison, & Garofalo, 2014; Velotti, Garofalo, Bottazzi, & Caretti,

2016). For example, in longitudinal studies, proneness to general or domain-specific shame predicts more intrusive recollections of sexual abuse (Feiring & Taska, 2005); higher rates of recidivism (Hosser, Widzio, & Greve, 2008); decreased prosocial behavior and increased risky behavior (Roos, Hodges, & Salmivalli, 2014; Stuewig et al., 2015); increased symptoms of anorexia (Troop & Redshaw, 2012), depression (Andrews, Qian, & Valentine, 2010; Carrera &

Wei, 2017; Mills et al., 2015), and PTSD (Andrews, Brewin, Rose, & Kirk, 2000); increased hostility (Heaven, Ciarrochi, & Leeson, 2009); and greater risk for self-injury (Brown et al.,

2009). Laboratory experiments have suggested that shame inductions can prompt overeating, aggression, and suicidal urges (Cameron, Shea, & Randall, 2020; Chao, Yang, & Chiou, 2012;

Thomaes, Bushman, Stegge, Olthof, 2008) and is relevant to disease-related processes, such as cortisol reactivity (Dickerson, Gruenewald, & Kemeny, 2004). Of more direct relevance to interpersonal emotion regulation, shame has been identified empirically as a major deterrent to help-seeking both cross-sectionally and longitudinally, specifically in the context of mental health service receipt (e.g., Forsell, 2006; Glazier, Wetterneck, Singh, & Williams, 2015; Rüsch et al., 2014).

The Present Studies SHAME AND INTERPERSONAL EMOTION REGULATION Page 9

Building on extant theory and findings in the literatures on interpersonal emotion regulation, shame, and social support, we conducted a series of studies to investigate experiences of shame in the context of intrinsic interpersonal emotion regulation interactions. To do so, we examined receivers’ reports of attempted support transactions in which another person tried to help them change how they were feeling (Swerdlow & Johnson, 2020). Such interactions are, by definition, acts of visible support, as participants are asked to report on interactions in which another person tried to help them (Zee & Bolger, 2019), but with an emphasis on interactants’ emotion regulatory motives (Zaki & Williams, 2013). Our focus on this slice of interpersonal regulation interactions thus bridges the emerging emphasis in the social support literature on understanding how social support transactions do or do not meet receivers’ self-regulatory needs

(see Zee, Bolger, & Higgins, 2020) with the broader interpersonal emotion regulation literature.

Our first aim was to examine how often and how intensely people experience shame as an outcome of receiving interpersonal emotion regulation. Our second aim was to evaluate whether shame is merely a byproduct of ineffective or unhelpful interactions, or whether shame is liable to arise even when an interaction is perceived as helpful overall—that is, whether shame can be distinguished as an outcome from the self-reported effectiveness of the interaction in reducing negative affect.

In line with calls to more fully incorporate context into the study of emotion regulation

(e.g., Aldao, 2013), we view it as essential to capture the inherent complexity of the social ecology in which experiences of shame are situated. More specifically, we conceptualized four units of analysis as critical to the development of a comprehensive model of shame in the context of interpersonal emotion regulation. These were: (1) the receiver’s global emotion-relevant traits, such as negative affectivity, shame-proneness, difficulties accepting negative emotions, SHAME AND INTERPERSONAL EMOTION REGULATION Page 10 tendencies to suppress expressions of emotion, and emotion beliefs; (2) the relationship between the receiver and the provider, such as the type of relationship and perceived closeness; (3) the qualities of the emotion that the receiver brings into the interaction, such as emotional intensity, desire for interpersonal regulation, and the predominant discrete emotion; and (4) the receiver’s experiences of the provider’s behavior during the attempted interpersonal emotion regulation interaction, such as perceived responsiveness and hostility. In this way, we tested a multivariate model that accounted for features of the individual, the relationship, the situation, and the interaction. We selected indicators within each unit of analysis to capture potentially important correlates of shame based on the shame, close relationships, and social support literatures.

Broadly, our third core aim was to evaluate which features mattered above and beyond individual differences in receivers’ negative affectivity for predicting shame arising in the context of interpersonal emotion regulation interactions.

More specifically, we hypothesized that shame responses to receiving interpersonal emotion regulation would be more likely to arise: in individuals who were prone to negative affectivity and shame; who tend to judge themselves for experiencing distress and suppress outward expressions of emotion; in the context of less close relationships; in situations that were characterized by intense emotions; and in interactions with regulation providers who were perceived as more hostile and less responsive.

In sum, we were interested in the frequency, intensity, distinctiveness, and concomitants of shame responses to receiving interpersonal emotion regulation. To address these questions, we collected data on six samples (ns = 90-946). In Study 1, we report the results of an exploratory investigation of autobiographically recalled interpersonal emotion regulation interactions in a large sample of undergraduates and a smaller online adult sample. In Study 2, we attempted to SHAME AND INTERPERSONAL EMOTION REGULATION Page 11 replicate and extend key findings from Study 1 in a second undergraduate sample and a community sample of adults seeking treatment for emotionally impulsive anger and aggression.

In Study 3, we examined our model in daily life using a nightly diary paradigm in a sample of undergraduates and an ecological momentary assessment (EMA) paradigm in a community sample of committed, cohabiting romantic couples.

Study 1

In Study 1, our first goal was to estimate the proportion of visible attempted interpersonal emotion regulation interactions that resulted in shame. Our second goal was to ascertain whether shame ratings could be adequately separated from ratings of the overall helpfulness of interpersonal emotion regulation interactions—that is, whether shame was merely a byproduct of globally unhelpful interactions or whether shame was a distinct outcome in its own right. Our third goal was exploratory: to evaluate which features of the relationship, the situation, and the interaction were uniquely related to shame, so that these features could be included in subsequent, confirmatory studies. To accomplish these goals, participants were asked to describe a recent instance of receiving interpersonal emotion regulation (Swerdlow & Johnson, 2020).

Participants answered a series of probes about this experience, including an item about experiencing shame as a result of receiving interpersonal emotion regulation.

In this initial foray, we adopted a data-driven approach to identifying correlates of shame- ratings that contributed robust, unique variance. We began with a relatively large number of conceptually plausible candidate regressors representing various dimensions of the situation, the relationship, and the interaction, and we sought to identify associations that would be most likely to replicate out-of-sample. SHAME AND INTERPERSONAL EMOTION REGULATION Page 12

Two separate samples were analyzed for this study. In both cases, data collection was specifically geared toward understanding experiences of interpersonal emotion regulation: first, in a sample of college students (Sample 1) and, second, in an online community sample of adults

(Sample 2). Analysis of these two samples allowed us to probe the generalizability of our results.

Method

Participants.

Participants in Sample 1 were 946 undergraduates (67% female; 47.8% Asian/Asian

American, 27.2% Caucasian/White, 10.2% Hispanic/Latinx, 7.7% multiple ethnicities, 4.9%

Middle Eastern, 1.7% Black, 0.1% Native American, 0.1% other ethnicity, 0.3% declined to state ethnicity; Mage = 20, SDage = 3.5) at a large public university who participated in exchange for partial course credit. Participants in all samples were required to be 18 years of age or older and able to read and write fluently in English. Exclusions for incompleteness and careless responding

(e.g., failing to correctly respond to at least 80% of attention check items) resulted in a final analyzable sample of 898 participants.

Participants in Sample 2 were 217 adult volunteers recruited online from caregiving and support websites (62.7% female; 51.9% Caucasian/White, 11.8% Asian/Asian American, 9.9%

Hispanic/Latinx, 9% Black, 6.3% decline to state ethnicity, 5.6% multiple ethnicities, 2.8% other ethnicity, 1.9% Middle Eastern; Mage = 24.5, SDage = 9.7). Exclusions resulted in a final analyzable sample of 199 participants.

Procedures and measures. Participants completed all study procedures, including informed consent, online on Qualtrics. Procedures for all studies were approved by the university

Institutional Review Board before data collection. SHAME AND INTERPERSONAL EMOTION REGULATION Page 13

Participants in both samples were asked to complete an autobiographical recall procedure in which they were asked to remember and describe a recent instance of receiving interpersonal emotion regulation, as detailed elsewhere (Swerdlow & Johnson, 2020). Then, they were asked about situational, relationship and interaction features and outcomes of that interaction, as described next.

Situational variables. Participants were asked to indicate their perception of the significance of the event that prompted them to receive interpersonal regulation on a 5-point scale from “not at all significant” to “very significant”; their desire for interpersonal regulation on a 5-point scale from “definitely did not want” to “definitely wanted”; whether or not they sought out interpersonal emotion regulation (a dummy-coded binary variable; 0 = No, 1 = Yes); and the intensity of their affect immediately before receiving interpersonal regulation on a 5- point scale ranging from “not at all intense” to “very intense.”

Relationship variables. Participants were asked to respond to three items regarding their relationship with the person who attempted to provide them with interpersonal emotion regulation. Participants were asked to select from whom they received interpersonal regulation: spouse/romantic partner, parent, sibling, other family member, close friend, acquaintance, therapist or counselor, or other. Of these categories, only three were adequately represented (bin size ≥ 50) for inclusion in analyses: spouse/romantic partner, parent, and close friend. Next, participants were asked to indicate how close they are with this person on a five-point scale ranging from “not at all close” to “very close” and how often they receive interpersonal regulation from this person on a five-point scale from “almost never” to “all the time.”

Interaction variables. Participants completed the 28-item Interpersonal Regulation

Interaction Scale (IRIS; Swerdlow & Johnson, in press). The IRIS measures four correlated, but SHAME AND INTERPERSONAL EMOTION REGULATION Page 14 factor-analytically distinct facets of the recalled interpersonal regulation interaction: responsiveness (e.g., “They understood my feelings”), hostility (e.g., “They ignored or invalidated my feelings”), cognitive support (e.g., “They suggested alternative interpretations of the situation”), and physical presence (e.g., “They let me know that they were physically present with me”). Participants were asked to respond to each item on a 9-point scale from “they didn’t do this at all” to “they did a lot of this.” IRIS scores have been shown to be correlated with receivers’ perceptions of the benefits of received interpersonal regulation across undergraduate, community, and clinical samples and to be associated with, but distinct from receivers’ individual differences in related socioemotional domains (Swerdlow & Johnson, in press). In the current samples, reliabilities were good for responsiveness (α = .91 and .93), hostility (α = .87 and .91), and cognitive support (α = .83 and .87), and fair-to-good for physical presence (α = .83 and .79).

Beyond the IRIS, participants were asked two items about their contributions to the interaction, in line with transactional models of interpersonal emotion regulation (Dixon-Gordon,

Bernecker, & Christensen, 2015). More specifically, they were asked to indicate the extent to which they had a clear sense of what they wanted the provider to do or say on a 5-point scale from “not at all clear” to “very clear,” as well as how direct they were in communicating these desires to the provider on a 5-point scale from “not at all direct” to “very direct.”

