| Literature DB >> 35548545 |
Courtney Ricciardi1, Olga Kornienko1, Pamela W Garner2.
Abstract
We used social network analysis (SNA) to examine how adaptive ER strategies (acceptance, positive reappraisal, refocusing, and putting in perspective) and maladaptive ER strategies (rumination, catastrophizing, self- and other-blame) predict the creation and maintenance of friendship and conflict relationships within a mixed-gender social group. Participants (n = 193, 53% female, M age = 19.4 years, 62.1% White) reported on emotion regulation, friendship, and conflict nominations at two time points. Stochastic actor-oriented models revealed that similarity in endorsement of adaptive ER strategies predicted maintenance of friendship and conflict relationships over time. However, new conflict relationships were more likely to form between those who differed in use of adaptive ER. Finally, more frequent use of maladaptive ER strategies was related to termination of existing conflict ties and the creation of new ones. Deploying social network analysis as a methodology for examining social relationships enables the unpacking the dynamics of multiple social relationships (friend and conflict), identifying the role of ER for structuring of social relationships among group members. Although cognitive ER is an intra-individual process, it fundamentally occurs within a social environment and our results advance the knowledge of how ER contributes to how this social environment is created in a first place.Entities:
Keywords: conflict; emotion regulation; friendship; social network analysis; stochastic actor-oriented model
Year: 2022 PMID: 35548545 PMCID: PMC9082816 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.802629
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
FIGURE 1Conceptual diagram of how emotion regulation contributes to friendship and conflict network selection dynamics in social groups. Paths are numbered in the order they are discussed in the text. Solid lines represent the main paths of interest examined in this study; dashed lines represent paths describing alternative social network selection processes that we statiscally account for by simulataneous inclusion in our model.
Descriptive statistics.
| Descriptive statistics | ||
|
|
| |
|
| ||
| Mean (SD) | 12.79 (2.72) | |
| Range | 7.00–19.50 | |
|
| ||
| Mean (SD) | 10.05 (2.44) | |
| Range | 5.00–18.75 | |
|
| ||
| Outdegree | 6.238 | 5.788 |
| Density | 0.032 | 0.03 |
| Number of ties | 1,204 | 1,117 |
| Jaccard index | 0.321 | |
|
| ||
| Outdegree | 1.249 | 1.477 |
| Density | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Number of ties | 241 | 285 |
| Jaccard index | 0.235 | |
Stochastic actor based model results for contributions of emotion regulation to selection in friendship and conflict networks.
| Effects | Estimate | S.E. | p |
|
| |||
|
| |||
| Adaptive ER alter | –0.02 | (0.03) | |
| Adaptive ER ego | –0.53 | (0.47) | |
| Adaptive ER similarity | 1.07 | (0.51) |
|
| Maladaptive ER alter | 0.04 | (0.03) | |
| Maladaptive ER ego | –0.50 | (0.62) | |
| Maladaptive ER similarity | 0.30 | (0.67) | |
|
| |||
| Adaptive ER alter | –0.02 | (0.03) | |
| Adaptive ER ego | 0.47 | (0.47) | |
| Adaptive ER similarity | –0.56 | (0.54) | |
| Maladaptive ER alter | 0.01 | (0.03) | |
| Maladaptive ER ego | 0.46 | (0.62) | |
| Maladaptive ER similarity | –0.18 | (0.75) | |
|
| |||
| Same female | –0.09 | (0.07) | |
| Same race | 0.16 | (0.07) |
|
| Same section | 0.56 | (0.08) |
|
| Band section leader alter | –0.03 | (0.13) | |
| Band section leader ego | –0.33 | (0.13) |
|
| Band section leader similarity | 0.02 | (0.12) | |
| Seasons alter | 0.07 | (0.04) | |
| Seasons ego | –0.03 | (0.04) | |
| Seasons similarity | 0.43 | (0.20) |
|
|
| |||
| Rate | 12.93 | (0.87) | |
| Outdegree (density) | –2.76 | (1.18) |
|
| Reciprocity | 1.95 | (0.17) |
|
| Transitive triplets | 0.17 | (0.09) | |
| Transitive reciprocated triplets | –0.20 | (0.07) |
|
| 3-cycles | 0.04 | (0.08) | |
| Transitive ties | 0.46 | (0.12) |
|
| Balance | 0.00 | (0.04) | |
| Number of actors at dist 2 | –0.11 | (0.05) |
|
| Indegree–popularity (sqrt) | 0.26 | (0.07) |
|
| Outdegree–popularity (sqrt) | –0.18 | (0.33) | |
| Outdegree–activity (sqrt) | –0.01 | (0.26) | |
|
| |||
|
| |||
| Adaptive ER alter | –0.10 | (0.08) | |
| Adaptive ER ego | –0.39 | (0.33) | |
| Adaptive ER similarity | 2.72 | (1.29) |
|
| Maladaptive ER alter | –0.14 | (0.11) | |
| Maladaptive ER ego | –1.08 | (0.37) |
|
| Maladaptive ER similarity | –2.57 | (2.16) | |
|
| |||
| Adaptive ER alter | –0.03 | (0.04) | |
| Adaptive ER ego | 0.21 | (0.27) | |
| Adaptive ER similarity | –1.44 | (0.66) |
|
| Maladaptive ER alter | –0.04 | (0.05) | |
| Maladaptive ER ego | 0.71 | (0.32) |
|
| Maladaptive ER similarity | –1.33 | (1.14) | |
|
| |||
| Same race | –0.05 | (0.19) | |
| Same section | 1.99 | (0.22) |
|
| Band section leader alter | 0.55 | (0.27) |
|
| Band section leader ego | –0.12 | (0.30) | |
| Band section leader similarity | 0.32 | (0.26) | |
| Seasons alter | –0.05 | (0.10) | |
| Seasons ego | 0.18 | (0.09) | |
| Seasons similarity | 1.12 | (0.47) |
|
|
| |||
| Rate | 4.08 | (0.48) | |
| Outdegree (density) | –6.66 | (0.58) |
|
| Reciprocity | 0.89 | (0.33) |
|
| Indegree–popularity (sqrt) | 0.30 | (0.16) | |
| Outdegree–popularity (sqrt) | 0.74 | (0.29) |
|
| Outdegree–activity (sqrt) | 0.60 | (0.16) |
|
|
| |||
| Conflict to agreement effect in friend network | –0.09 | (0.17) | |
| Friend to agreement effect in conflict network | 0.70 | (0.15) |
|
ER, emotion regulation.
Convergence t-ratios for each parameter was less than 0.1. Overall maximum convergence ratio 0.12.
*p < 0.05. Goodness of fit analyses are presented in