Underneath our skin, life is continually stirring. A sharp comment tightens the chest. An unexpected kindness softens our defenses. A frightening memory brings yesterday into the present. Often, the body is already preparing a response before we have found words for what we feel. Emotional regulation begins with this ordinary human predicament: how do we remain open to feeling while finding a workable way to respond?

What Is Emotional Regulation

Emotions give experience its urgency and personal meaning. We fear what may harm us, grieve what we have lost, and move toward what promises connection or reward. Yet the meaning of an emotion is not always obvious, and its first impulse does not always serve us well. Anger can draw attention to unfairness while also pushing us toward an accusation we will regret.

Emotional regulation, usually called emotion regulation in research, concerns how these responses are shaped. We may change a situation, redirect attention, reconsider an interpretation, or influence an emotion already underway. Sometimes we do this intentionally. At other times, a familiar routine or another person’s reassuring presence changes our response without much conscious effort (Gross, 1998; McRae & Gross, 2020).

Regulation is broader than calming down. We may sustain enthusiasm for difficult work, allow grief room to unfold, or draw on appropriate anger to address a wrong. Nor does every attempt at regulation help us. Avoidance may bring immediate relief while leaving a problem untouched. The existence of regulation and the usefulness of that regulation are separate questions. A response needs to be considered in relation to its purpose, circumstances, and consequences (Bonanno & Burton, 2013).

The central task is to develop a relationship with emotion that allows feeling and considered action to coexist. Sometimes we can change how we feel. Sometimes we can change only what we do next. Both belong within a realistic understanding of emotional regulation.

How Emotion and Thought Work Together

Inner conflict can make emotion and reason feel like opponents. We know the response we would prefer to make, yet fear, resentment, or desire presses us elsewhere. The temptation is to imagine that a stronger thinking mind could simply silence the feeling.

The relationship is more complicated. Emotion directs attention toward what seems important, while interpretation helps shape what an event means. Remembering a previous rejection can change how we hear a partner’s quietness. Recognizing that the partner has had an exhausting day can change the meaning again. Thought and emotion influence one another throughout the encounter (Gross, 1998; McRae & Gross, 2020).

Our emotional guidance system deserves attention, but it needs context. Fear may identify a danger or reflect an old expectation. Anger may reveal mistreatment or a wounded assumption. The feeling is a real experience; the explanation attached to it remains open to examination.

Careful thinking can help us examine that explanation. It can also defend it. We sometimes use impressive reasoning to justify the reaction we already wanted to make. Emotional regulation therefore involves curiosity about our interpretations as well as restraint over our behavior.

Why Emotional Regulation Matters

When a feeling becomes urgent, it can be hard to step back and ask what else might be happening. Research on emotion regulation examines how we direct attention and reconsider the meaning of an event (Ochsner & Gross, 2005; McRae & Gross, 2020). In everyday life, urgency can begin to feel like certainty. We may read disagreement as rejection, a delay as disrespect, or a mistake as proof of personal failure. Once that explanation takes hold, we may notice more of what seems to confirm it.

Regulation creates opportunities to interrupt this pattern. A pause may keep an angry message in the drafts folder. Asking for clarification may prevent an uncertain interpretation from becoming an accusation. Seeking company may make grief more bearable even though the loss remains. These small changes matter because emotional life unfolds through repeated interactions with the world.

Research supports the importance of these patterns without reducing well-being to a single skill. Gross and John’s five studies linked habitual reappraisal with more favorable emotional, interpersonal, and well-being outcomes, while habitual expressive suppression showed less favorable associations (Gross & John, 2003). A meta-analysis of 114 studies also found relationships between regulation strategies and symptoms across several forms of psychological difficulty (Aldao et al., 2010). These associations do not establish that a particular habit alone causes a disorder or that changing it will resolve every difficulty.

Our capacity to use a strategy also depends on the demands we face and the resources available. Lazarus and Folkman’s account of stress and coping places this relationship at the center of understanding distress (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Emotional skills matter, but so do practical resources and conditions in which those skills have a reasonable chance to work.

