Xhaustion subscale of the Maslach Burnout Inventory (Maslach and Jackson, 1981). For

Xhaustion subscale of the Maslach Burnout Inventory (Maslach and Jackson, 1981). For this scale, order 71939-50-9 participants were asked how often they had experienced indicators of emotional exhaustion (e.g., “I felt emotionally drained”) over the past 4 weeks, responding on a five-point scale ranging from “Never” to “All of the time” ( = 0.89).EmpathyWe measured several variables to serve as controls in our analyses to help rule out possible alternative explanations. Specifically, we controlled for the age and gender of the participant, which might have been related to the outcomes of interest (e.g., relationship closeness, well-being). In addition, we controlled for variability in the gender of the relationship partner (calculated as the standard deviation of the gender of all relationship partners each participant reported on), PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19910438 because it is possible that people use different types of interpersonal emotion regulation strategies toward males and females, which could conflate our results. For a similar reason, we controlled for the number of relationships that participants had reported about (two or three), as higher variability would be expected when reporting on more relationships. Finally, we controlled for the mean 480-44-4 amount of interpersonal emotion regulation used across all relationships (calculated as the average of all 12 strategies across all relationships reported on), to ensure that any observed relationships were uniquely relating to interpersonal emotion regulation variability rather than simply the amount of regulation used.The empathic traits of empathic concern and perspective taking were both measured using subscales from Davis’s (1983) Interpersonal Reactivity Index. Both subscales include seven items, for example “I often have tender concerned feelings for people less fortunate then me” for empathic concern ( = 0.74) and “I believe that there are two sides to every question and try to look at themRESULTS Mean levels of the use of each type of interpersonal emotion regulation strategy are shown in Table 2. Repeated measures ANOVAs on the sample who had completed data about all three relationships, using relationship type (romantic, friend or relative, work) as the repeated measures factor and mean strategy use scores as dependent variables, revealed significant differences in the use of each of the four main strategy types between the relationships we studied (F s ranged between 128.25 and 704.73, ps < 0.01). Inspection of the mean scores suggests that all strategy types were used most often within romantic relationships and least often within work relationships. Thus, across the sample as a whole, there wasFrontiers in Psychology | Emotion ScienceOctober 2012 | Volume 3 | Article 394 |Niven et al.Interpersonal emotion regulation spinTable 2 | Mean use of interpersonal emotion regulation strategies in different relationships. Romantic relationship Cognitive improving Behavioral improving Cognitive worsening Behavioral worsening Mean use of interpersonal emotion regulation 3.79 3.95 1.76 1.58 2.77 Friend or relative 3.49 3.43 1.32 1.25 2.38 Work relationship 2.73 2.51 1.20 1.21 1.92 Mean strategy use across relationships 3.34 3.30 1.43 1.35 2.N = 663, which is the sample completing interpersonal emotion regulation strategies across all three relationships.between-relationship variation in the use of interpersonal emotion regulation. The focus of the current study, however, was on betweenrelationship variation at the individual-level, op.Xhaustion subscale of the Maslach Burnout Inventory (Maslach and Jackson, 1981). For this scale, participants were asked how often they had experienced indicators of emotional exhaustion (e.g., "I felt emotionally drained") over the past 4 weeks, responding on a five-point scale ranging from "Never" to "All of the time" ( = 0.89).EmpathyWe measured several variables to serve as controls in our analyses to help rule out possible alternative explanations. Specifically, we controlled for the age and gender of the participant, which might have been related to the outcomes of interest (e.g., relationship closeness, well-being). In addition, we controlled for variability in the gender of the relationship partner (calculated as the standard deviation of the gender of all relationship partners each participant reported on), PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19910438 because it is possible that people use different types of interpersonal emotion regulation strategies toward males and females, which could conflate our results. For a similar reason, we controlled for the number of relationships that participants had reported about (two or three), as higher variability would be expected when reporting on more relationships. Finally, we controlled for the mean amount of interpersonal emotion regulation used across all relationships (calculated as the average of all 12 strategies across all relationships reported on), to ensure that any observed relationships were uniquely relating to interpersonal emotion regulation variability rather than simply the amount of regulation used.The empathic traits of empathic concern and perspective taking were both measured using subscales from Davis’s (1983) Interpersonal Reactivity Index. Both subscales include seven items, for example “I often have tender concerned feelings for people less fortunate then me” for empathic concern ( = 0.74) and “I believe that there are two sides to every question and try to look at themRESULTS Mean levels of the use of each type of interpersonal emotion regulation strategy are shown in Table 2. Repeated measures ANOVAs on the sample who had completed data about all three relationships, using relationship type (romantic, friend or relative, work) as the repeated measures factor and mean strategy use scores as dependent variables, revealed significant differences in the use of each of the four main strategy types between the relationships we studied (F s ranged between 128.25 and 704.73, ps < 0.01). Inspection of the mean scores suggests that all strategy types were used most often within romantic relationships and least often within work relationships. Thus, across the sample as a whole, there wasFrontiers in Psychology | Emotion ScienceOctober 2012 | Volume 3 | Article 394 |Niven et al.Interpersonal emotion regulation spinTable 2 | Mean use of interpersonal emotion regulation strategies in different relationships. Romantic relationship Cognitive improving Behavioral improving Cognitive worsening Behavioral worsening Mean use of interpersonal emotion regulation 3.79 3.95 1.76 1.58 2.77 Friend or relative 3.49 3.43 1.32 1.25 2.38 Work relationship 2.73 2.51 1.20 1.21 1.92 Mean strategy use across relationships 3.34 3.30 1.43 1.35 2.N = 663, which is the sample completing interpersonal emotion regulation strategies across all three relationships.between-relationship variation in the use of interpersonal emotion regulation. The focus of the current study, however, was on betweenrelationship variation at the individual-level, op.