A friend remembers a difficult anniversary. Someone we admire seems distracted while we speak. We notice the hurt on a partner’s face after an impatient remark. Each encounter can change the emotional texture of a day. Relief, embarrassment, affection, or guilt may arrive before we have fully considered what happened.

Social emotions take shape in this space between people. Relationships influence what feels safe, rewarding, threatening, or shameful. Our responses then enter the relationship, inviting comfort, opening a difficult conversation, or making connection harder. Research on belonging, attachment, and interpersonal emotion regulation helps explain this reciprocal process (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007; Zaki & Williams, 2013).

Understanding social emotions involves attending to both sides of an encounter: what another person’s behavior means to us and what our response makes possible between us. The feeling deserves attention, but it does not settle the meaning of the event or determine what we must do next. Throughout this article, one question will guide that distinction: what does our emotional response make possible, or more difficult, in the next interaction?

What Are Social Emotions?

Social emotions are feelings closely tied to our relationships, our understanding of other people, and our place in a social world. Shame, guilt, embarrassment, gratitude, and pride are familiar examples. Anger, sadness, and joy can also acquire distinctly social meanings when they concern rejection, loss, recognition, or shared experience. The term describes an overlapping area of emotional life rather than one universally agreed list of separate emotions (Keltner & Haidt, 1999; Tangney et al., 2007).

Self-conscious emotions form an important part of this area. They involve evaluating ourselves in relation to standards, expectations, or an image of who we should be. Yet an audience need not be physically present. A remembered criticism can still sting; an unacknowledged wrongdoing can evoke guilt; an imagined future conversation can bring embarrassment. Research does not support a simple division in which shame requires public exposure while guilt occurs only in private (Tangney et al., 2007).

A social emotion is therefore more than a private feeling with another person somewhere in the background. Its expression, concealment, and interpretation can help organize an encounter. Understanding that process requires looking at both the person experiencing the emotion and the people responding to it (Keltner & Haidt, 1999; van Kleef & Côté, 2022).

Why Relationships Shape Our Emotions

Relationships give emotional events their personal significance. The need for enduring connection helps explain why acceptance matters; attachment helps explain how we anticipate care when we feel vulnerable (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007).

Why Belonging Has Emotional Power

Our sensitivity to relationships makes more sense when we consider the need to belong. Baumeister and Leary described a motivation to form and maintain enduring interpersonal bonds, involving recurring positive interactions and an ongoing sense of mutual concern. Being briefly noticed is different from knowing that we matter to someone across time (Baumeister & Leary, 1995).

This distinction helps explain why a crowded room can feel lonely and a quiet evening with one trusted person can feel satisfying. The important question is not simply how many people surround us. It is whether connection is available and experienced as meaningful. Allen and colleagues describe four contributors to belonging: opportunities to connect, the skills to participate, the desire for connection, and how people perceive their acceptance by others (Allen et al., 2021).

Threats to acceptance can evoke hurt, anxiety, anger, or sadness. However, the same apparent event can carry different meanings. Being left out of a casual gathering may disappoint us; being repeatedly excluded by close friends may call the relationship itself into question. The value of the bond, the history of exclusion, and the possibility of repair all matter (Smart Richman & Leary, 2009).

Belonging should not be confused with winning everyone’s approval. A person can be disappointed by disapproval without needing to surrender a conviction or accept mistreatment. The emotional importance of connection makes discernment necessary: we need relationships in which acceptance has room for disagreement and individuality.

Attachment and Our Expectations of Others

Belonging concerns connection broadly. Attachment theory focuses more specifically on bonds through which we seek protection, comfort, and security. Experiences within these bonds contribute to expectations about whether others will respond and whether our needs will be received with care. Attachment researchers call these expectations internal working models (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007).

These expectations can become especially important when closeness feels uncertain. People with greater attachment anxiety tend to worry more about abandonment and seek reassurance. Those with greater attachment avoidance tend to feel uncomfortable relying on others and may distance themselves from their need for care. People vary in both tendencies; neither is a diagnosis that can be assigned from one argument or unanswered message (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007).

Consider an imagined encounter that we will return to: a person sends a close partner a message about a difficult day and receives no reply. The silence might feel like an ordinary interruption, a possible rejection, or a reason to retreat from uncomfortable dependence. Personal history is only part of the encounter, however. A consistently unreliable partner supplies different evidence from one who is usually responsive. Interpreting everything through attachment style can obscure what the other person is actually doing.

