RECORDED PRESENTATION

Co-Rumination and Emotion Regulation among Individuals in Same-sex Friendships

A Thesis Proposal

MENDOZA, SHANES ALEYA M.

Adviser: Ms. Dee Imperio

Bachelor of Science in Psychology

Chapter 1: The Problem and its Background

Introduction

Same-sex friendships: a platonic, nonfamilial connection that provides security and contentment to an individual.

• Same sex leads to closer companionship and higher relational quality compared to cross-sex friendships (Tompkins and Tang, 2011)
• Same sex close friends serve as essential sources of social support, particularly for females (Byrd-Craven and Geary, 2013)

Chapter 1: The Problem and its Background

Introduction

Close friendships

Same-sex friendships: a platonic, nonfamilial connection that provides security and contentment to an individual.

Self-Disclosure and Emotional Support

• Same sex leads to closer companionship and higher relational quality compared to cross-sex friendships (Tompkins and Tang, 2011)
• Same sex close friends serve as essential sources of social support, particularly for females (Byrd-Craven and Geary, 2013)

Excessive act of emotional vulnerability

Psychological Wellbeing Concerns

Chapter 1: The Problem and its Background

Introduction

Co-rumination

Excessive act of emotional vulnerability

• High levels of co-ruminative behavior
• higher friendship quality and tendencies to experience depressive symptoms (Smith-Schrandt, 2013).
• Focusing on negative feelings without seeking out ways for redirection can lead to an increase in negative affect (Ranney, 2012)

• "It is form of social support where no problem solving is happening."

• "Just listening and validating the emotions of the speaker when they repeatedly discuss their negative feelings."

Chapter 1: The Problem and its Background

Introduction

Co-rumination

Excessive act of emotional vulnerability

• High levels of co-ruminative behavior
• higher friendship quality and tendencies to experience depressive symptoms (Smith-Schrandt, 2013).
• Focusing on negative feelings without seeking out ways for redirection can lead to an increase in negative affect (Ranney, 2012)

• "It is form of social support where no problem solving is happening."

• "Just listening and validating the emotions of the speaker when they repeatedly discuss their negative feelings."

Objective: to assess the possible link between co-rumination and emotion regulation. In the context of young adults who are in same-sex friendships and residing in selected areas in the Philippines.

Background of the Study

Background of the Study

Selected Areas in the Philippines

Young Adults / "Transitional Phase"

Erik Erikson's Psychosocial Development Theory

Social Well-Being in the Philippines: Indicators and Patterns (Porio and See, 2017)

• Intimacy vs Isolation
• Young adults tend to share more intimately with others. If they’re able to form close and happy relationships, they will learn the virtue of love (McLeod, 2018)
• Social experiences that they have may affect them at an individual level.

• Metropolitan Manila (300), Luzon (300), Visayas (300) and Mindanao (300).

• Individuals who lived outside of Metro Manila had higher social well-being than those living in MM.
• Different demands and social environment = varying levels of happiness and overall satisfaction with life

Young adults tend to co-ruminate more than older individuals (McCormack, 2017)

Background of the Study

Social Facilitation Theory

Co-Rumination

• A ‘co-action’ will have an effect on a person at a physiological, cognitive, and affective levels

• When an individual and their friend are both engaged in a discussion about personal concerns, they are influencing each other based on whether the social situation has a positive or negative orientation (Cuncic, 2021).

• To date, there are contextual limitations in the research of co-rumination.
• Most studies are conducted in the US and most focus on adolescents

Background of the Study

Social Facilitation Theory

Co-Rumination

• A ‘co-action’ will have an effect on a person at a physiological, cognitive, and affective levels

• When an individual and their friend are both engaged in a discussion about personal concerns, they are influencing each other based on whether the social situation has a positive or negative orientation (Cuncic, 2021).

• To date, there are contextual limitations in the research of co-rumination.
• Most studies are conducted in the US and most focus on adolescents

The current study will determine whether this social interaction can be linked with the state of an individual’s emotion regulation ability.

Rationale and SOP

This research will focus on finding the answers to the following problems: 1. What is the profile of the respondents in terms of: 1.1 Demographics: Sex, Employment Status, Length of friendship with a same-sex friend, and Area of Residence? 1.2 Variables: Co-rumination and Emotional regulation? 2. Is there a significant relationship between Co-rumination and Emotional Regulation of the respondents? 3. Is there a significant difference between Co-rumination and Emotional Regulation of the respondents, when grouped according to: 3.1 Sex 3.2 Employment Status 3.3 Length of friendship with the same-sex friend 3.4 Area of residence

Rationale and SOP

2. Is there a significant relationship between Co-rumination and Emotional Regulation of the respondents?

Importance:

• Allows the researcher to predict the nature of these two variables
• Serve as a foundation for further psychological studies.
• Social support is a common way for individuals to cope with negative emotions
• Its important to research how these social interactions are associated with emotion regulation.