Outcomes of receiving interpersonal emotion regulation. Participants were asked to indicate the overall helpfulness of the interaction on a 9-point bipolar scale from “very unhelpful” to “very helpful.” Participants were then asked to indicate the degree to which they felt ashamed as a result of receiving interpersonal regulation on a 5-point scale from “not at all ashamed” to “very ashamed.” SHAME AND INTERPERSONAL EMOTION REGULATION Page 15

Means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations of these variables are reported in

Table 1.

Data Analysis. We anticipated that our regressors might be systematically inter- correlated within and across levels of analysis. For example, participants might be more likely to perceive an interpersonal regulation provider as comparatively harsh if the regulation was unsolicited (e.g., Van Swol, MacGeorge, & Prahl, 2017). Such confounding inter-correlations can present a major challenge to traditional OLS model selection, estimation, and interpretation because they increase uncertainty (i.e., variance) in parameter estimates (Greenland, 2008).

Therefore, we employed regularized elastic net regression to minimize overfitting and identify shame correlates that were most likely to be replicable out-of-sample (Greenland, 2008; Zou &

Hastie, 2005). Elastic net regression is a hybrid of ridge and lasso regression that imposes a downward bias on parameter estimates (a “shrinkage” penalty) to reduce variance. Like lasso regression, but unlike ridge regression, elastic net regression possesses the desired feature of performing data-driven variable selection by setting the weights for variables that do not contribute significant predictive power to zero (Zou & Hastie, 2005). For these reasons, elastic net regression is a particularly appropriate choice for cases in which there are systematic correlations among regressors and in which the ratio of sample size to regressors is low. In the current study, a model of shame ratings was estimated on a training subset of a moderately large sample of undergraduates, and the replicability and generalizability of that model was subsequently estimated using both a holdout testing data subset and a smaller, independently collected dataset.

Power considerations. Notwithstanding the practical and statistical advantages of elastic net regression, one drawback is that it is challenging to conduct a traditional a priori power SHAME AND INTERPERSONAL EMOTION REGULATION Page 16 analysis. To do so would require estimating a priori not only the relevant effect sizes and variances, but also the covariances (i.e., the extent of multicollinearity among the regressors) and the values of the hyperparameters, alpha and lambda, which was not feasible in the context of this exploratory study. Moreover, although elastic net regression can be applied even to cases in which the number of regressors exceeds the sample size (i.e., n < p), the quality of the resulting estimates does still increase as a function of the sample size. For these reasons, our decision- making was guided primarily by pragmatic considerations, in that we collected the largest possible sample given our financial and temporal constraints as opposed to setting a target sample size a priori. We did, however, compute the minimum detectable effect size using the simpler—and less powerful—framework of OLS regression (n = 718, 2-tailed, α = .05, 95% power) after the sample was collected, but before the regularized regression analyses were conducted. This analysis indicated that we were adequately powered to detect relatively modest effects (r = .13)—albeit this did not take into account multicollinearity, which was part of our rationale for using elastic net regression.

All analyses for this study and subsequent studies were conducted in R version 3.5.1 (R

Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria). Elastic net regularized regression was implemented using the glmnet (Friedman, Hastie, & Tibshirani, 2010) and caret (Kuhn, 2008) packages.

Results

Intensity of shame. The modal response to the shame probe was 1 [Not at all ashamed]

(M = 1.81, SD = 1.04) in Sample 1 and 2 [A little ashamed] (M = 2.18, SD = 1.29) in Sample 2 on the 5-point shame scale, indicating that many of the interpersonal emotion regulation interactions were not experienced as more than mildly shame-inducing. In roughly a fifth SHAME AND INTERPERSONAL EMOTION REGULATION Page 17

(20.9%) of interpersonal emotion regulation interactions in Sample 1 and a third of (33.6%) of interactions in Sample 2, however, participants reported experiencing at least moderate levels (≥

3 out of 5) of shame as a result of the interaction. Before subsequent analyses, shame ratings were Box-Cox transformed to address non-normality; however, all results were substantively identical for the untransformed variable.

Distinctiveness of shame. The average interaction was reported to be somewhat helpful overall in both samples (Ms = 7.15 and 7.25, SDs = 1.86 and 1.87, respectively on the 9-point scale). Shame ratings were moderately associated with lower helpfulness ratings in Sample 1 (r =

-.34, p < .001) and modestly associated with lower helpfulness ratings in Sample 2 (r = -.20, p

= .01) in Sample 2.

Multivariate model of shame. We divided Sample 1 into a training set and a testing set using an 80:20 split (Guyon, 1996). Before testing core units of analyses, we considered potential demographic confounds in relation to shame. Gender (r = .06, p = .07), age (r = -.001, p = .97), and ethnicity F(3, 807) = .20, p = .89 were not significantly associated with shame in the training sample.

Next, we specified a linear model with shame ratings as the dependent variable and the situational, relationship, and interaction features as simultaneous independent variables. Then, we tuned the parameters for an elastic net in the training sample using 10-fold repeated cross- validation. The root mean standard error (RMSE) and mean absolute error (MAE) were minimized when the mixing parameter, alpha, was set to .55 and the shrinkage parameter, lambda, was set to .006 (see Zou & Hastie, 2005).

The results of the elastic net regularized regression were as follows. 7 regressors were not selected for inclusion (i.e., did not survive shrinkage) in the final model. These were: 1) SHAME AND INTERPERSONAL EMOTION REGULATION Page 18 significance of the event that prompted receipt of interpersonal regulation, 2) whether support was sought, 3) frequency of receiving interpersonal emotion regulation from the provider, 4) parent vs. all other relationship types, 5) close friend vs. all other relationship types, 6) receiver clarity, and 7) physical presence. In contrast, 8 regressors survived shrinkage: 1) emotional intensity before receiving regulation and 2) provider hostility were positively correlated with shame ratings, whereas 3) desire for interpersonal regulation, 4) significant other vs. all other relationship types, 5) relationship closeness, 6) receiver directness, 7) provider responsiveness, and 8) provider cognitive support were negatively correlated with shame ratings.

Finally, we evaluated in-sample and out-of-sample performance for the final model.

More specifically, we used the model predictions to calculate r-squared values for the training sample (Sample 1), the holdout testing sample (Sample 1), and the independent sample (Sample

2) to evaluate replicability and generalizability. The final model accounted for comparable variance in the holdout sample (r-squared = .19) as it did in the training sample (r-squared

= .21), indicating that in-sample model performance was not merely an artifact of overfitting. As would be expected, however, model fit was modestly poorer in the independent sample (r- squared = .14), indicating substantive, but imperfect generalization of estimated model weights to the novel sample.

Discussion

In Study 1, we conducted an exploratory investigation of experiences of shame in the context of attempted interpersonal emotion regulation interactions using an autobiographical recall paradigm. Consistent with our expectations, across two samples, experiences of shame were a not-uncommon product of receiving interpersonal emotion regulation. Shame ratings were, moreover, found to be substantially separable from receivers’ evaluations of the overall SHAME AND INTERPERSONAL EMOTION REGULATION Page 19 helpfulness of the interaction. That is, although participants were systematically more likely to report experiencing shame as a result of unhelpful than helpful interactions, helpfulness and shame-ratings were only modestly correlated. In other words, received interpersonal regulation can simultaneously be experienced as helpful and shame-inducing.

Crucially, the results of Study 1 affirmed that multiple features of the situation (e.g., emotional intensity and desire for interpersonal regulation), the relationship (e.g., perceived closeness), and the interaction (e.g., perceptions of provider responsiveness, hostility, and cognitive support; receiver directness) each contributed unique variance in a regularized regression model of shame-ratings. This finding reinforces the importance of considering each of these domains simultaneously to understand the outcomes of interpersonal regulation transactions.

Study 2

The results of Study 1 provided support for key hypotheses. As previously noted, however, individuals vary considerably in their trait-like propensity to experience shame (Cohen,

Wolf, Panter, & Insko, 2011; Goss, Gilbert, & Allan, 1994). This and other individual differences may influence our key outcome of experiencing shame as a result of receiving interpersonal emotion regulation either directly or indirectly, including via associations with the interaction-specific features identified in Study 1. For example, people who are more prone to shame might be less likely to desire interpersonal regulation, less direct in expressing their needs, or more liable to experience regulation providers as harsh or critical. Therefore, core aims of

Study 2 were: 1) to identify the extent to which such individual differences account for variability in shame ratings in response to receiving interpersonal emotion regulation and 2) to consider whether features of the situation, relationship, and interaction continue to account for SHAME AND INTERPERSONAL EMOTION REGULATION Page 20 significant variability in shame ratings after accounting for these individual differences. In addition, in light of the exploratory nature of Study 1, it was essential to conduct confirmatory studies. In Study 2, therefore, we sought to replicate key findings from Study 1 and to extend the model of shame to incorporate individual differences.

Participants in Study 2 completed the autobiographical recall procedure used in Study 1, completed probes to cover the contextual and interaction variables that were significant in Study

1, and additionally completed individual difference measures. We did not gather data on relationship qualities of the interaction in Study 2, as only one relationship variable (significant other vs. other relationship) demonstrated robust effects in Study 1. As before, we collected data from two independent samples to allow us to probe the replicability and generalizability of findings in Study 2. More specifically, we recruited both a second undergraduate sample who completed a study designed to probe experiences of interpersonal emotion regulation (Sample 3) and a community sample of adults who were seeking treatment for problems with emotionally impulsive anger and aggression (Sample 4).

Method

Participants. Participants in Sample 3 were 404 undergraduates (60.7% female; 46.9%

Asian/Asian American, 21% Caucasian/White, 12.6% Hispanic/Latinx, 7.9% multiple ethnicities, 4.6% declined to state ethnicity, 3.3% Middle Eastern, 2.8% Black, 0.3% Native

American, 0.5% other ethnicity; Mage = 20, SDage = 3.3) recruited from the same university as

Sample 1. Data from 14 participants were eliminated from analyses due to incompleteness or careless responding, resulting in 390 valid cases for analyses.

Participants in Sample 4 were 227 adults (75.1% female; 57.7% Caucasian/White, 18.4%

Black, 10.9% Asian/Asian American, 8% Hispanic/Latinx, 3.5% multiple ethnicities, 1% Middle SHAME AND INTERPERSONAL EMOTION REGULATION Page 21

Eastern, 0.5% other ethnicity; Mage = 37.5, SDage = 12.2) who enrolled in a study testing an online intervention for problematic anger and aggression occurring in the presence of emotion-related impulsivity (Johnson et al., 2020). Data from 26 participants were eliminated due to incompleteness or careless responding, resulting in 201 valid cases for analyses.

Procedures and measures. In addition to the autobiographical recall procedure and contextual and interaction probes used in Study 1, participants completed the following individual difference measures, which differed between samples.