Overall and Simpson’s review emphasizes this interactive quality. A partner’s responses can soften or intensify attachment-related defenses. Support that fits the recipient’s concerns can contribute to more constructive exchanges and greater security over time. Early experience matters, but it does not write every later relationship in advance (Overall & Simpson, 2015).

How People Influence Each Other’s Emotions

Other people’s emotions can stir feelings in us and shape how we understand an encounter. Van Kleef and Côté describe these two influences in their emotions as social information framework. Seeing someone’s anger might make us angry or afraid. It might also lead us to think that the person feels a boundary has been crossed. Our emotional reaction and our interpretation can both shape what we do next. Still, an expression gives us clues about another person’s experience; it does not tell us for certain what caused it (van Kleef & Côté, 2022).

This distinction matters in the unanswered-message example. Suppose the person feels overlooked and becomes distant when the partner returns. The partner may interpret that distance as a wish to be left alone and offer less contact. The original hurt can then deepen, even though the two people understand the same exchange differently. This imagined sequence illustrates how feeling, expression, interpretation, and response can become connected across an encounter; it is not an inevitable progression (Overall & Simpson, 2015; van Kleef & Côté, 2022).

We also actively seek to influence emotions between us. We ask for perspective after a disappointment, comfort someone who is afraid, or invite a friend to share our good news. Zaki and Williams describe interpersonal emotion regulation as processes through which people draw on social interaction to regulate their own or others’ emotions. Such regulation differs from emotional contagion, in which people come to experience similar feelings: a steady listener can help an anxious person without becoming equally anxious (Zaki & Williams, 2013; van Kleef & Côté, 2022).

We may find it easier to share a feeling when we feel understood, valued, and cared for. Researchers call this sense of a partner’s care perceived partner responsiveness. Ruan and colleagues found that people who felt more responsiveness also reported expressing more emotion in daily life. These daily reports show a connection, but cannot establish what caused it (Ruan et al., 2020).

In a separate experiment, participants were preparing for a stressful task. Those whose sense of their partner’s responsiveness had been increased by the researchers expressed more anxiety to that partner than participants in the comparison group. This finding suggests that feeling understood and cared for can encourage emotional expression, at least in the situation the researchers tested (Ruan et al., 2020).

Emotional openness thus involves the listener as well as the speaker. In our example, an attentive invitation to talk could make the hurt easier to express; a dismissive response could make further disclosure feel less worthwhile. Even care can be uncomfortable. Gilbert and colleagues found that fears of receiving compassion and offering compassion to oneself were associated with insecure attachment, self-criticism, and distress. These correlational findings help frame why reassurance may be received with uncertainty as well as relief (Gilbert et al., 2011).

Support can also be nonverbal. In a small laboratory study of 16 married women, holding a spouse’s hand during threatened electric shock was associated with reduced activation in several brain systems involved in responding to threat, compared with holding no hand. This is a specific illustration of relational support, not evidence that touch is soothing in every relationship or circumstance (Coan et al., 2006).

Dyadic regulation therefore includes more than matching another person’s mood or making discomfort disappear. What matters is how each person’s response affects the other’s opportunities to communicate, find steadiness, or act. Mutual influence does not make one partner responsible for eliminating every uncomfortable feeling.

Gratitude and Connection

Social emotions also include the pleasure of being recognized, the warmth of affection, and gratitude toward someone who responds with care. These experiences help explain why we seek connection even when relationships make us vulnerable.

Algoe’s find-remind-and-bind theory places gratitude within the development and maintenance of relationships. Gratitude can help us notice a responsive person, recognize the value of an existing connection, and become motivated to sustain it. The meaning lies partly in what the gesture reveals about the person offering it, rather than only in the benefit received (Algoe, 2012).

Consider a friend who remembers an obligation we were anxious about and checks in afterward. Appreciation may concern the attention behind the message as much as the message itself. Expressing that appreciation lets the friend know that their care was noticed.

For the person who earlier felt overlooked, a later thoughtful response may evoke appreciation alongside the remaining hurt. Feeling grateful need not erase a disappointment. It can acknowledge a particular act of care while leaving space to discuss what was difficult. This allows positive feeling to contribute to the conversation without requiring it to settle every concern.

