The Future of Affective Science Special Issues highlight exciting new directions for research. As participants in the field, we write to share our thoughts about topics we see as important but have been underexplored in the literature thus far, with an emphasis on opportunities for greater interconnection across research areas. We focus primarily on the social side of emotion regulation, as this is a relatively new and fast-growing area of interest (Petrova & Gross, 2023; Simmons et al., 2023). We use the term social emotion regulation (Coan et al., 2006; Beckes & Coan, 2015), rather than other terms in current usage (such as interpersonal emotion regulation, e.g., Zaki & Williams, 2013; see DiGiovanni, He & Ochsner for expanded discussion of terminological usage), because it inclusively refers to the growing variety of situations being studied where interactions between two or more individuals regulate the emotions of one or more interaction partners. Defined thusly, social regulation can occur in dyadic interactions (Dixon-Gordon et al., 2015) as well as group interactions, either in person (Goldenberg et al., 2016) or online (Dore et al., 2017).

Our response to the special issues is informed by a process model of social emotion regulation (SER; Reeck et al., 2016), which considers the multitude of goals that guide regulation, the strategies and tactics used to regulate, and the outcomes of the regulatory process. In this commentary, we hope to begin the discussion on fruitful areas for future research, highlighting new ways forward that emphasize the social nature of social emotion regulation and taking an integrative approach across fields of psychological science (DiGiovanni et al., in prep). Table 1 below summarizes key discussion points.

Table 1 Components of social emotion regulation: current approaches and future research opportunities
Full size table

A Closer Examination of Goals in Social Emotion Regulation

Theoretical models have long posited that self-regulation is guided by goals (Carver & Scheier, 2012; Miller et al., 1960). Although multiple special issue authors highlighted the importance of understanding the goals that guide emotion regulation (e.g., Becker & Bernecker, 2023; Petrova & Gross, 2023; Tran et al., 2023), to date, most relevant studies have considered only goals that are affective or hedonic. Yet, emotion regulation—especially social emotion regulation—may also be guided by social goals, which reflect a desire to influence the nature and/or quality of relationships and social contexts (Tamir, 2016; Dixon-Gordon et al., 2015; Tamir, 2016; Springstein & English, 2024). Some theoretical (Niven, 2017; Dixon-Gordon et al., 2015; English & Growney, 2021; Springstein & English, 2024) and empirical (Liu et al., 2021; Kalokerinos et al., 2017) work has begun considering social goals, but relevant research is still scarce. Going forward, we encourage emotion regulation scholars to more clearly delineate and define different types of social goals that may motivate or guide emotion regulation (see Table 1), and, as elaborated in the next section, study when (e.g., in what situations) individuals use social regulation vs. self-regulation to attain social goals.

In particular, future work may look to examine how prosocial goals—such as seeking to enhance intimacy in a relationship—not only serve social functions, but also influence affective outcomes and may dovetail—or conflict with—affective goals (Kruglanski et al., 2015). For example, a supportive individual may have a prosocial goal to enhance closeness with a new romantic partner, while simultaneously possessing an affective goal to feel positive emotions, and these goals may not align. To enhance relationship closeness, an individual may need to support their struggling partner during a particularly stressful time, which may result in the support provider feeling increased negative emotions through the process of stress contagion. Although this may undermine the support provider’s affective goal, it may nevertheless foster greater closeness via enhanced responsiveness (e.g., Balzarini et al., 2023).

In addition to balancing multiple types of goals, relational contexts may also require assessments of how personal goals (mis)align with a partner’s goals (Fitzsimons et al., 2015). For example, an individual may see their friend is upset and want to cheer them up, but also realize their friend does not want that and instead wants to vent about the issues, without feeling they are being explicitly supported (Zee & Bolger, 2019). A regulator’s decision whether and when to offer social regulatory support must take into account not just their own goals to be supportive and/or happy, but also their partner’s goals to express emotion and/or maintain regulatory independence. Taken together, this highlights how a multiplicity of goals—and their relative prioritization—should be examined both within and between individuals.