Negative affectivity. Participants in the undergraduate sample were asked to complete the

Neuroticism subscale of the Big Five Inventory (BFI-N; John, Donahue, & Kentle, 1991), and those in the treatment-seeking sample were asked to complete the NEO Five Factor Inventory

Neuroticism subscale (NEO-N; Costa & McCrae, 1992). The BFI and the NEO are two of the most widely used and well-validated measures of the established Big Five personality dimensions, and scores on the NEO-N and BFI-N are highly correlated with one another

(Rammstedt & John, 2007) and with average daily experiences of negative affect (Miller,

Vachon, & Lynam, 2009). Although neuroticism encompasses multiple distinct facets of negative affectivity, self-reported trait neuroticism is correlated with measures of shame- proneness (e.g., Cohen, Wolf, Panter, & Insko, 2011; Harder & Greenwald, 1999; Woien, Ernst,

Patock-Peckham, & Nagoshi, 2003) and shame-aversion (Manjrekar, Schoenleber, & Mu, 2013;

Schoenleber & Berenbaum, 2010). For both scales, respondents were asked to respond to items on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”). Internal consistency was good for the BFI-N and NEO-N in the current samples (α = .85 and .80, respectively). SHAME AND INTERPERSONAL EMOTION REGULATION Page 22

Expressive suppression. Participants in the undergraduate sample, but not the treatment- seeking sample, were asked to complete the Expressive Suppression subscale of the Emotion

Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ; Gross & John, 2003). The Expressive Suppression subscale measures tendencies to regulate emotions by inhibiting outward expressions of emotion (e.g., “I keep my emotions to myself”). Respondents are asked to rate each item on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 7 (“strongly agree”). Prior research indicates that individuals who report greater expressive suppression tendencies are less apt to seek out interpersonal regulation and tend to view interpersonal regulation as less effective (Williams et al., 2018), consistent with motivations to conceal feelings from others (Richards, 2004; Veilleux et al., 2020). Internal consistency was good (α = .81) in the current study.

Non-acceptance of negative emotions. Participants in the undergraduate sample, but not the treatment-seeking sample, completed the 6-item Nonacceptance subscale of the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS; Gratz & Roemer, 2004). Respondents were asked to indicate how frequently they experience heightened self-consciousness and self-criticism in the context of distress (e.g., “When I’m upset, I feel ashamed at myself for feeling that way”) on a five-point scale (1 = “almost never [0-10%]”, 5 = “almost always [91-100%]”). As such, the

Nonacceptance subscale was included is a measure of domain-specific (i.e., in the context of distress) internal shame-proneness. The Nonacceptance subscale demonstrated good reliability in the current sample (α = .89).

External shame-proneness. Participants in the treatment-seeking sample, but not the undergraduate sample, were asked to complete the Other as Shamer scale (OAS; Goss, Gilbert,

& Allan, 1994) as a measure of external shame-proneness. The OAS consists of 18 items related to expectations and beliefs about others’ negative evaluations of the self (e.g., “I feel other SHAME AND INTERPERSONAL EMOTION REGULATION Page 23 people see me as not good enough”) that are rated on a 5-point scale from 0 (“never”) to 4

(“almost always”). Reliability was excellent in the current sample (α = .95).

Means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations among these individual difference measures are reported in Table 2.

Power considerations. The target sample size for Sample 4 was based on planned analyses of treatment effects, not on the present analyses. Therefore, we conducted a sensitivity power analysis in G*Power to determine the minimum detectable effect given an analyzable sample of 201 participants (alpha = .05, power = .95). This sensitivity analysis indicated that we were well-powered to detect effects of partial r = .24 in the context of our planned multiple regression analyses in Sample 5.

Results

Intensity of shame. We began by examining descriptive statistics for our shame ratings.

In the undergraduate sample, the modal response to the shame probe was 1 [Not at all ashamed]

(M = 1.86, SD = 1.07 on the 5-point scale). In the treatment-seeking sample, the modal response was 2 [A little ashamed] (M = 2.07, SD = 1.18). Consistent with findings of Study 1, in roughly a quarter (25.9%) and a third (32.4%) of interpersonal emotion regulation interactions, respectively, participants in Samples 3 and 4 reported experiencing at least moderate levels (≥ 3 out of 5) of shame as a result of having received interpersonal regulation. As before, shame ratings were Box-Cox transformed; however, all results were substantively identical for the untransformed variable.

Distinctiveness of shame. The average interaction was reported to be somewhat helpful overall in Sample 3 (M = 7.34, SD = 1.50 on the 9-point scale), but only a little helpful overall in

Sample 4 (M = 6.30, SD = 2.25). Shame was moderately associated with lower helpfulness in SHAME AND INTERPERSONAL EMOTION REGULATION Page 24

Sample 3 (r = -.38, p < .001) and more modestly associated with lower helpfulness in Sample 4

(r = -.23, p = .002).

Multivariate model of shame. Because individual difference measures differed by sample, we constructed two parallel hierarchical multiple linear regression models for Samples 3 and 4. In both, we entered the individual difference measures in the first block, followed by the situational and interaction features that were selected in the final model of Study 1. Finally, we performed direct comparisons of the models that only included individual difference measures to those that included both individual differences and interaction-specific variables.

As shown in Table 3, trait negative affectivity did not contribute unique variance to models of shame ratings in either model, but the more specific individual difference measures of nonacceptance of negative emotions and expressive suppression (Sample 3) and external shame- proneness (Sample 4) did. Overall, these individual differences models accounted for roughly

17% and 7% of the variance in shame-ratings (adjusted r-squared).

Larger effects were observed for the more proximal, interaction features added in block two. In the undergraduate sample, nonacceptance, but not expressive suppression, survived in block two. In addition, emotional intensity, desire for interpersonal regulation, responsiveness, and hostility each contributed unique variance. Overall, the full model accounted for approximately 31% of the variance (adjusted r-squared) in shame ratings in Sample 3.

In the treatment-seeking sample, only responsiveness and hostility contributed unique variance in the full model, but the model accounted for approximately 39% of the variance. As expected, in both samples, the models that incorporated interaction features significantly outperformed the models that only included individual difference (model comparison ps < .001).

Discussion SHAME AND INTERPERSONAL EMOTION REGULATION Page 25

The pattern of findings that emerged in Study 2 was similar, but not identical, to the results of Study 1. First, consistent with those of Study 1, although most participants in both samples did not endorse shame as a result of having received interpersonal emotion regulation, a sizable minority of interactions were associated with moderate or greater shame, and shame ratings were only loosely associated with ratings of the overall perceived helpfulness of the interactions.

With regard to correlates of shame ratings, we first examined models that considered a small number of candidate individual differences. As one would expect, traits that were more directly relevant to experiencing shame in the context of receiving interpersonal emotion regulation contributed unique variance in these models, whereas overarching trait negative affectivity did not. In other words, without considering any specifics of the interaction, participants who reported a preference for concealing their feelings from others (as measured by use of expressive suppression), who tend to perceive others as judgmental (as measured by external shame proneness), or who tend to engage in self-conscious self-criticism when they experience distress (as measured by nonacceptance of negative emotions) tended to have higher shame ratings than participants with lower scores on these measures. Overall, however, these individual differences accounted for a relatively modest proportion of the variance in shame ratings.

Finally, we considered individual differences and interaction-specific differences simultaneously, focusing on dimensions of interaction-specific differences that emerged as robust correlates of shame ratings in Study 1. Perceptions of responsiveness and hostility emerged as significant regressors in both the undergraduate and treatment-seeking samples, extending the findings from Study 1 to show that these were predictive above and beyond SHAME AND INTERPERSONAL EMOTION REGULATION Page 26 individual difference measures. In the undergraduate sample, but not the treatment-seeking sample, emotional intensity before receiving interpersonal regulation and desire for interpersonal regulation likewise emerged as significant regressors. With the exception of nonacceptance, none of the other individual difference measures survived the inclusion of these interaction-specific differences. One possibility, then, is that the relationships between these individual differences and shame ratings may be mediated in part by more proximal features such as perceptions of provider responsiveness and hostility.

Study 3

Studies 1 and 2 provided converging evidence that interpersonal emotion regulation interactions are often experienced as shame-inducing and that multiple features of those interactions, but especially perceptions of provider responsiveness and hostility, track with receivers’ shame ratings. In both Studies 1 and 2, however, participants were asked to recall a single instance of having received interpersonal emotion regulation. This approach was practically useful in that it allowed us to collect data on a large sample to identify robust correlates of shame. Two important limitations of this approach, however, are that: 1) as events recede into the past, recall and hindsight biases play an increasingly powerful role in shaping which interactions are retrieved and how those interactions are recalled and 2) it does not permit an analysis of within- and between-participant variability in shame-ratings. This leaves open the twin possibilities that some participants (but not others) may have been motivated to recall shame-inducing interactions and that, with respect to the phenomenology of shame, some people may always tend to experience receiving interpersonal regulation as highly shame-inducing, whereas others may tend never to do so. In contrast, repeated measures ecological sampling techniques have the relative advantages of 1) collecting more temporally proximal self-report SHAME AND INTERPERSONAL EMOTION REGULATION Page 27 and 2) permitting a more nuanced parsing of within- and between-person sources of variance.

Therefore, in Study 3, we extended our research on shame and interpersonal emotion regulation into daily life in two additional samples: an undergraduate sample (Sample 5) and a community sample of adults who were in cohabiting, committed romantic relationships (Sample 6). In both cases, the purpose of these data collection efforts was to understand experiences of interpersonal emotion regulation.

Participants in both samples completed baseline measures of individual differences.

Participants in Sample 5 were then asked to complete a three-week daily diary recording instances of receiving interpersonal emotion regulation from anyone during the past day.

Participants in Sample 6 were then asked to complete an eight-day EMA study in which they were instructed to report on instances of receiving interpersonal emotion regulation from their significant other since the last prompt.

Method

Participants. Participants in Sample 5 were 90 undergraduates (62% female, 47.4%

Asian/Asian American, 24.5% Caucasian/White, 11.6% Hispanic/Latinx, 7.8% multiple ethnicities, 4.4% Middle Eastern, 2.2% Black, 0.3% Native American, 0.5% other ethnicity,

1.3% declined to state ethnicity; Mage = 20, SDage = 3.5, M Age = 21.6, SD Age = 5.6) enrolled at a large public university who participated in exchange for partial course credit. Participants were required to have regular access to a smartphone to complete the diaries. Thirteen participants were excluded from analyses because they did not report any instances of interpersonal emotion regulation in the three-week observation window or due to incompleteness, yielding 77 valid participants for analyses. On average, participants completed 15 (71%) nightly diaries and SHAME AND INTERPERSONAL EMOTION REGULATION Page 28 reported at least one instance of receiving interpersonal emotion regulation on 4 of those days, yielding 338 analyzable instances of interpersonal emotion regulation.

Participants in Sample 6 were 114 adults (50.9% female, 41.4% Caucasian/White, 27.6%

Asian/Asian American, 10.3% Hispanic/Latinx, 9.5% multiple ethnicities, 6% Black/African

American, 1.8% other ethnicity, 3.4% declined to state ethnicity, MAge = 29.30, SDAge = 11.05,

MEducation = 15.62 years) who were in committed, cohabiting romantic couples (Mduration = 61.42 months, SDduration = 93.79, 34.8% married) recruited predominantly from the San Francisco Bay

Area. Of these, valid baseline and EMA data was obtained for 103 participants, or 90% of enrolled participants. On average, participants who provided valid EMA data completed 81% of

EMA logs, and interpersonal emotion regulation receipt was reported in just over a fifth of these logs (20.7%), yielding 489 analyzable instances of interpersonal emotion regulation.