The Body and Brain in Emotional Regulation

An emotion can change what we notice, how our body feels, what we think is happening, and what we feel ready to do. Influencing it therefore involves more than finding reassuring words. Research describes brain systems that work together as we respond emotionally, direct attention, and reconsider a situation. Thinking and feeling are connected parts of this process (Ochsner & Gross, 2005; McRae & Gross, 2020).

“Top-down” and “bottom-up” can be useful shorthand for influences associated with interpretation and with bodily or sensory processes. They should not be mistaken for a simple battle between a rational brain and an emotional brain. The processes continually influence one another.

These cognitive processes are not equally available under every condition. McRae and Gross discuss circumstances, including sleep deprivation, that can interfere with reappraisal. Difficulty using a demanding strategy in such a moment should not automatically be read as unwillingness to try (McRae & Gross, 2020).

How Emotional Regulation Works

James Gross’s process model identifies five families of regulation strategies according to where they enter the unfolding emotional process. The model gives us several places to work, rather than placing the whole burden on resisting an impulse after distress has peaked (Gross, 1998).

Selecting Situations

Situation selection involves approaching or avoiding circumstances partly because of their expected emotional effects. We might choose a quieter place for a sensitive conversation or arrange to see a supportive friend after a difficult appointment.

Selecting situations requires judgment. Avoiding a needless confrontation may be useful; repeatedly avoiding an important conversation may deepen the problem.

Modifying Situations

Situation modification involves changing an encounter already underway, perhaps by asking for privacy or breaking an overwhelming task into manageable parts. A distressing environment may need practical adjustment rather than greater endurance. We should not assume that becoming better at tolerating it is the only available goal (Gross, 1998).

Directing Attention

Attentional deployment changes what we attend to. During a stressful wait, we might turn toward a book or a conversation rather than repeatedly imagining the worst. A brief distraction can provide breathing room. Returning attention to the immediate task may also reduce the hold of an upsetting mental rehearsal.

Attention can become less helpful when it circles endlessly around an injury without producing understanding or action. Watkins and Roberts distinguish rumination from more constructive processing, reviewing how repetitive dwelling can prolong negative mood and interfere with problem solving (Watkins & Roberts, 2020). The difference between a restorative break and persistent avoidance often becomes clearer when we ask what happens afterward. Does the pause help us return, or does it keep postponing something important?

Reconsidering Meaning

Cognitive reappraisal involves changing our interpretation of a situation to influence its emotional impact. A delayed reply may feel like evidence of rejection. Considering other explanations can loosen that conclusion without requiring us to pretend that rejection is impossible (Gross & John, 2003).

Reappraisal works best as an honest inquiry. What do I know? What am I assuming? Is there another explanation consistent with the evidence? It becomes less useful when we use it to minimize repeated mistreatment or explain away a problem that needs action.

Working With an Emotion Already Underway

Response modulation occurs after an emotional response has developed. It can involve changes in expression, behavior, or physiological responding. Expressive suppression, such as concealing visible anger during a meeting, is one example. Trying to slow our breathing or deliberately relaxing a clenched posture also aims to influence an active response (Gross, 1998).

These families overlap in everyday life. We may step away, shift attention, and reconsider an interpretation within the same conversation. The emotional process also feeds back on itself: an angry response changes the situation to which we must respond next. The model is a useful guide to possible interventions, rather than a rigid sequence that every episode follows (McRae & Gross, 2020).

Awareness and Acceptance During Distress

Kim Gratz and Lizabeth Roemer broadened the discussion beyond reducing emotional intensity. Their framework emphasizes understanding and awareness, acceptance, the capacity to manage impulses and pursue goals during distress, and access to appropriate strategies (Gratz & Roemer, 2004).

This helps explain why outward calm is an incomplete measure of emotional health. Someone may appear composed while having little access to what they feel. Someone else may cry openly while communicating clearly and making thoughtful decisions. Regulation concerns how emotional experience relates to functioning, not simply how much emotion is visible. Cole and colleagues emphasize the need to examine emotional responses together with evidence of regulatory processes; a calm or expressive appearance alone does not tell the full story (Cole et al., 2004).

Recognizing What We Feel

Awareness begins with noticing. A racing heart, an urge to withdraw, or an unexpectedly sharp reply can become an invitation to ask what is happening. We may discover anxiety beneath irritability, disappointment beneath criticism, or several feelings occurring together.