Shame and Guilt in Relationships

Shame and Threatened Social Value

Shame can make us feel exposed, diminished, or unacceptable. Attention turns toward what a perceived failure seems to reveal about the self. An awkward remark may become evidence that we are foolish; needing help may seem to reveal inadequacy. Shame can concern competence, appearance, or social standing as well as moral conduct (Tangney et al., 2007).

Sznycer and colleagues examined the relationship between anticipated shame and other people’s negative evaluations across samples in the United States, India, and Israel. Situations that elicited greater devaluation also tended to elicit greater anticipated shame. The findings support an interpersonal account of shame, although the authors’ evolutionary explanation remains a theoretical interpretation of that relationship (Sznycer et al., 2016).

Feeling ashamed therefore does not establish that we have done something wrong. People may experience shame about characteristics or circumstances that others stigmatize (Garofalo et al., 2025). The emotion can reflect a painful social judgment without making that judgment fair. Cultural expectations help shape what becomes embarrassing or shameful and whose conduct is scrutinized (Keltner & Haidt, 1999; Mesquita et al., 2016).

Guilt and Responsibility

Guilt commonly centers on conduct and its consequences: something we did, failed to do, or believe we should have prevented. Where shame may draw attention toward a defective self, guilt can focus attention on an injured person and a reparable action. This distinction is useful, although people’s experiences overlap and different research measures do not capture precisely the same features (Tangney et al., 2007; Garofalo et al., 2025).

After speaking harshly, for example, a person might recognize that the remark was unfair and consider an apology. Another might become absorbed in the conclusion that they are a terrible person. Both reactions are painful, but the first leaves the specific injury more clearly in view. Self-condemnation can consume attention that might otherwise be available for understanding and repair.

The Possibility of Repair

Shame does not always lead us to withdraw or attack ourselves, and guilt does not always help us make amends. Leach and Cidam combined findings from many studies and found that shame was more closely linked to efforts to improve or put things right when the mistake—or the damage to how others saw the person—seemed possible to repair. This suggests that what people believe they can do after a failure matters when we try to understand their response to shame (Leach & Cidam, 2015).

An opportunity to repair a mistake may leave room for action that a sense of permanent disgrace does not. This is not a reason to humiliate someone in the hope of improving their behavior. The findings describe when shame is linked to constructive responses; they do not establish humiliation as a helpful practice.

Culture, Power, and Emotional Expectations

An encounter takes place within a wider social world. Keltner and Haidt consider emotions at individual, dyadic (between two people), group, and cultural levels: a feeling may direct our attention, communicate with another person, help organize a group, and participate in shared expectations about conduct. These levels overlap. Shame about requesting help may concern a particular relationship and a broader expectation that competent people should manage alone (Keltner & Haidt, 1999).

Culture influences more than whether we display an already formed feeling. Mesquita and colleagues describe how shared practices, recurring situations, and interpretations help shape emotional experience itself. A response can feel appropriate partly because it fits what a community values in a person or relationship. Their review also documents variation within cultural groups; cultural patterns cannot tell us exactly what any individual will feel (Mesquita et al., 2016).

Power and social position affect the exchange as well. Van Kleef and Côté review evidence that status, display rules, and perceived appropriateness influence responses to emotional expressions. Anger may communicate authority in one encounter and draw disapproval in another. A workplace in which a supervisor can express frustration more freely than an employee is a useful illustration: the consequences of expression depend partly on the relationship between speaker and listener (van Kleef & Côté, 2022).

These conditions complicate advice to simply be more open. Concealing hurt in a punishing setting may serve a protective purpose, even when persistent suppression has costs elsewhere. Likewise, feeling shame about an identity or need does not establish that the surrounding judgment is fair. Socially accepted expectations deserve examination as well as understanding. What preserves a group’s conventions can harm a person within it (Keltner & Haidt, 1999; Smart Richman & Leary, 2009).

Maladaptive Responses to Social Emotions

Painful feelings can prompt efforts to protect acceptance, reduce exposure, or recover a sense of control. Those efforts become problematic when they grow rigid or repeatedly harm the person, other people, or their relationships. The patterns below bring together research on rejection, attachment, and shame; they can overlap. Understanding why a response occurs does not excuse harmful conduct (Smart Richman & Leary, 2009; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007; Garofalo et al., 2025).