Measures

Baseline questionnaires. Participants in both samples completed baseline questionnaires as part of broader protocols on intrapersonal and interpersonal emotion regulation. Following on

Study 2, we focused on trait negative affectivity (measured by the BFI), expressive suppression tendencies (measured by the ERQ), nonacceptance of negative emotions (measured by the

DERS), and external shame-proneness (measured by the OAS, only in Sample 6). As in Study 2, reliabilities for each of these scales were good-to-excellent. In addition, participants in Sample 6 completed a relationship satisfaction measure (see below) at baseline in lieu of reporting their closeness with their significant other at each EMA timepoints.

Relationship satisfaction. Participants in Sample 6 completed the Couples Satisfaction

Index-16 (CSI-16; Funk & Rogge, 2007). The 16 items comprising the CSI-16 were distilled from a large set of relationship satisfaction measures using factor analysis and item response SHAME AND INTERPERSONAL EMOTION REGULATION Page 29 theory to select items with the best precision and power. Prior research indicates that the CSI-16 has excellent concurrent and convergent validity (Funk & Rogge, 2007), and reliability was excellent (α = .96) in the present sample.

Interpersonal emotion regulation interactions. In Sample 5, participants were asked to indicate whether anyone “tried to provide” them with interpersonal emotion regulation during the day preceding their nightly diary entry using the same definition of interpersonal emotion regulation used for the autobiographical recall paradigm (Swerdlow & Johnson, 2020).

Participants who had had multiple such interactions during a day were instructed to focus only on the interaction that they could remember most clearly, regardless of whether it was the most helpful interaction. Participants in Sample 6 were asked a nearly identical question but only regarding interpersonal emotion regulation received from their romantic partner.

In both samples, participants who endorsed that they had received interpersonal regulation were asked a series of follow-up questions about this interaction. All participants were asked to indicate: whether they desired interpersonal emotion regulation (0 = No, 1 = Yes); the overall helpfulness of the interaction (1 = felt much worse; 10 = felt much better); and the extent to which they felt ashamed as a result of the interaction (1 = not at all ashamed; 10 = extremely ashamed).

All participants were also asked to provide ratings of providers’ behaviors. We constructed four single-item probes based on the four IRIS dimensions (Swerdlow & Johnson,

2020) to characterize the degree to which providers conveyed: (1) Responsiveness: “really listened to what you were saying, tried to understand or empathize with your feelings, offered comfort or consolation”; (2) Hostility: “responded harshly, angrily, critically, or dismissively”;

(3) Cognitive support: “provided practical support, such as factual information, problem-solving, SHAME AND INTERPERSONAL EMOTION REGULATION Page 30 or advice; offered an alternative opinion or perspective”; and (4) Physical presence: “were present for you, communicated that they were available for you in the moment, offered a comforting gesture (e.g., a pat on the shoulder, a smile, a hug).” Each dimension was rated on a

Likert scale from 1 = definitely false to 5 = definitely true.

Other items differed between the two samples. Participants in Sample 5 were asked to indicate: the intensity of their emotions immediately before the interaction (1 = not at all intense;

10 = extremely intense) and perceived closeness with their provider (1 = not at all close; 10 = extremely close). Participants in Sample 6 rated the momentary intensity of 9 negatively valenced emotions (1 = not at all; 7 = extremely): sad, unhappy, anxious, afraid, angry/frustrated, ashamed, guilty, embarrassed, jealous. We used the maximum momentary intensity rating as an index of emotional intensity.

Both the nightly diaries and the EMA prompts included other questions that we did not consider in these analyses. In particular, to reduce potential incentivization of negative responses to the interpersonal emotion regulation receipt probe (i.e., responding “No” to avoid follow-up questions), participants who reported that they had not received interpersonal emotion regulation were instead asked alternative questions such that they viewed the same number of prompts regardless of branching.

Procedures

All participants completed informed consent procedures (online for Sample 5 and in- person or over Zoom for Sample 6). Participants completed baseline questionnaires online on

Qualtrics. Nightly diaries and EMA prompts were programmed in LifeData (LifeData LLC,

Marion, IN) and completed by participants using the RealLife Exp app on their smartphone devices. Participants in Sample 5 received a push notification on their smartphone every night SHAME AND INTERPERSONAL EMOTION REGULATION Page 31 for 21 days at 9:30 PM and had until midnight to respond to the notification. Participants in

Sample 6 received four surveys spaced pseudo-randomly throughout the day for eight days and had one hour and thirty-five minutes after the first prompt to respond. Participants received reminders thirty minutes after each of the notifications if they had not yet responded.

Data Analysis

The data analysis plan for Study 3 was designed to be consistent with Studies 1 and 2. To account for the nested structure of the dataset (i.e., days nested within participants), however, we computed repeated measures correlations (Bakdash & Marusich, 2017) and random-intercept linear mixed effects models. Before testing hypotheses, we first computed descriptive statistics, including intraclass correlations, to examine the frequency, intensity, and within-person variability of shame in the context of interpersonal emotion regulation. As well, to assess the distinctiveness of shame as an outcome of interpersonal emotion regulation from the effectiveness the interpersonal emotion regulation received, we computed the repeated measures correlation between self-reported helpfulness and shame. Next, we modeled the extent of individual differences in shame in the context of interpersonal emotion regulation (i.e., variability in shame ratings accounted for by participant-specific intercepts), using separate models for each sample. In line with Study 2, we then sequentially layered nested models upon this null model and conducted direct model comparison tests to determine whether each new set of fixed effects significantly improved model fit. Variable selection was guided by the results of

Studies 1 and 2 to minimize dimensionality. These models have the form:

Model 0 (Null Model): yij = β0 + uj + eij

Model 1: yij = β0 + β1NegativeAffectivityj + β2ExpressiveSuppressionj + β3Nonacceptancej

+ (β4ExternalShamej) + (β5RelationshipSatisfactionj) + uj + eij SHAME AND INTERPERSONAL EMOTION REGULATION Page 32

Model 2: yij = β0 + β1NegativeAffectivityj + β2ExpressiveSuppressionj + β3Nonacceptancej +

(β4ExternalShamej) + (β5RelationshipSatisfactionj) + β6EmotionalIntensityij +

β7DesireForSupportij + β8Hostilityij + β9Responsivenessij +

[β10PerceivedClosenessij] + uj + eij

Where yij is the expected value of ratings of shame as a result of receiving interpersonal emotion regulation for the i-th measurement of the j-th participant, β0 is the fixed intercept (i.e., grand mean), the beta weights for the regressors (β1, β2 … β19) are the fixed slopes associated with each regressor for the i-th measurement of the j-th participant, uj is the random intercept for the j- th participant (i.e., person-specific mean), and eij is a Gaussian error term. Variables in square brackets were measured and included in Sample 5, but not Sample 6. Variables in parentheses were measured and included in Sample 6, but not Sample 5.

Power considerations. One of the principal challenges of conducting mixed effects modeling is that a priori simulated power analysis requires prior estimation of the means, variances, and model parameters for all variables of interest (see Lane & Hennes, 2017). For the present study, neither published data nor our pilot data were sufficient for estimating these model parameters or the true base rate of interpersonal emotion regulation interactions in these populations prior to data collection. Therefore, we followed standard recommendations for multilevel tests of fixed effects derived from Monte Carlo simulations to ensure analyzable level-

2 sample size greater than 50 (Maas & Hox, 2005; Bell et al., 2014). We exceeded this standard by collecting usable data on 77 participants (Sample 5) and 103 participants (Sample 6) for multilevel analyses. Nevertheless, the resultant sample sizes may still be regarded as modest.

Accordingly, we followed data analytic recommendations for multivariate modeling with small SHAME AND INTERPERSONAL EMOTION REGULATION Page 33 sample sizes, including using REML estimation and the Kenward-Roger adjustment, to conduct more conservative inferential tests that limit inflation of Type I errors (McNeish, 2017).

Mixed effects modeling was implemented with the lme4 package using restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimation (Bates, Mächler, Bolker, & Walker, 2015). P-values were estimated with the lmertest and pbkrtest packages using the Kenward-Roger approximation

(Halekoh & Højsgaard, 2014; Kenward & Roger, 1997; Kuznetsova, Brockhoff, & Christensen,

2017). Pseudo-r-squared values were computed for the mixed effects models with the MuMIn package (Barton, 2009; Nakagawa & Schielzeth, 2013).

Results

Intensity of Shame

Across participants, the modal response to the shame probe was 1 [Not at all ashamed] in both samples (Ms = 3.05 and 2.08, SDs = 2.38 and 1.92, respectively, on the 10-point scale), indicating that many of the interpersonal emotion regulation interactions were not experienced as shame-inducing. In more than a third (34.9%) of interpersonal emotion regulation interactions in

Sample 5, but fewer than one in six (14.7%) interactions in Sample 6, participants reported experiencing at least moderate levels (≥ 4 out of 10) of shame as a result of the interaction.

Distinctiveness of Shame

The average interaction was reported to be effective overall in both samples (Ms = 7.16 and 7.43, SDs = 1.66 and 1.59, respectively, out of 10). Overall effectiveness ratings were not significantly associated with shame ratings in Sample 5 (rrm = -.06, p = .36), but were modestly associated with shame ratings in Sample 6 (rrm = -.12, p = .03), indicating that shame ratings were substantially distinct from overall effectiveness ratings in both samples.

Within-Person Variation SHAME AND INTERPERSONAL EMOTION REGULATION Page 34

Examination of the random intercepts in the null models revealed significant clustering, consistent with the notion that some participants tended to endorse higher levels of shame than others. However, the intraclass correlations for shame ratings were modest in both samples

(ICCs = .26 and .29, respectively), indicating that most of the variance in shame ratings was within-person as opposed to between-person, consistent with the findings of Study 2.

Correlates of Shame

Preliminary analyses. Zero-order and repeated measures correlations among the Level 1 regressors, as well as means and standard deviations, are reported in Table 4. As shown, none of these correlations exceeded .50 in either sample, indicating tolerable separability at the bivariate level, although significant correlations were observed among ratings of provider behaviors.

Finally, we constructed two hierarchical linear mixed effects models (one per sample) that were layered on the null models akin to those computed in Study 2. We first entered individual differences (i.e., negative affectivity, use of expressive suppression, nonacceptance of negative emotions, external shame proneness, and relationship satisfaction). As shown in Table

5, trait neuroticism and expressive suppression, but not nonacceptance, were significantly, positively associated with shame ratings in Sample 5. By contrast, nonacceptance and neuroticism, but not relationship satisfaction, expressive suppression, or external shame proneness, were significantly, positively associated with shame ratings in Sample 6. In each sample, these individual difference variables accounted for only a small proportion of the variance in shame ratings (marginal pseudo-r-squareds = .07 and .08, respectively), with the full models (including random intercepts) accounting for less than a third of the total variance

(conditional pseudo-r-squareds = .27 and .19, respectively). Nevertheless, these models did SHAME AND INTERPERSONAL EMOTION REGULATION Page 35 significantly outperform the null models, accounting for the total number of regressors in each model (model comparison ps = .004 and .01, respectively).