Awareness, naming, and differentiation are related but distinct. We might notice that we are upset, find a word for the feeling, and then distinguish disappointment from shame or fear. This last capacity is called emotion differentiation. Kashdan and colleagues review research linking greater emotional differentiation with more adaptive responses to distress (Kashdan et al., 2015). Their review supports taking these distinctions seriously; it does not establish that finding the right word automatically settles an emotion.

The label need not be perfect. “I am upset, and I need a moment to understand why” is already useful information. Recognizing an emotion also does not prove that our explanation of its cause is correct.

Allowing Emotion Without Surrendering Judgment

Acceptance means acknowledging the experience we are having. It does not require liking the feeling, agreeing with every thought attached to it, or accepting another person’s harmful behavior. We can recognize anger while declining to insult someone. We can acknowledge fear while considering whether caution, support, or a small step forward fits the circumstances.

Ford and colleagues studied how people usually responded to difficult thoughts and feelings, including during a stressful laboratory task and in daily life. People who were more accepting of these experiences tended to report better psychological health and less negative emotion during stress. Accepting an inner experience was different from accepting the situation that prompted it. The researchers measured people’s existing habits, so the findings do not prove that teaching acceptance would produce the same benefits (Ford et al., 2018).

In Full Catastrophe Living, Jon Kabat-Zinn presents mindfulness as purposeful attention to present experience with less judgment. His approach invites us to observe thoughts and feelings rather than immediately becoming entangled in them (Kabat-Zinn, 2013). This is an approach to practice, not a promise that awareness will make distress disappear.

Choosing Behavior During Distress

We often imagine that we must feel differently before we can act differently. Sometimes a change in feeling helps. At other times, a useful response remains possible while discomfort continues. We can postpone a purchase, ask for a break, or complete one necessary task without first resolving the entire emotional state.

Sheri Van Dijk’s skills book on dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) distinguishes managing emotion from tolerating distress when an emotion cannot readily be changed. That distinction makes room for moments when the immediate aim is to get through pain without creating further harm (Van Dijk, 2012). Capacity varies, and some people need structured support to make that aim achievable.

Emotional Regulation Across Development and Relationships

Learning Regulation Through Relationships

We begin learning regulation in relationships. A caregiver helps an overwhelmed child settle, gives words to feelings, and provides limits that make experience more manageable. Gradually, children develop more ways to influence their own responses. Ross Thompson’s developmental account explicitly includes both internal processes and help from outside the individual (Thompson, 1994).

Daniel Siegel’s The Developing Mind also emphasizes how interpersonal experience contributes to self-regulation. His discussion of dyadic regulation describes how people’s responses to one another can shape emotional states (Siegel, 2012). This developmental perspective helps us understand the importance of care without allowing us to infer someone’s childhood from a present difficulty.

Regulating With Other People

Adults continue to regulate through relationships. We seek perspective, reassurance, companionship, and practical help. Zaki and Williams’s framework of interpersonal emotion regulation makes these social processes part of the scientific picture rather than treating regulation as an entirely solitary accomplishment (Zaki & Williams, 2013).

Support depends on the interaction. Someone who listens and respects our limits may help us think more clearly; someone who mocks, pressures, or escalates the exchange may make regulation harder. Another person’s distress does not give them the right to threaten or control us. In unsafe relationships, emotional skills should support protection and access to help, not pressure someone to remain available for more harm.

Support also has personal and cultural meanings. In a laboratory study of Asian and Asian American participants and European American participants, Taylor and colleagues found different stress-response patterns when participants drew on explicit support versus reflected on valued social groups without seeking help. The findings caution against assuming that direct disclosure is the best route for everyone. They describe group patterns in a particular sample, not rules for judging an individual by cultural background (Taylor et al., 2007).

Choosing Emotional Regulation Strategies

A strategy’s usefulness depends partly on the problem it is being asked to solve. George Bonanno and Charles Burton’s framework of regulatory flexibility emphasizes sensitivity to context, access to different strategies, and responsiveness to feedback (Bonanno & Burton, 2013). Flexibility includes noticing when our usual approach is no longer helping.

