2 - (SYM 25) a Direct Examination of Interpersonal Emotion Regulation Partners Across Personality Pathology

Personality disorders (PDs) are well-characterized by deficits in interpersonal and emotional functioning, highlighting the importance of examining their intersection, such as interpersonal emotion regulation (IER). Evidence suggests that partners of individuals with PDs are also likely to have greater interpersonal dysfunction (e.g., Beeney et al., 2019), which may impact IER outcomes, such as effectiveness of IER attempts. Given the dyadic nature of IER, characterizing the individuals who help regulate emotions, and their perceptions of these interactions, may further elucidate the process of IER. We aimed to directly characterize network partners that aid in IER for individuals with elevated personality pathology. We recruited a sample of 95 primary participants with elevated personality pathology from the community (63.2% met diagnostic criteria for at least one PD). Primary participants also nominated members of their social network (up to 10 people) to participate (secondary participants). Approximately 50% of nominated partners responded, with a final sample of 167 secondary participants associated with 73 primary participants. Primary participants completed the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) and a measure of IER across network partners (see Howard & Cheavens, 2022). Secondary participants completed the PID-5, measures of interpersonal and emotional dysfunction, and measures related to the primary participant’s use of IER with them. First, using multilevel models, we examined the relations between secondary participants’ levels of personality pathology and interpersonal/emotional dysfunction and primary participants’ reports of IER with that partner as well as primary participants’ pathology in relation to secondary participants’ perceptions of IER. While secondary participants’ pathology was not related to primaries’ reports of IER, greater primary participant personality pathology was positively related to secondaries’ ratings of primary participant IER frequency (B = 0.41, p < .001), emotional intensity (B = 0.05, p = .002), and frequency of going to the primary for IER (B = 0.32, p = .007). Second, we assessed the degree of agreement between the primary and secondary participants’ ratings of IER measures. While measures of the tendency to use IER were significantly correlated (rs = .36 – .41, ps < .001), measures of efficacy, intensity, and willingness were not (rs = .08 – .18, ps > .068).  These results highlight the value of examining both individuals involved in IER.