In the second step, we entered the interaction-specific variables (i.e., emotional intensity, desire for regulation, perceived closeness, responsiveness, and harsh responding). In Sample 5, none of the individual difference variables survived; however, perceived closeness and responsiveness were significantly, negatively associated with shame ratings, whereas perceived hostility was significantly, positively associated with shame ratings. This pattern of associations did not, however, emerge in Sample 6; here, the individual difference variables remained significant, whereas none of the interaction-specific variables were significant. In the final models, the fixed effects accounted for 29% and 9%, respectively, with the full models, including the random intercepts, accounting for 40% and 21%, respectively. Thus, inclusion of the interaction-specific variables significantly improved model fit in Sample 5 (model comparison p < .001), but not in Sample 6 (model comparison p = .67).

Discussion

Study 3 yielded mixed results with regard to study hypotheses. Consistent with the findings of Studies 1 and 2, shame ratings were substantially distinct from overall helpfulness ratings in both samples. Moderate or greater shame was strikingly common in Sample 5, occurring in more than a third of all interpersonal emotion regulation interactions in that sample; in contrast, the rate of elevated shame in Sample 6 was lower than in any of the other samples, occurring in fewer than a sixth of all interpersonal emotion regulation interactions, consistent with the finding from Study 1 that shame was comparatively less commonly endorsed in interactions with romantic partners. SHAME AND INTERPERSONAL EMOTION REGULATION Page 36

These between-sample differences were likewise evident in the analysis of shame correlates. Findings from Sample 5 were largely consistent with those of Samples 3 and 4: whereas shame-relevant individual differences contributed significant variance, the contributions of these variables were overshadowed by that of the interaction-specific variables, particularly perceived closeness, responsiveness, and hostility.

Clearly, this pattern of associations did not extend to Sample 6. As in Sample 5, the individual difference variables, plus relationship satisfaction, accounted for less than 10% of the variance in shame-ratings; however, none of the interaction qualities were significantly associated with shame ratings in Sample 6. What might explain this lack of interaction-specific effects in Sample 6? Sample 6 was comprised of couples who were largely in satisfying romantic relationships, as indicated by high mean scores on the CSI; commensurately, participants rated the hostility of interactions at a low level and the responsiveness of interactions at a high level compared to participants in other samples, with little variability in these key ratings of interaction qualities, consistent with past findings from the close relationships literature (e.g.,

Falconier, Jackson, Hilpert, & Bodenmann, 2014; Reis, 2014). Perhaps related to this profile, they endorsed a comparatively limited range of shame in response to interactions. In this sense,

Sample 6 may be best thought of as evincing a boundary condition: whereas shame may be a fairly common response to receiving interpersonal emotion regulation across the board, it is minimized in close, satisfying relationships in which responsiveness is (or is perceived to be) stably high and hostility is stably low, consistent with the theoretical underpinnings of secure adult attachment as related to emotion regulation (Shaver & Mikulincer, 2014) and with findings from Study 1.

General Discussion SHAME AND INTERPERSONAL EMOTION REGULATION Page 37

To our knowledge, this is the first investigation of shame as an outcome of receiving interpersonal emotion regulation. In the present studies, we sought to bridge the interpersonal emotion regulation and received support literatures by asking participants to report on interactions in which other people attempted to help them manage their emotions. Our central goals were to describe how common shame is in the context of interpersonal emotion regulation, evaluate the distinctiveness of shame (relative to helpfulness) as an outcome of receiving interpersonal emotion regulation, and identify robust, conceptually meaningful individual differences, situational variables, and features of the interaction that are tied to higher experiences of shame. We gathered data from six samples (total analyzed n = 1868; total analyzed k = 2515 instances of receiving interpersonal emotion regulation), including three undergraduate samples and two general community samples, and one sample of participants who were seeking treatment for difficulties with regulation of emotional and anger impulses.

Participants completed an autobiographical recall procedure (Samples 1-4), a daily diary paradigm (Sample 5), or an EMA paradigm (Sample 6) to capture recent instances of receiving interpersonal emotion regulation.

To begin with, shame was present to at least a moderate degree in 15% (Sample 6) to

33% (Samples 2, 4, and 5) of attempted interpersonal emotion regulation interactions across samples. Even interactions that were perceived as effective were frequently experienced as shame-inducing, suggesting that shame is not merely a byproduct of globally unhelpful interactions. These findings suggest that shame is an all-too-common common side effect of receiving interpersonal emotion regulation across individuals.

A central question, though, is why some people, at some times, experience shame in response to interpersonal emotion regulation. There is no inherent reason that seeking or SHAME AND INTERPERSONAL EMOTION REGULATION Page 38 receiving interpersonal emotion regulation need be interpreted as a sign of personal inadequacy or vulnerability. More positive self-attributions are certainly possible, such as believing that seeking interpersonal emotion regulation is a sign of wisdom or that receiving interpersonal emotion regulation is a signal of the availability of affiliation and support. A core goal of this investigation, then, was to develop a multivariate model of shame that accounted for features of the individual (e.g., tendencies toward negative affectivity, use of expressive suppression, nonacceptance of negative emotions, and external shame-proneness), the relationship with the support provider (e.g., perceived closeness), the situation (e.g., emotional intensity), and the interaction (e.g., the receiver’s perceptions of the provider as hostile). As previously discussed, we view models of this kind as essential for developing an ecologically valid, nuanced understanding of how transactions between individuals and their social environments may explain affective outcomes, including the outcomes of interpersonal efforts to regulate one’s own emotions (Aldao, 2013).

First, with regard to individual differences, the participant-specific intercepts calculated in Samples 5 and 6 accounted for only about a quarter of the total variance in shame-ratings.

Concordantly, although several of our candidate individual difference variables were significantly related to shame, these variables, including domain-general and domain-specific tendencies toward shame, collectively accounted for less than one sixth of the variance in shame ratings across four samples. Clearly, other sources of variance are important. Nevertheless, the findings discussed thus far suggest that some individuals appear to be more vulnerable than others to shame by dint of the trait-like qualities that they bring to these interactions.

Above and beyond individual differences, we considered an array of situational, relational, and interaction-specific features that could contribute to shame, and we sought to SHAME AND INTERPERSONAL EMOTION REGULATION Page 39 identify the most robust correlates of shame using a multi-study exploratory-confirmatory approach. By far, the most robust correlates of shame across the three studies were receivers’ perceptions of the provider as relatively responsive or relatively hostile. This is consistent with the conceptual underpinnings of shame as being powerfully evoked by negative social evaluation and with empirical evidence from the visible support literature (Kirsch & Lehman, 2014; Maisel

& Gable, 2003; Zee & Bolger, 2019). The lone exception was Sample 6; however, as discussed above, we interpret the null effects for interaction variables in this sample as due to the relative absence of unresponsive and hostile responses in these largely satisfying relationships. In addition, we found some evidence across studies, albeit less consistent, that other additional contextual features, including emotional intensity, desire for interpersonal regulation, and perceived closeness, may play important, albeit smaller, roles in shaping experiences of shame in this context, in line with study hypotheses and with prior research (e.g., Girme et al., 2013).

Overall, our findings highlight the importance of developing ecologically valid models of

(interpersonal) emotion regulation outcomes. Shame is tied to qualities of the individual, the relationship, receivers’ emotional and motivational states, and perceptions of the particular interpersonal transaction. Notably, these qualities were systematically correlated with one another across and within units of analysis, which supports the notion that there are underlying structures to real-world social ecologies, the impacts of which may be underestimated when these contextual features are not measured or when the ecological validity of a paradigm is limited. We view this ecological context as especially crucial for understanding interpersonal, as compared to intrapersonal, emotion regulation, as neither the recipients’ nor the providers’ trait- like tendencies (e.g., to engage in particular emotion regulation strategies) considered in isolation can be expected to capture adequately the complexity inherent in the dyadic exchange. SHAME AND INTERPERSONAL EMOTION REGULATION Page 40

Strengths, Limitations, and Future Directions

This investigation had several notable strengths. In particular, we were able to gather data from six, disparate samples. This allowed us to adopt an exploratory-confirmatory approach to identifying replicable and generalizable correlates of shame, as well as assess the prevalence of shame. The use of repeated measures data in Samples 5 and 6 allowed us to model both between- and within-person correlates of shame.

Nonetheless, our study also had several important caveats. Because we relied on retrospective self-report and did not exert experimental control over interactions, we cannot address perceptual and recall biases that may have shaped reporting (McNulty, 2008), nor can we comment on causality. For example, participants who are high in external shame proneness may be biased to recall or reconstrue their interactions so as to confirm their belief that others are harsh or tend to evaluate them negatively (Goss, Gilbert, & Allan, 1994). If so, this would represent a distinct pathway from these participants tending to actually receive or elicit more hostile interpersonal emotion regulation.

Plainly, we did not exhaust all of the variables that impinge on the experience of shame.

Our most well-fitted final models (Studies 2 and 3) accounted for about 40% of the variance in shame ratings. Although we see our data as an important step toward an ecologically valid model of shame in the context of interpersonal emotion regulation, future research could do more to expand the scope of variables that might influence shame, such as incorporating additional situational variables (e.g., Rauthmann et al., 2014), and evaluating more complex models (e.g., cross-level interactions). Provider variables may be a key source of variability. For example, interactions with providers who are themselves distressed or who take a dimmer view of the relationship may unfold quite differently from interactions with partners who are calm and SHAME AND INTERPERSONAL EMOTION REGULATION Page 41 heavily invested in the relationship. Although we conceptualized shame as an unintentional byproduct of interpersonal emotion regulation interactions, an alternate possibility is that some providers were intentionally trying to induce shame (e.g., to motivate the receiver to change their behavior; see López-Pérez, Howells, & Gummerum, 2017), a possibility we could not assess without evaluating providers’ motivations.

Whereas we suspect that receivers’ subjective experiences of interactions are ultimately more prognostic of receivers’ shame than partners’ objectively enacted behaviors, it will nevertheless be essential for future studies to more fully capture dyadic processes and potentially to incorporate behavioral observations. A multimodal approach would permit future studies to disentangle the degree to which outcomes such as shame are directly tied to enacted behavior versus subjective experience and appraisal with their incumbent biases.

Conclusions

In conclusion, our findings suggest that even receivers of interpersonal emotion regulation who report feeling better overall as the result of an interaction may nevertheless experience that same interaction as shame-inducing. These experiences of shame emerged in roughly a quarter of reported interpersonal emotion regulation events and were not restricted solely to individuals with high trait-like shame-proneness. The high rates of shame are striking given that participants were asked to describe interactions in which another person tried to help them, thereby eliminating interactions in which another person dismissed them altogether.