Cheng and colleagues’ meta-analysis found a positive association between coping flexibility and psychological adjustment. Results differed depending on how flexibility was defined; having many strategies was not equivalent to using strategies that fit the situation. Coping is broader than emotion regulation, but this evidence reinforces the importance of fit rather than technique collecting (Cheng et al., 2014).

Research by Allison Troy and colleagues illustrates why this matters. In a study of 170 adults who had experienced a stressful life event, greater ability to rethink a situation was associated with fewer depressive symptoms when stress was high and relatively uncontrollable, but with more symptoms when stress was high and relatively controllable (Troy et al., 2013). This was an association, not evidence that reappraisal necessarily harmed the participants. It challenges the assumption that a generally helpful strategy will help in every setting.

What Needs to Change

A useful way to bring these perspectives together is to ask what needs attention: our interpretation, our immediate state, our next action, or the situation itself. Lazarus and Folkman distinguish coping directed at a problem from coping directed at the emotional response, while recognizing that these efforts can support or interfere with one another (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).

If the interpretation is uncertain, we can examine what we know and what we are assuming. If a practical problem can be changed, we can consider an adjustment or ask for help. If an impulse is likely to cause harm, changing the next action may matter even while the feeling continues. When a painful reality cannot presently be changed, making room for grief and seeking companionship may be more workable than repeatedly trying to solve the loss (Gross, 1998; Gratz & Roemer, 2004; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).

When distress is high, lengthy reasoning may be difficult to use. A person might first try a quieter space, comfortable breathing, gentle movement, or attention to something stable in the room. These are examples of ways to influence the immediate experience, not a guaranteed sequence or substitutes for addressing danger. If inward attention increases distress, looking outward or seeking support may be more workable.

These questions bring the perspectives discussed here into everyday reflection. They are an editorial synthesis, not a tested treatment sequence. The aim is to identify a response we can use under the conditions we actually face.

Consider a difficult conversation with someone who ordinarily treats us respectfully. We notice tension, name the hurt, and resist sending an accusation. We check what was actually said and consider whether we misunderstood. We may then ask for clarification or explain the impact. If the exchange becomes overwhelming, a pause with an agreed time to return may help. The example illustrates how these ideas might guide an ordinary conversation.

The same sequence may be inappropriate when someone is threatening us. In that setting, reducing exposure and getting support may matter more than finding a more generous interpretation. Context is part of regulation, not an obstacle to practicing it correctly.

When Immediate Relief Leaves the Problem Unresolved

Afterward, we can ask what the response accomplished now and what it left for later. A brief distraction might restore enough attention to return to a task. Repeated postponement might instead make the task more threatening. The immediate emotional result and the longer-term consequences both deserve attention.

Tice and colleagues examined a conflict between attempts to improve mood and other self-regulatory goals. Across three experiments, beliefs about whether a bad mood could change influenced patterns of eating, immediate reward seeking, or procrastination. The authors interpreted the findings as evidence that anticipated mood repair can take priority over other goals. This does not mean that the behavior reliably delivers relief: in their eating experiment, eating did not improve measured mood (Tice et al., 2001).

This distinction helps us look beyond whether a response feels comforting or appears controlled. Did it reduce harm? Did it help us understand the situation or take a needed step? Did it make returning to the problem more possible? Feedback can guide the next attempt without turning every difficult emotion into evidence that we failed (Bonanno & Burton, 2013).

When Expression or Restraint Fits the Situation

The word suppression can conceal several different ideas. Expressive suppression means inhibiting the outward display of emotion. It does not necessarily mean being unaware of the feeling. Repression, emotional numbing, avoidance, and choosing not to disclose a private experience are also not interchangeable concepts.

Gross and John studied habitual expressive suppression. Their findings associate it with less positive emotion, less favorable interpersonal functioning, and lower well-being, but they do not show that every withheld expression is damaging (Gross & John, 2003). A person may reasonably choose privacy or temporarily contain a reaction until a safer setting becomes available.

The practical concern is rigidity. If concealment becomes our only response, others may struggle to understand us, and we may have few opportunities to work through what is happening. Immediate expression also needs to be considered in relation to its purpose and consequences. Explaining hurt and making an accusation are different actions, even when both arise from anger.