Withdrawal and Emotional Suppression

Withdrawal can offer immediate relief from scrutiny. A person embarrassed by a mistake may stop responding to friends; someone worried about appearing needy may conceal distress. Yet persistent concealment can prevent others from understanding what support is wanted. Srivastava and colleagues followed students through the transition to college and found that greater emotional suppression predicted poorer outcomes in social support, closeness, and social satisfaction. The prospective design strengthens the evidence for a relationship over time, but it was not a randomized experiment (Srivastava et al., 2009).

Context still matters. Taking a communicated pause during conflict differs from disappearing whenever a difficult subject arises. Privacy differs from being unable to express any need. Leaving an abusive encounter can be protective. The concern is not withdrawal in itself, but whether its pattern fits the situation and leaves room for a workable life.

Appeasement and Repeated Reassurance Seeking

Fear of losing connection can pull people toward intensified efforts to secure it. Attachment research describes heightened monitoring and proximity seeking when acceptance seems uncertain; rejection-sensitivity research examines anxious expectations that can make ambiguous behavior appear rejecting (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007; Downey & Feldman, 1996).

One possible expression is a need to please that repeatedly overrides personal limits. Another is reassurance that settles the fear only briefly before the same question returns. Ordinary kindness and requests for comfort are not the problem. The difficulty arises when approval becomes so urgent that honesty, autonomy, or the other person’s limits have little room. An attempt to protect the bond can then place continuing strain upon it.

Self-Criticism and Excessive Responsibility

Shame can draw attention toward a sweeping judgment that we are inadequate. Responding with harsh self-criticism may feel like taking responsibility, yet the intensity of that criticism does not show what responsibility actually belongs to us. Research distinguishes the experience of shame from the ways people try to manage it, making it useful to examine both the feeling and the response (Garofalo et al., 2025).

Guilt can also exceed reasonable responsibility. Combining findings from many studies, Kim and colleagues found that certain forms of guilt were substantially associated with depressive symptoms. These included feeling responsible for events beyond one’s control and a persistent sense of guilt without a particular wrongdoing. The evidence could not establish whether this guilt came before depression, followed it, or affected and was affected by it (Kim et al., 2011).

The practical difference is between recognizing a specific failure and treating every disappointment as proof of personal defect. The former can guide an action. The latter can become an accusation with no attainable resolution.

Defensiveness and Retaliation

Social pain can also turn outward. A person who feels exposed may deny a mistake, attack the critic, or shift attention toward someone else’s faults. Shame research describes associations involving blame and anger, while the multimotive model of rejection explains why perceived unfairness and low expectations of repair can favor antagonistic responses (Tangney et al., 2007; Smart Richman & Leary, 2009).

These are possible pathways, not evidence that anger always conceals shame. Shame and anger can interact, but a feeling, an interpretation, and a harmful act remain distinct. Intimidation or retaliation may further damage trust even when the person initiating it is genuinely hurt. Understanding that pain does not transfer responsibility for the conduct to its recipient.

When Sharing Becomes Co-Rumination

Some unhelpful patterns are sustained together. Co-rumination involves repeatedly dwelling on problems, their possible causes, and their negative implications within a relationship. It differs from simply confiding in someone: attention repeatedly returns to distress without much movement beyond it. The conversation may feel intimate even while the problem occupies more of both people’s emotional lives (Rose et al., 2007).

In a six-month study of children and adolescents, Rose and colleagues found that co-rumination predicted increases in positive friendship quality for both girls and boys. For girls, it also predicted increases in depressive and anxiety symptoms; those symptom increases were not predicted for boys. The prospective effects were small, and the nonexperimental design does not establish causation. Its contribution is the possibility that a process supporting closeness can also accompany worsening distress (Rose et al., 2007).

Imagine that the person awaiting a reply repeatedly discusses the silence with a friend. Together they rehearse increasingly painful explanations, and their shared concern strengthens their sense of alliance. That could leave the original uncertainty harder to tolerate. The distinction is not between talking and staying silent, but between making room for a feeling and repeatedly reinforcing one distressing interpretation. Ordinary support should not be treated as pathological because a difficult subject needs more than one conversation.