Whereas some individuals tended to report more shame than others, there was considerable variability within individuals in shame ratings, and specific features of the interaction, particularly perceptions of responsiveness and hostility, were key predictors of shame experiences. As shame is thought to be a particularly important emotion in the context of help- SHAME AND INTERPERSONAL EMOTION REGULATION Page 42 seeking behavior, we view these findings as an important step toward understanding barriers to utilizing potentially useful impersonal resources.

Data Sharing

De-identified data will be made available at https://osf.io/f9vze/. SHAME AND INTERPERSONAL EMOTION REGULATION Page 43

References

Aldao, A. (2013). The future of emotion regulation research: Capturing context. Perspectives on

Psychological Science, 8, 155-172. https://doi.org/10.1037/e530982014-001

Anderson, C., & Berdahl, J. L. (2002). The experience of power: Examining the effects of power

on approach and inhibition tendencies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83,

1362-1377. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.6.1362

Andrews, B., Brewin, C. R., Rose, S., & Kirk, M. (2000). Predicting PTSD symptoms in victims

of violent crime: The role of shame, anger, and childhood abuse. Journal of Abnormal

Psychology, 109, 69-73. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843x.109.1.69

Andrews, B., Qian, M., & Valentine, J. D. (2002). Predicting depressive symptoms with a new

measure of shame: The Experience of Shame Scale. British Journal of Clinical

Psychology, 41, 29-42. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466502163778

Bakdash, J. Z., & Marusich, L. R. (2017). Repeated measures correlation. Frontiers in

Psychology, 8, 456. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00456

Bartoń, K. (2009). MuMIn: multi-model inference.

Bates, D., 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.

Beckes, L., & Coan, J. A. (2012). Social baseline theory and the social regulation of emotion. In

L. Campbell, J. G. La Guardia, J. M. Olson, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), The science of the

couple: The Ontario symposium (pp. 81-93). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Bell, B. A., Morgan, G. B., Schoeneberger, J. A., Kromrey, J. D., & Ferron, J. M. (2014). How

low can you go?: An investigation of the influence of sample size and model complexity SHAME AND INTERPERSONAL EMOTION REGULATION Page 44

on point and interval estimates in two-level linear models. Methodology, 10, 1-11. https://

doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241/a000062

Bolger, N., & Amarel, D. (2007). Effects of social support visibility on adjustment to stress:

experimental evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(3), 458. https://

doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.3.458

Bolger, N., Zuckerman, A., & Kessler, R. C. (2000). Invisible support and adjustment to stress.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 953-961. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-

3514.79.6.953

Brown, M. Z., Linehan, M. M., Comtois, K. A., Murray, A., & Chapman, A. L. (2009). Shame as

a prospective predictor of self-inflicted injury in borderline personality disorder: A multi-

modal analysis. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 47, 815-822.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2009.06.008

Cameron, A. Y., Shea, M. T., & Randall, A. B. (2020). Acute shame predicts urges for suicide

but not for substance use in a veteran population. Suicide and Life‐ Threatening Behavior,

50(1), 292-299. https://doi.org/10.1111/sltb.12588

Campos, J. J., Walle, E. A., Dahl, A., & Main, A. (2011). Reconceptualizing emotion regulation.

Emotion Review, 3(1), 26-35. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073910380975

Carrera, S. G., & Wei, M. (2017). Thwarted belongingness, perceived burdensomeness, and

depression among Asian Americans: A longitudinal study of interpersonal shame as a

mediator and perfectionistic family discrepancy as a moderator. Journal of Counseling

Psychology, 64, 280-291. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000199

Chao, Y. H., Yang, C. C., & Chiou, W. B. (2012). Food as ego-protective remedy for people

experiencing shame. Experimental evidence for a new perspective on weight-related SHAME AND INTERPERSONAL EMOTION REGULATION Page 45

shame. Appetite, 59, 570-575. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2012.07.007

Cheung, E. O., Gardner, W. L., & Anderson, J. F. (2015). Emotionships: Examining people’s

emotion-regulation relationships and their consequences for well-being. Social

Psychological and Personality Science, 6, 407-414.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550614564223

Cibich, M., Woodyatt, L., & Wenzel, M. (2016). Moving beyond “shame is bad”: How a

functional emotion can become problematic. Social and Personality Psychology

Compass, 10, 471-483. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12263

Cohen, T. R., Wolf, S. T., Panter, A. T., & Insko, C. A. (2011). Introducing the GASP scale: A

new measure of guilt and shame proneness. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 100, 947-966. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022641

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: The

NEO Personality Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 4(1), 5.

Debrot, A., Schoebi, D., Perrez, M., & Horn, A. B. (2013). Touch as an interpersonal emotion regulation process in couples’ daily lives: The mediating role of psychological intimacy.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 1373-1385.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213497592

De Hooge, I. E. (2014). The general sociometer shame: Positive interpersonal consequences of

an ugly emotion. In K. G. Lockhart (Ed.), Psychology of shame: New research (pp. 95–

110). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.

De Hooge, I. E., Zeelenberg, M., & Breugelmans,S. M. (2010). Restore and protect motivations

following shame. Cognition and Emotion, 24, 111-27.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930802584466 SHAME AND INTERPERSONAL EMOTION REGULATION Page 46

Dickerson, S. S., Gruenewald, T. L., & Kemeny, M. E. (2004). When the social self is

threatened: Shame, physiology, and health. Journal of Personality, 72, 1191-1216.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2004.00295.x

Dixon-Gordon, K. L., Bernecker, S. L., & Christensen, K. (2015). Recent innovations in the field

of interpersonal emotion regulation. Current Opinion in Psychology, 3, 36-42.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.02.001

Dixon-Gordon, K. L., Haliczer, L. Conkey. L, & Whalen, D. (2018). Difficulties in interpersonal

emotion regulation: Initial development and validation of a self-report measure. Journal

of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 40, 528-549.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-018-9647-9

Dixon-Gordon, K. L., Whalen, D. J., Scott, L. N., Cummins, N. D., & Stepp, S. D. (2016). The

main and interactive effects of maternal interpersonal emotion regulation and negative

affect on adolescent girls’ borderline personality disorder symptoms. Cognitive Therapy

and Research, 40, 381-393. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-015-9706-4

Feeney, B. C., Van Vleet, M., Jakubiak, B. K., & Tomlinson, J. M. (2017). Predicting the pursuit

and support of challenging life opportunities. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,

43(8), 1171-1187. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217708575

Feiring, C., & Taska, L. S. (2005). The persistence of shame following sexual abuse: A

longitudinal look at risk and recovery. Child Maltreatment, 10, 337-349.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1077559505276686

Ferguson, T. J. (2005). Mapping shame and its functions in relationships. Child Maltreatment,

10, 377-386. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077559505281430

Fisher, J. D., Nadler, A., & Whitcher-Alagna, S. (1982). Recipient reactions to aid. SHAME AND INTERPERSONAL EMOTION REGULATION Page 47

Psychological Bulletin, 91(1), 27. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.91.1.27

Forsell, Y. (2006). The pathway to meeting need for mental health services in Sweden.

Psychiatric Services, 57, 114-119. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.57.1.114

Friedman, J., Hastie, T., & Tibshirani, R. (2010). Regularization paths for generalized linear

models via coordinate descent. Journal of Statistical Software, 33(1), 1.

https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v033.i01

Funk, J. L., & Rogge, R. D. (2007). Testing the ruler with item response theory: increasing

precision of measurement for relationship satisfaction with the Couples Satisfaction

Index. Journal of Family Psychology, 21(4), 572. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-

3200.21.4.572

Gausel, N., & Leach, C. W. (2011). Concern for self‐ image and social image in the management

of moral failure: Rethinking shame. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 468-

478. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.803

Gilbert, P. (2003). Evolution, social roles, and the differences in shame and guilt. Social

Research, 70, 1205-1230.

Gilbert, P., & Irons, C. (2009). Shame, self-criticism, and self-compassion in adolescence. In N.

B. Allen & L. B. Sheeber, Adolescent emotional development and the emergence of

depressive disorders (pp. 195-214). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Gilbert, P., McEwan, K., Irons, C., Bhundia, R., Christie, R., Broomhead, C., & Rockliff, H.

(2010). Self‐‐ harm in a mixed clinical population: The roles of self criticism, shame, and

social rank. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 49, 563-576.

https://doi.org/10.1348/014466509x479771

Girme, Y. U., Overall, N. C., & Simpson, J. A. (2013). When visibility matters: Short-term SHAME AND INTERPERSONAL EMOTION REGULATION Page 48

versus long-term costs and benefits of visible and invisible support. Personality and

Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(11), 1441-1454.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213497802

Glazier, K., Wetterneck, C., Singh, S., & Williams, M. (2015). Stigma and shame as barriers to

treatment for obsessive-compulsive and related disorders. Journal of Depression and

Anxiety, 4, 191-196. https://doi.org/10.4172/2167-1044.1000191

Gleason, M. E., Iida, M., Bolger, N., & Shrout, P. E. (2003). Daily supportive equity in close

relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(8), 1036-1045.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203253473

Goss, K., Gilbert, P., & Allan, S. (1994). An exploration of shame measures—I: The other as

Shamer scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 17, 713-717.

https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(94)90149-x

Gratz, K. L., & Roemer, L. (2004). Multidimensional assessment of emotion regulation and

dysregulation: Development, factor structure, and initial validation of the difficulties in

emotion regulation scale. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 26,

41-54. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:joba.0000007455.08539.94

Greenland, S. (2008). Variable selection versus shrinkage in the control of multiple confounders.

American Journal of Epidemiology, 167(5), 523-529. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwm355

Gruenewald, T. L., Kemeny, M. E., Aziz, N., & Fahey, J. L. (2004). Acute threat to the social

self: Shame, social self-esteem, and cortisol activity. Psychosomatic Medicine, 66, 915-

924. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.psy.0000143639.61693.ef

Guyon, I. (1996). A scaling law for the validation-set training-set ratio. Preprint.

Halekoh, U., & Højsgaard, S. (2014). A kenward-roger approximation and parametric bootstrap SHAME AND INTERPERSONAL EMOTION REGULATION Page 49

methods for tests in linear mixed models–the R package pbkrtest. Journal of Statistical

Software, 59(9), 1-30. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v059.i09

Harder, D. W., & Greenwald, D. F. (1999). Further validation of the shame and guilt scales of

the Harder Personal Feelings Questionnaire-2. Psychological Reports, 85, 271-281.

https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.85.5.271-281

Hastings, M. E., Northman, L. M., & Tangney, J. P. (2002). Shame, guilt, and suicide. In T.

Joiner, & M. D. Rudd (Eds.), Suicide science (pp. 67-79). Springer, Boston, MA.