We do not need to express every feeling to every person. We benefit from having some workable way to recognize emotional experience and decide what to do with it.

When Emotional Regulation Becomes Difficult

Emotional dysregulation can involve difficulties recognizing or accepting emotion, managing impulses during distress, continuing purposeful activity, or finding strategies that fit the moment (Gratz & Roemer, 2004). Intensity and slow recovery may also be part of someone’s experience, as Van Dijk describes in her clinical guide (Van Dijk, 2012).

A strong reaction by itself does not establish dysregulation. Profound grief, fear under threat, or anger at injustice may be understandable responses. We need to consider the circumstances, the effects on functioning, and the resources available to the person. A painful emotion is not a moral failure.

Persistent difficulties that disrupt relationships, work, safety, or daily life deserve support. A qualified mental health professional can help assess what is contributing and whether structured skills work or other treatment fits the person’s needs. Regulation difficulties occur across different conditions; they are not a diagnosis on their own. The associations reviewed by Aldao and colleagues support looking across problems while keeping their differences in view (Aldao et al., 2010).

Recognizing Progress and Practicing Before a Crisis

Progress may appear first in behavior rather than comfort. We still feel anger but stop short of a threat. We recover enough to return to a conversation. We recognize earlier that we need help. Such changes can be meaningful even while emotional pain remains.

A quieter moment can provide room to review an episode: what happened, what we noticed, which response we tried, and what followed. Van Dijk’s skills approach emphasizes developing awareness and alternatives to habitual reactions. The review need not become an exercise in self-criticism; its purpose is to make a workable response easier to recognize next time (Van Dijk, 2012).

Gratz and Roemer’s framework helps us consider both emotional understanding and the ability to act purposefully during distress (Gratz & Roemer, 2004). Progress can take different forms, and it need not follow a fixed timetable.

A Few Words by Psychology Fanatic

Emotional regulation is the ongoing work of bringing feeling, thought, body, and action into a more workable relationship. Our feelings will not always arrive at a convenient time or in a form we understand. Some deserve to be followed into action. Others need patience, examination, or room to pass.

We can begin by becoming less hurried in our conclusions about them. What is this feeling drawing attention to, and what needs to change? What response is available to me now? Sometimes the answer will be a boundary, a conversation, or a needed change. Sometimes it will be the company of someone who can help us bear what cannot yet be changed.

We remain human throughout this practice. We will misread moments and occasionally react before we are ready. There can still be room to repair, learn, and respond differently when conditions allow. Emotion can become a guide we understand more carefully, with enough space around it for judgment and choice.

Associated Concepts

• Self-regulation: The broader management of thoughts, motivation, impulses, and behavior in relation to goals. Emotion regulation is one part of this larger field.
• Executive functions: Capacities such as attention control and inhibition that can help us consider an emotional response before acting.
• Emotional attunement: Responsiveness to another person’s emotional experience, which helps explain how relationships can support regulation.
• Emotional flooding: An experience of overwhelm that can make reflection and communication difficult.
• Delay of gratification: Choices between immediate rewards and later outcomes, a tension that can become sharper during distress.
• Defense mechanisms: Protective psychological processes that overlap with some regulatory functions. They are not equivalent to the whole field of emotion regulation.

References

Aldao, Amelia; Nolen-Hoeksema, Susan; Schweizer, Susanne (2010). Emotion-Regulation Strategies Across Psychopathology: A Meta-Analytic Review. Clinical Psychology Review, 30(2), 217–237. DOI: 10.1016/j.cpr.2009.11.004.
(Return to Main Text)

Bonanno, George A.; Burton, Charles L. (2013). Regulatory Flexibility: An Individual Differences Perspective on Coping and Emotion Regulation. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(6), 591–612. DOI: 10.1177/1745691613504116.
(Return to Main Text)

Cheng, Cecilia; Lau, Hi-Po Bobo; Chan, Man-Pui Sally (2014). Coping Flexibility and Psychological Adjustment to Stressful Life Changes: A Meta-Analytic Review. Psychological Bulletin, 140(6), 1582–1607. DOI: 10.1037/a0037913.
(Return to Main Text)