Responding With Awareness and Accountability

Understanding a social emotion begins with making the encounter more specific. Return to the unanswered message and the hurt it evoked. The observable event is that no reply has arrived. The conclusion that we no longer matter is an interpretation. Research on rejection sensitivity illustrates how expectations can affect the interpretation of ambiguous behavior (Downey & Feldman, 1996). A history of neglect may make that interpretation plausible; a normally attentive partner having a difficult day may make it less so. Recognizing the distinction allows the feeling to be taken seriously while the meaning remains open to examination.

The next response can then fit what is known. We might wait, ask directly about the silence, or explain that repeated unanswered requests are painful. If we were the person who caused harm, attention can turn toward a specific acknowledgment and a change in conduct. This focus on a particular action draws on research connecting guilt with efforts to make amends and shame with constructive responses when repair seems possible (Tangney et al., 2007; Leach & Cidam, 2015). Taking responsibility need not mean condemning our whole character, and an apology does not oblige the other person to feel better immediately.

We can also consider which social-emotional needs are involved and what kind of support would help. Being heard, receiving practical assistance, and being given space are different requests. Research on dyadic regulation suggests that support works within the recipient’s concerns and the relationship’s context, rather than through one universally soothing response (Overall & Simpson, 2015). Making a request clearer can give another person a better opportunity to respond, while leaving them room to name their own limits. From the listener’s side, an invitation to explain and an effort to understand may make disclosure less risky; perceived responsiveness is one condition that research connects with emotional expression (Ruan et al., 2020).

Sometimes the needed change lies in the relationship or environment. Repeated humiliation, discrimination, or coercion should not be reduced to a difficulty regulating emotion. The social context belongs in the explanation of distress (Smart Richman & Leary, 2009). Protection, outside support, and firmer relationship boundaries may matter more than becoming comfortable with how one is being treated.

The next exchange provides further information. A thoughtful response may make conversation easier; repeated dismissal may clarify that greater distance or outside support is needed. We can ask whether the exchange leaves more room for understanding and appropriate action, rather than judging it only by whether discomfort immediately subsides.

These reflections offer ways to think through an encounter, rather than a formula that guarantees reconciliation. Social understanding includes learning when to move closer, when to repair our own conduct, and when continued closeness asks too much.

A Few Words by Psychology Fanatic

Our emotions carry traces of the people who have welcomed us, disappointed us, depended on us, and helped us feel less alone. This history can make relationships tender places. A small gesture may matter because it touches something larger than the moment.

We can listen to that emotional history without allowing it to decide every present encounter. There is room to acknowledge hurt, check an assumption, appreciate care, or take responsibility for an unkind act. Social emotions remind us that other people matter. Each response becomes part of what happens next. We cannot decide how another person will receive us, but we can attend to what our own conduct invites, what the relationship can sustain, and what we are learning from the exchange.

Associated Concepts

• Belongingness: The motivation to maintain meaningful bonds helps explain why acceptance and exclusion carry emotional weight (Baumeister & Leary, 1995).
• Attachment: Expectations about care and availability shape responses to vulnerability in close relationships (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007).
• Dyadic regulation: Partners’ responses can influence emotional arousal and the course of an interaction (Overall & Simpson, 2015).
• Shame and guilt: These self-conscious emotions connect evaluation of self and conduct with relationships and responsibility (Tangney et al., 2007).
• Avoidance coping: Escaping social discomfort may bring relief while limiting opportunities for support or repair; its significance depends on context (Smart Richman & Leary, 2009).

References

Algoe, Sara B. (2012). Find, Remind, and Bind: The Functions of Gratitude in Everyday Relationships. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 6(6), 455–469. DOI: 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2012.00439.x.
(Return to Main Text)

Allen, Kelly-Ann; Kern, Margaret L.; Rozek, Christopher S.; McInerney, Dennis M.; Slavich, George M. (2021). Belonging: A Review of Conceptual Issues, an Integrative Framework, and Directions for Future Research. Australian Journal of Psychology, 73(1), 87–102. DOI: 10.1080/00049530.2021.1883409.
(Return to Main Text)

Baumeister, Roy F.; Leary, Mark R. (1995). The Need to Belong: Desire for Interpersonal Attachments as a Fundamental Human Motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497.
(Return to Main Text)

Coan, James A.; Schaefer, Hillary S.; Davidson, Richard J. (2006). Lending a Hand: Social Regulation of the Neural Response to Threat. Psychological Science, 17(12), 1032–1039. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01832.x.
(Return to Main Text)