Heaven, P. C., Ciarrochi, J., & Leeson, P. (2009). The longitudinal links between shame and

increasing hostility during adolescence. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 841-

844. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.07.002

Heiy, J. E., & Cheavens, J. S. (2014). Back to basics: A naturalistic assessment of the experience

and regulation of emotion. Emotion, 14, 878-891. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037231

Horn, A. B., & Maercker, A. (2016). Intra-and interpersonal emotion regulation and adjustment

symptoms in couples: The role of co-brooding and co-reappraisal. BMC Psychology, 4,

51. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-016-0159-7

Hosser, D., Windzio, M., & Greve, W. (2008). Guilt and shame as predictors of recidivism: A

longitudinal study with young prisoners. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 138-152.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854807309224

Howland, M., & Simpson, J. A. (2010). Getting in under the radar: A dyadic view of invisible

support. Psychological Science, 21, 1878-1885.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610388817

Izard, C. E. (1971). The face of emotion. East Norwalk, CT, US: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The big five inventory—versions 4a and SHAME AND INTERPERSONAL EMOTION REGULATION Page 50

54.

Johnson, S. L., Zisser, M., Sandel, D., Swerdlow, B., Carver, C. S., Sanchez, A., Fernandez, E.

(2020). Development of a brief online intervention to address aggression in the context of

emotion-related impulsivity: Evidence from a wait-list controlled trial. Behaviour

Research and Therapy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2020.103708

Kenward, M. G., & Rogers, J. H. (1997). Small sample inference for fixed effects from restricted

maximum likelihood. Biometrics, 53, 983-997. https://doi.org/10.2307/2533558

Kirsch, J. A., & Lehman, B. J. (2015). Comparing visible and invisible social support: Non‐

evaluative support buffers cardiovascular responses to stress. Stress and Health, 31, 351-

364. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2558

Kuhn, M. (2008). Building predictive models in R using the caret package. Journal of Statistical

Software, 28(5), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v028.i05

Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. (2017). lmerTest package: tests in linear

mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1-26.

https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13

Lane, S. P., & Hennes, E. P. (2017). Power struggles: Estimating sample size for multilevel

relationships research. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 35, 7-31.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407517710342

Levy-Gigi, E., & Shamay-Tsoory, S. G. (2017). Help me if you can: Evaluating the effectiveness

of interpersonal compared to intrapersonal emotion regulation in reducing distress.

Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 55, 33-40.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbtep.2016.11.008

López-Pérez, B., Howells, L., & Gummerum, M. (2017). Cruel to be kind: Factors underlying SHAME AND INTERPERSONAL EMOTION REGULATION Page 51

altruistic efforts to worsen another person’s mood. Psychological Science, 28(7), 862-

871. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617696312

Maas, C. J. M., & Hox, J. J. (2005). Sufficient sample sizes for multilevel modeling.

Methodology, 1, 86-92. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241.1.3.85

Manjrekar, E., Schoenleber, M., & Mu, W. (2013). Shame aversion and maladaptive eating-

related attitudes and behaviours. Eating Behaviours, 14(4), 456-459.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eatbeh.2013.08.012

Martens, J. P., Tracy, J. L., & Shariff, A. F. (2012). Status signals: Adaptive benefits of

displaying and observing the nonverbal expressions of pride and shame. Cognition &

Emotion, 26, 390-406. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2011.645281

McNeish, D. (2017). Challenging conventional wisdom for multivariate statistical models with

small samples. Review of Educational Research, 87, 1117-1151.

https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317727727

McNulty, J. K. (2008). Neuroticism and interpersonal negativity: The independent contributions

of perceptions and behaviors. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1439-1450.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208322558

Miller, D. J., Vachon, D. D., & Lynam, D. R. (2009). Neuroticism, negative affect, and negative

affect instability: Establishing convergent and discriminant validity using ecological

momentary assessment. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 873-877.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.07.007

Mills, R. S., Hastings, P. D., Serbin, L. A., Stack, D. M., Abela, J. R., Arbeau, K. A., & Lall, D.

I. (2015). Depressogenic thinking and shame proneness in the development of SHAME AND INTERPERSONAL EMOTION REGULATION Page 52

internalizing problems. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 46, 194-208.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-013-0416-4

Nakagawa, S., & Schielzeth, H. (2013). A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from

generalized linear mixed‐ effects models. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 4, 133-142.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-210x.2012.00261.x

Netzer, L., Van Kleef, G. A., & Tamir, M. (2015). Interpersonal instrumental emotion regulation.

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 58, 124-135.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.01.006

Niven, K. (2017). The four key characteristics of interpersonal emotion regulation. Current

Opinion in Psychology, 17, 89-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.06.015

Niven, K., Totterdell, P., Stride, C. B., & Holman, D. (2011). Emotion Regulation of Others and

Self (EROS): The development and validation of a new individual difference measure.

Current Psychology, 30, 53-73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-011-9099-9

Rammstedt, B., & John, O. P. (2007). Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10-item

short version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German. Journal of Research in

Personality, 41(1), 203-212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2006.02.001

Rauthmann, J. F., Gallardo-Pujol, D., Guillaume, E. M., Todd, E., Nave, C. S., Sherman, R.A.,

Ziegler, M., Jones, A.B., & Funder, D. C. (2014). The Situational Eight DIAMONDS: A

taxonomy of major dimensions of situational characteristics. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 107, 677-718. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037250

Reis, H. T. (2014). Responsiveness: Affective interdependence in close relationships. In M.

Mikulincer & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), The Herzliya series on personality and social

psychology. Mechanisms of social connection: From brain to group (p. 255–271). SHAME AND INTERPERSONAL EMOTION REGULATION Page 53

American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14250-015

Richards, J. M. (2004). The cognitive consequences of concealing feelings. Current Directions

in Psychological Science, 13(4), 131-134. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-

7214.2004.00291.x

Roos, S., Hodges, E. V., & Salmivalli, C. (2014). Do guilt-and shame-proneness differentially

predict prosocial, aggressive, and withdrawn behaviors during early adolescence?.

Developmental Psychology, 50, 941-946. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033904

Rose, A. J., Carlson, W., & Waller, E. M. (2007). Prospective associations of co-rumination with friendship and emotional adjustment: Considering the socioemotional trade-offs of co-

rumination. Developmental Psychology, 43, 1019-1031. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-

1649.43.4.1019

Rüsch, N., Müller, M., Ajdacic-Gross, V., Rodgers, S., Corrigan, P. W., & Rössler, W. (2014).

Shame, perceived knowledge and satisfaction associated with mental health as predictors

of attitude patterns towards help-seeking. Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences, 23,

177-187. https://doi.org/10.1017/s204579601300036x

Schoenleber, M., & Berenbaum, H. (2010). Shame aversion and shame-proneness in Cluster C

personality disorders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 119, 197-205.

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017982

Shaver, P. R., & Mikulincer, M. (2014). Adult attachment and emotion regulation. In J. J. Gross

(Ed.), Handbook of emotion regulation (pp. 237–250). The Guilford Press.

Shrout, P. E., Bolger, N., Iida, M., Burke, C., Gleason, M. E., & Lane, S. P. (2010). The effects

of daily support transactions during acute stress: Results from a diary study of bar exam

preparation. In K. Sullivan & J. Davila (Eds.), Support processes in intimate SHAME AND INTERPERSONAL EMOTION REGULATION Page 54

relationships (pp. 175-199). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/

9780195380170.003.0007

Spendelow, J. S., Simonds, L. M., & Avery, R. E. (2017). The relationship between co‐

rumination and internalizing problems: A systematic review and meta‐ analysis. Clinical

Psychology & Psychotherapy, 24(2), 512-527. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.2023

Stone, L. B., Hankin, B. L., Gibb, B. E., & Abela, J. R. (2011). Co-rumination predicts the onset

of depressive disorders during adolescence. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 120, 752-

757. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023384

Stuewig, J., Tangney, J. P., Kendall, S., Folk, J. B., Meyer, C. R., & Dearing, R. L. (2015).

Children’s proneness to shame and guilt predict risky and illegal behaviors in young adulthood.

Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 46, 217-227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-

014-0467-1

Swerdlow, B. A., & Johnson, S. L. (2020). The Interpersonal Regulation Interaction Scale

(IRIS): A multistudy investigation of receivers’ retrospective evaluations of interpersonal

emotion regulation interactions. Emotion.

Tangney, J. P. (1991). Moral affect: the good, the bad, and the ugly. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 61, 598-607. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.4.598

Tangney, J. P. (2001). Constructive and destructive aspects of shame and guilt. In A. C. Bohart

& D. J. Stipek (Eds.), Constructive & destructive behavior: Implications for family,

school, & society (pp. 127-145). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological

Association.

Thomaes, S., Bushman, B. J., Stegge, H., & Olthof, T. (2008). Trumping shame by blasts of

noise: narcissism, self‐ esteem, shame, and aggression in young adolescents. Child SHAME AND INTERPERSONAL EMOTION REGULATION Page 55

Development, 79, 1792-1801. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01226.x

Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. (2007). The self in self-conscious emotions: A cognitive appraisal

approach. In J. L. Tracy, R. W. Robins, & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), The Self-conscious

emotions: Theory and research (pp. 3-20). New York, NY: Guilford.

Troop, N. A., & Redshaw, C. (2012). General shame and bodily shame in eating disorders: A

2.5‐ year longitudinal study. European Eating Disorders Review, 20, 373-378.

https://doi.org/10.1002/erv.2160

Van Swol, L. M., MacGeorge, E. L., & Prahl, A. (2017). Advise with permission?: The effects of

advice solicitation on advice outcomes. Communication Studies, 68(4), 476-492.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2017.1363795

Veilleux, J. C., Pollert, G. A., Skinner, K. D., Chamberlain, K. D., Baker, D. E., & Hill, M. A.

(2020). Individual beliefs about emotion and perceptions of belief stability are associated

with symptoms of psychopathology and emotional processes. Personality and Individual

Differences, 110541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110541

Velotti, P., Elison, J., & Garofalo, C. (2014). Shame and aggression: Different trajectories and

implications. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19, 454-461.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2014.04.011

Velotti, P., Garofalo, C., Bottazzi, F., & Caretti, V. (2017). Faces of shame: Implications for self-

esteem, emotion regulation, aggression, and well-being. The Journal of Psychology, 151,

171-184. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2016.1248809

Williams, W. C., Morelli, S. A., Ong, D. C., & Zaki, J. (2018). Interpersonal emotion regulation:

Implications for affiliation, perceived support, relationships, and well-being. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 115, 224-254. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000132 SHAME AND INTERPERSONAL EMOTION REGULATION Page 56

Woien, S. L., Ernst, H. A., Patock-Peckham, J. A., & Nagoshi, C. T. (2003). Validation of the

TOSCA to measure shame and guilt. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 313-326.

https://doi.org/10.1016/s0191-8869(02)00191-5

Zaki, J., & Williams, W. C. (2013). Interpersonal emotion regulation. Emotion, 13, 803-810.

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033839

Zee, K. S., & Bolger, N. (2019). Visible and invisible social support: How, why, and when.

Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28(3), 314-320.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721419835214

Zee, K. S., Bolger, N., & Higgins, E. T. (2020). Regulatory effectiveness of social support.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000235

Zee, K. S., Cavallo, J. V., Flores, A. J., Bolger, N., & Higgins, E. T. (2018). Motivation

moderates the effects of social support visibility. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 114(5), 735. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000119

Zou, H., & Hastie, T. (2005). Regularization and variable selection via the elastic net. Journal of

the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology), 67(2), 301-320.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9868.2005.00503.x

SHAME AND INTERPERSONAL EMOTION REGULATION Page 57

Table 1.