Cole, Pamela M.; Martin, Sarah E.; Dennis, Tracy A. (2004). Emotion Regulation as a Scientific Construct: Methodological Challenges and Directions for Child Development Research. Child Development, 75(2), 317–333. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00673.x.
(Return to Main Text)

Ford, Brett Q.; Lam, Phoebe; John, Oliver P.; Mauss, Iris B. (2018). The Psychological Health Benefits of Accepting Negative Emotions and Thoughts: Laboratory, Diary, and Longitudinal Evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 115(6), 1075–1092. DOI: 10.1037/pspp0000157.
(Return to Main Text)

Gratz, Kim L.; Roemer, Lizabeth (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(1), 41–54. DOI: 10.1023/B:JOBA.0000007455.08539.94.
(Return to Main Text)

Gross, James J. (1998). The Emerging Field of Emotion Regulation: An Integrative Review. Review of General Psychology, 2(3), 271–299. DOI: 10.1037/1089-2680.2.3.271.
(Return to Main Text)

Gross, James J.; John, Oliver P. (2003). Individual Differences in Two Emotion Regulation Processes: Implications for Affect, Relationships, and Well-Being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 348–362. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.348.
(Return to Main Text)

Kabat-Zinn, Jon (2013). Full Catastrophe Living: Using the Wisdom of Your Body and Mind to Face Stress, Pain, and Illness. Revised edition. Bantam. ISBN: 9780345536938.
(Return to Main Text)

Kashdan, Todd B.; Barrett, Lisa Feldman; McKnight, Patrick E. (2015). Unpacking Emotion Differentiation: Transforming Unpleasant Experience by Perceiving Distinctions in Negativity. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(1), 10–16. DOI: 10.1177/0963721414550708.
(Return to Main Text)

Lazarus, Richard S.; Folkman, Susan (1984). Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. Springer Publishing Company. ISBN: 9780826141910.
(Return to Main Text)

McRae, Kateri; Gross, James J. (2020). Emotion Regulation. Emotion, 20(1), 1–9. DOI: 10.1037/emo0000703.
(Return to Main Text)

Ochsner, Kevin N.; Gross, James J. (2005). The Cognitive Control of Emotion. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(5), 242–249. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2005.03.010.
(Return to Main Text)

Siegel, Daniel J. (2012). The Developing Mind: How Relationships and the Brain Interact to Shape Who We Are. Second edition. Guilford Press. ISBN: 9781462503902.
(Return to Main Text)

Taylor, Shelley E.; Welch, William T.; Kim, Heejung S.; Sherman, David K. (2007). Cultural Differences in the Impact of Social Support on Psychological and Biological Stress Responses. Psychological Science, 18(9), 831–837. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01987.x.
(Return to Main Text)

Thompson, Ross A. (1994). Emotion Regulation: A Theme in Search of Definition. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59(2/3), 25–52. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-5834.1994.tb01276.x.
(Return to Main Text)

Tice, Dianne M.; Bratslavsky, Ellen; Baumeister, Roy F. (2001). Emotional Distress Regulation Takes Precedence Over Impulse Control: If You Feel Bad, Do It! Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(1), 53–67. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.80.1.53.
(Return to Main Text)

Troy, Allison S.; Shallcross, Amanda J.; Mauss, Iris B. (2013). A Person-By-Situation Approach to Emotion Regulation: Cognitive Reappraisal Can Either Help or Hurt, Depending on the Context. Psychological Science, 24(12), 2505–2514. DOI: 10.1177/0956797613496434.
(Return to Main Text)

Van Dijk, Sheri (2012). Calming the Emotional Storm: Using Dialectical Behavior Therapy Skills to Manage Your Emotions and Balance Your Life. New Harbinger Publications. ISBN: 9781608820870.
(Return to Main Text)

Watkins, Edward R.; Roberts, Henrietta (2020). Reflecting on Rumination: Consequences, Causes, Mechanisms and Treatment of Rumination. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 127, 103573. DOI: 10.1016/j.brat.2020.103573.
(Return to Main Text)

Zaki, Jamil; Williams, W. Craig (2013). Interpersonal Emotion Regulation. Emotion, 13(5), 803–810. DOI: 10.1037/a0033839.
(Return to Main Text)