Downey, Geraldine; Feldman, Scott I. (1996). Implications of Rejection Sensitivity for Intimate Relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(6), 1327–1343. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.70.6.1327.
(Return to Main Text)

Garofalo, Carlo; Giammarioli, Laura; Aiolfi, Irene; Delvecchio, Elisa; Mazzeschi, Claudia (2025). Conceptualization and Assessment of Shame Experience and Regulation: An Umbrella Review of Synthesis Studies. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 32(4), e70136. DOI: 10.1002/cpp.70136.
(Return to Main Text)

Gilbert, Paul; McEwan, Kirsten; Matos, Marcela; Rivis, Amanda (2011). Fears of Compassion: Development of Three Self-Report Measures. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 84(3), 239–255. DOI: 10.1348/147608310X526511.
(Return to Main Text)

Keltner, Dacher; Haidt, Jonathan (1999). Social Functions of Emotions at Four Levels of Analysis. Cognition and Emotion, 13(5), 505–521. DOI: 10.1080/026999399379168.
(Return to Main Text)

Kim, Sangmoon; Thibodeau, Ryan; Jorgensen, Randall S. (2011). Shame, Guilt, and Depressive Symptoms: A Meta-Analytic Review. Psychological Bulletin, 137(1), 68–96. DOI: 10.1037/a0021466.
(Return to Main Text)

Leach, Colin Wayne; Cidam, Atilla (2015). When Is Shame Linked to Constructive Approach Orientation? A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(6), 983–1002. DOI: 10.1037/pspa0000037.
(Return to Main Text)

Mesquita, Batja; Boiger, Michael; De Leersnyder, Jozefien (2016). The Cultural Construction of Emotions. Current Opinion in Psychology, 8, 31–36. DOI: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.09.015.
(Return to Main Text)

Mikulincer, Mario; Shaver, Phillip R. (2007). Attachment in Adulthood: Structure, Dynamics, and Change. Guilford Press. ISBN: 9781593854577.
(Return to Main Text)

Overall, Nickola C.; Simpson, Jeffry A. (2015). Attachment and Dyadic Regulation Processes. Current Opinion in Psychology, 1, 61–66. DOI: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2014.11.008.
(Return to Main Text)

Rose, Amanda J.; Carlson, Wendy; Waller, Erika M. (2007). Prospective Associations of Co-Rumination with Friendship and Emotional Adjustment: Considering the Socioemotional Trade-Offs of Co-Rumination. Developmental Psychology, 43(4), 1019–1031. DOI: 10.1037/0012-1649.43.4.1019.
(Return to Main Text)

Ruan, Yan; Reis, Harry T.; Clark, Margaret S.; Hirsch, Jennifer L.; Bink, Brian D. (2020). Can I Tell You How I Feel? Perceived Partner Responsiveness Encourages Emotional Expression. Emotion, 20(3), 329–342. DOI: 10.1037/emo0000650.
(Return to Main Text)

Smart Richman, Laura; Leary, Mark R. (2009). Reactions to Discrimination, Stigmatization, Ostracism, and Other Forms of Interpersonal Rejection: A Multimotive Model. Psychological Review, 116(2), 365–383. DOI: 10.1037/a0015250.
(Return to Main Text)

Srivastava, Sanjay; Tamir, Maya; McGonigal, Kelly M.; John, Oliver P.; Gross, James J. (2009). The Social Costs of Emotional Suppression: A Prospective Study of the Transition to College. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(4), 883–897. DOI: 10.1037/a0014755.
(Return to Main Text)

Sznycer, Daniel; Tooby, John; Cosmides, Leda; Porat, Roni; Shalvi, Shaul; Halperin, Eran (2016). Shame Closely Tracks the Threat of Devaluation by Others, Even Across Cultures. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(10), 2625–2630. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1514699113.
(Return to Main Text)

Tangney, June Price; Stuewig, Jeff; Mashek, Debra J. (2007). Moral Emotions and Moral Behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 345–372. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070145.
(Return to Main Text)

van Kleef, Gerben A.; Côté, Stéphane (2022). The Social Effects of Emotions. Annual Review of Psychology, 73, 629–658. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-psych-020821-010855.
(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)