Examining Social Emotion Regulation Strategies and Tactics

Various authors highlighted the need for future research to further examine how, why, and with what affective consequences, individuals select particular emotion regulation strategies and tactics (e.g., DiGirolamo et al., 2023; Petrova & Gross, 2023). Although this question has been heavily studied in research on self-regulation of emotion (e.g., DiGirolamo et al., 2023; McRae et al., 2012), fewer papers have examined the why, when, and how of strategy and tactic selection in social contexts, as well as the resulting outcomes. Papers making this connection are emerging, including one showing that social regulators select different strategies depending on the specific emotion they perceive targets to be experiencing (Shu et al., 2021). This work highlights how targets’ emotions impact social regulation tactic selection and success.

Connecting these ideas back to the assessment of regulatory goals in general—and prosocial goals in particular—future work may look to study under what conditions social goals lead individuals to engage in self vs. social emotion regulation and what specific strategies and tactics are employed. For example, although recent work has demonstrated that prosocial goals (e.g., to build or maintain relationships) are a primary reason individuals choose to engage in social emotion regulation (Tran et al., 2024), there may also be times that self-regulation strategies (e.g., suppressing the expression of personal distress when helping an upset friend) are the best means of attaining prosocial goals. Future work may delve deeper into understanding differences and similarities between when and why social versus self-regulation of emotion is chosen, capitalizing on dyadic methods to explore tactic selection and implementation and—as discussed below—resulting outcomes for regulators and targets (e.g., Gleason et al., 2003; DiGiovanni et al., 2023; Park et al., 2023; Peters et al., 2024).

Assessing Multiple Types of Outcomes Relevant to Emotion Regulation

Finally, with respect to the outcomes of emotion regulation, we make a point parallel to our points about goals and strategies and tactics. For many instances of emotion regulation, and especially those that involve social regulatory interactions, it will be important to understand both affective and social outcomes for all individuals involved, whether they acted as a regulator providing support to others or as a target that received support (or both). In general, there is an underemphasis on the ways that social emotion regulation impacts social outcomes. Yet, as social beings whose actions have implications for those around us, it is imperative that we consider how both self-regulation and social regulation influences not just our own affect, but also our relationships and feelings towards others. Of particular importance may be prosocial outcomes, such as those that are associated with feelings about the interaction partner (i.e., liking of the partner).

For example, emotion regulation research could assess prosocial outcomes such as physical and emotional intimacy, feelings of support, perceived partner responsiveness, and gratitude (e.g., Algoe, 2012; Cornelius et al., 2022; Feeney & Collins, 2015; Gleason et al., 2008; Girme et al., 2013; Reis et al., 2004; Rossignac-Milon et al., 2021; Visserman et al., 2018). Such outcomes have been long studied in relationship science, and their inclusion in future work would enable affective scientists to understand the rich and interconnected nature of affective and social outcomes resulting from emotion regulatory processes. In related disciplines, work on social support (Gleason et al., 2008) and co-rumination (DiGiovanni et al., 2021) provide examples of how such integration can be useful by providing insight into how affective and social outcomes can be intrinsically related.

Putting the Pieces Together

In the paragraphs above, we hope to have highlighted the potential value of examining understudied topics in the study of social emotion regulation (i.e., social goals, the social nature of strategy and tactic implementation, and social outcomes). That said, it is important to emphasize that studying any one aspect of self- or social emotion regulation in isolation gives us an incomplete picture of how regulation unfolds in everyday life—and many important questions remain about why, when, and how we engage in self vs. social regulation. As such, future work on social emotion regulation can aim to take a personalized approach (see Doré et al., 2016), whereby outcomes are assessed as resulting from unique interactions between person-level variables, situations, and strategies selected and implemented. Without explicitly examining heterogeneity in what strategies work for particular individuals in particular situations (e.g., DiGiovanni et al., 2021; Sahi et al., 2023), we will have an incomplete, or at worst, incorrect, understanding of social emotion regulation.

Conclusion

Taken together, the special issues highlighted a number of fruitful new directions for affective science, and emotion regulation more specifically (summarized in Table 1). We are excited to be participants in these new directions and look forward to the future of the field. Towards this end, we have argued that future work could increasingly (1) emphasize the expressly social goals, strategies/tactics, and outcomes of social emotion regulation and (2) more holistically study the interactions among all elements of the regulatory process. These suggestions dovetail with research programs prioritized by granting agencies (Simmons et al., 2023) and may also help reveal the ways in which social and affective variables have implications for individual, relational, and societal well-being.