Study 1 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) M SD

Means, standard deviation s, and zero- order correlati ons for key variables

(Sample

1 N =

898;

Sample 2

N = SHAME AND INTERPERSONAL EMOTION REGULATION Page 58

199)X Sample 1 (1) Significance -- .26 .07 .42 .10 .10 .15 -.09 .09 .10 -.08 -.05 .07 -.03 4.1 .96

2 (2) Desire -- .31 .20 .16 .24 .20 -.17 .09 .05 .09 .03 .25 -.14 4.2 .94

0 (3) Sought -- .09 .03 .15 .07 -.05 .11 -.15 .17 .14 .11 -.10 .61 .49 (4) Intensity -- .11 .08 .05 -.04 -.07 .04 -.11 -.13 -.02 .05 4.0 1.0

3 7 (5) How Close -- .58 .20 -.05 .11 .11 .04 .00 .17 -.16 4.5 .79

4 (6) How Often -- .26 -.06 .20 .13 .08 .11 .22 -.14 3.7 1.0

9 1 (7) Responsive -- -.39 .45 .41 .02 -.02 .52 -.31 7.1 1.4

9 6 (8) Hostility -- .06 -.00 .02 .18 -.36 .35 1.8 1.3

9 7 (9) Cognitive -- .29 .04 .16 .29 -.09 4.8 1.6

5 6 (10) Presence -- -.10 .03 .18 .00 5.6 2.6

0 0 (11) Clear Sense -- .24 .01 -.03 2.6 1.1

6 5 SHAME AND INTERPERSONAL EMOTION REGULATION Page 59

(12) Directness -- .02 -.03 2.4 1.2

6 6 (13) Helpfulness -- -.34 7.1 1.8

5 6 (14) Shame -- 1.8 1.0

1 5 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) M SD Sample 2 (1) Significance -- .14 .00 .31 .15 .04 .28 -.12 .10 .10 -.06 -.10 .04 -.16 4.3 .94

2 (2) Desire -- .15 .12 .13 .15 .30 -.17 .19 .12 .05 .05 .36 -.24 4.0 1.1

1 5 (3) Sought -- -.07 .05 .08 .16 .02 .13 .13 .09 .12 .24 -.03 .58 .50 (4) Intensity -- .22 .05 .17 -.22 .00 .06 -.15 -.22 .19 .04 4.0 1.3

1 6 (5) How Close -- .65 .39 -.09 .19 .28 .04 -.01 .28 -.13 4.3 1.1

9 0 (6) How Often -- .40 .02 .26 .31 .08 .09 .28 .01 3.8 1.1

0 0 (7) Responsive -- -.34 .62 .61 -.01 .02 .70 -.25 7.3 1.6

6 7 (8) Hostility -- .00 .00 .23 .27 -.23 .34 2.3 1.9

9 0 SHAME AND INTERPERSONAL EMOTION REGULATION Page 60

(9) Cognitive -- .49 .10 .12 .58 -.03 5.2 1.8

1 2 (10) Presence -- .03 .07 .45 -.15 6.3 2.4

1 5 (11) Clear Sense -- .31 -.05 .01 2.6 1.2

5 5 (12) Directness -- .14 .10 2.6 1.3

3 5 (13) Helpfulness -- -.17 7.2 1.8

5 7 (14) Shame -- 2.1 1.2

8 9

Notes. In Sample 1, r values greater than .06 are significant at p < .05. In Sample 2, r values greater than .13 are significant at p < .05. SHAME AND INTERPERSONAL EMOTION REGULATION Page 61

Table 2.

Study 2 means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations for key variables (Sample 3 N = 390; Sample 4 N =201)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) M SD Sample 3 (1) Negative Affectivity -- .37 .03 .06 .17 -.02 -.08 -.07 .03 -.16 .18 24.74 5.31 (2) Nonacceptance -- .36 -.04 .06 -.12 -.01 -.18 .27 -.07 .41 15.38 6.10 (3) Suppression -- -.31 -.06 -.18 -.10 -.27 .23 -.14 .30 14.91 5.35 (4) Desire -- .28 .23 -.01 .39 -.24 .11 -.29 4.10 .97 (5) Intensity -- .20 -.10 .20 -.07 -.04 .04 3.90 1.18 (6) Closeness -- -.01 .31 -.14 .14 -.20 4.55 .82 (7) Directness -- .02 .21 .17 .02 2.36 1.24 (8) Responsiveness -- -.37 .43 -.34 7.09 1.49 (9) Hostility -- .10 .46 2.12 1.55 (10) Cognitive Support -- -.12 5.60 1.94 (11) Shame -- 1.86 1.07 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) M SD Sample 4 (1) Negative Affectivity -- .60 .13 .44 -.08 -.09 -.04 .02 -.13 .16 40.32 7.06 (2) Shame-Proneness -- .07 .17 -.10 .05 -.02 .19 -.01 .26 31.56 14.27 (3) Desire -- .19 .09 .05 .12 -.10 .09 -.09 3.81 1.04 (4) Intensity -- .14 -.07 .06 -.15 -.08 -.08 3.67 1.40 (5) Closeness -- .07 .18 -.08 .11 .01 4.07 1.25 (6) Directness -- .01 .24 .21 .21 2.76 1.35 (7) Responsiveness -- -.37 .68 -.34 5.98 2.13 (8) Hostility -- -.05 .46 2.54 1.89 (9) Cognitive Support -- -.12 4.77 2.14 (10) Shame -- 2.07 1.18 Notes. In Sample 3, r values greater than .09 are significant at p < .05. In Sample 4, r values greater than .13 are significant at p < .05. SHAME AND INTERPERSONAL EMOTION REGULATION Page 62 SHAME AND INTERPERSONAL EMOTION REGULATION Page 63

Table 3. Study 2 parameter estimates for multiple regression models (Sample 3 N = 390; Sample 4 N = 201)

Model 1 Model 2 β 95% CI p β 95% CI p Sample 3 Negative Affectivity .07 -.04, .17 .20 .08 -.02, .18 .12 Nonacceptance .31 .20, .42 < .001 .25 .15, .36 < .001 Suppression .16 .06, .27 .002 .05 -.05, .15 .32 Desire -.17 -.27, .06 .002 Intensity .10 .00, .19 .04 Closeness -.04 -.14, .05 .39 Directness -.03 -.10, .05 .50 Responsiveness -.12 -.24, -.01 .04 Hostility .25 .14, .36 < .001 Cognitive Support -.05 -.15, .05 .29 Sample 4 Negative Affectivity -.05 -.29, .18 .65 .07 -.15, .29 .52 Shame-Proneness .27 .03, .51 .03 .12 -.07, .32 .21 Desire -.02 -.17, .12 .76 Intensity -.10 -.27, .08 .27 Closeness .11 .02, .20 .02 Directness .02 -.07, .12 .59 Responsiveness -.40 -.61, -.19 < .001 Hostility .36 .18, .53 < .001 Cognitive Support -.10 -.29, .10 .34 SHAME AND INTERPERSONAL EMOTION REGULATION Page 64 SHAME AND INTERPERSONAL EMOTION REGULATION Page 65

Table 4.

Study 3 zero-order and repeated measures correlations, means, and standard deviations (Sample 5 N = 77; Sample 5 k = 338;

Sample 6 N = 103; Sample 6 k = 489)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) M SD Sample 5 (1) Negative Affectivity -- -.09 .36*** .46*** .25* -.16 -.01 -.14 .18 24.46 7.20 (2) Suppression -- .42*** -.07 -.12 -.17 .12 -.07 .27* 3.36 1.39 (3) Nonacceptance -- .23* .18 -.17 .04 .07 .30* 14.15 5.94 (4) Intensity -- .11 .00 .06 -.04 .13* 4.91 1.76 (5) Desire -- .17** -.15* -.00 -.04 .78 .31 (6) Responsiveness -- -.35*** .06 -.22*** 4.01 .90 (7) Hostility -- .02 .38*** 1.49 .98 (8) Closeness -- -.08 4.35 .77 (9) Shame -- 3.05 2.38 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) M SD Sample 6 (1) Negative Affectivity -- .00 .39*** .35*** -.08 .40*** .15 -.07 .12 -.08 32.89 9.80 (2) Suppression -- .34*** .24* -.18 .05 -.04 -.09 -.16 .02 3.36 1.30 (3) Nonacceptance -- .41*** .00 .26** .11 .07 -.05 .27** 13.62 5.98 (4) Shame-Proneness -- -.08 .41*** .10 -.19 .06 -.01 16.41 5.36 (5) Relationship Satisfaction -- -.24* .02 .31* -.38** -.02 75.70 14.23 (6) Intensity -- .17** -.25** .20** .07 3.96 1.36 (7) Desire -- .12 .10 .17** .72 .35 (8) Responsiveness -- -.30*** -.06 4.1 1.10 (9) Hostility -- .01 1.05 .79 (10) Shame -- 2.08 1.92 Notes. Repeated measures correlations were computed between the level-1 regressors (i.e., intensity, desire, responsiveness, hostility, closeness, SHAME AND INTERPERSONAL EMOTION REGULATION Page 66 and shame). Zero-order correlations were computed between the level-2 regressors (i.e., negative affectivity, expressive suppression, nonacceptance, shame-proneness, and relationship satisfaction) and between the level-1 and level-2 regressors. Zero-order correlations, means, and standard deviations for the level-1 regressors were calculated by aggregating across interactions, within individuals. SHAME AND INTERPERSONAL EMOTION REGULATION Page 67

Table 5. Study 3 parameter estimates for random-intercept models (Sample 5 N = 77; Sample 5 k = 338; Sample 6 N = 103; Sample 6 k = 489) Model 1 Model 2 β 95% CI p β 95% CI p Sample 5 Negative Affectivity .17 .02, .33 .03 .10 -.03, .23 .12 Suppression .22 .04, .39 .02 .14 -.00, .28 .06 Nonacceptance .04 -.13, .20 .67 .04 -.10, .17 .60 Intensity .07 -.02, .17 .13 Desire .04 -.20, .27 .75 Closeness -.12 -.21, -.03 .01 Responsiveness -.12 -.23, -.02 .02 Hostility .38 .28, .48 < .001 Sample 6 Negative Affectivity .25 .07, .44 .01 .27 .08, .46 .01 Suppression .21 .03, .40 .02 .20 .01, .39 .04 Nonacceptance .39 .19, .60 < .001 .39 .17, .60 < .001 Shame-Proneness .07 -.10, .24 .41 .09 -.09, .27 .34 Relationship Satisfaction -.03 -.18, .12 .71 -.02 -.18, .14 .78 Intensity .05 -.09, .20 .45 Desire .13 -.17, .42 .39 Responsiveness -.02 -.17, .12 .70 Hostility .03 -.11, .17 .70

SHAME AND INTERPERSONAL EMOTION REGULATION Page 68