Rationale and SOP

3. Is there a significant difference between Co-rumination and Emotional Regulation of the respondents, when grouped according to:3.1 Sex 3.2 Employment Status 3.3 Length of friendship 3.4 Area of residence

Importance:

• Studying the impact of the different characteristics of young adults may be useful in understanding the variables
• These profiles were selected after a thorough review of related literature.

Rationale and SOP

3. Is there a significant difference between Co-rumination and Emotional Regulation of the respondents, when grouped according to:3.1 Sex 3.2 Employment Status 3.3 Length of friendship 3.4 Area of residence

Importance:

• Sex: Previously studied on but wants to analyze it in a Philippine context
• Employment Status + Area of Residence: Different environments, different manifestations
• Length of Friendship: Influence levels of intimacy + the activities they tend to do together

Hypothesis

The researcher will attempt to accept or reject the formulated hypothesis.

H01: There is no significant relationship between Co-rumination and Emotional Regulation. H02: There is no significant difference between Co-rumination and Emotional Regulation of the respondents when grouped according to their demographic profiles.

Conceptual Framework

Conceptual Framework

• SOP 2: Significant Relationship
• Social facilitation theory can be observed in co-rumination as co-action can be linked to an individual and in this case, the state of their emotion regulation ability (Garrido, 2017)

Conceptual Framework

• SOP 3: Significant Differences

• Significant differences among co-rumination and emotion regulation when respondents are grouped according to their demographic profiles.
• Significant differences in a certain independent variable when the respondents are grouped according to their demographic profile.

Scope and Limitations of the Study

Limitations

• Not considered:

Scope

• Correlation between two variables: co-rumination and emotion regulation.
• Young adults (18-25) residing in selected areas in the Phillipines
• Individual who perceives to be in a highly satisfied same-sex friendship.
• Demographic profiles

• Same-sex romantic partner as their close friend

• Family member as their close friend

• Data gathering is only done online due to safety protocols.

• Sex
• Employment status
• Length of friendship
• Area of residence.

Significance of the Study

Work Managers of Young Adults

Teachers of Young Adults

Parents of Young Adults

Young Adults

Same-sex Friends

Psychology Practitioners

Future Researchers

Definition of Terms

Co-Rumination. This refers to a respondent’s tendency to constantly discuss their problems and focus on negative feelings with a same-sex friend.

• High Levels of Co-rumination. This refers to the tendency of the respondent to repeatedly discuss repeatedly dwells on their personal issues with a same-sex friend while focusing on their negative feelings.
• Low Levels of Co-rumination. This refers to the tendency of the respondent to have little or no interest in constantly discussing their problems with their same-sex friend while focusing on their negative feelings.

Definition of Terms

Emotional Regulation. This refers to a respondent’s ability to exert control over their own emotional state in order to respond to the demands of everyday life.

• Clarity. This refers to the ability of a respondent to identify their emotions based on how they are able to make sense of how they feel and often they feel confused about it.
• Goals. This refers to how difficult it is for a respondent to concentrate on their tasks and/or be productive when they are upset.
• Impulse. This refers to how difficult it is for a respondent to have self-control over their behavior when they feel upset.
• Non-acceptance. This refers to the likelihood of a respondent having negative reactions such as shame and guilt toward their own distress.
• Strategies. This refers to the extent to which a respondent believes that they have limited ability to make themselves feel better when upset and how much time they use dwelling on their own problem.

Sels et al. (2022)

Current Study

To Share or Not to Share: Social Sharing Predicts Decreased Emotion Differentiation

Similarities: Both investigates the relationship of co-rumination with how an individual deals with their emotionsUniqueness: Will focus on the ability of an individual to regulate their emotions rather than just being able to identify it.

• Individuals should reduce the act of engaging in co-ruminative behavior as they may struggle to identify their positive and negative emotions.

• The response of the listener matters to the progression of the conversation.
• While rumination is an intrapersonal process, it might gradually evolve into co-ruminative due to a need to receive empathy from close peers which may not lead to positive outcomes. The form of social support an individual receives can influence how they process their emotions during adverse experiences.

Battaglini (2020)

Current Study

Intra- and Interpersonal Emotion Regulation

Similarities: Both focus on the close relationships of young adults and how emotion regulation and co-rumination varied on different levels.Uniqueness: The significant relationship between co-rumination and friendship quality is no longer tested. Instead, the main focus is on the link between co-rumination and emotion regulation. Additionally, the sample will focus on two adult age groups (young and late) in a long distance same-sex friend perspective.

• Tested how intrapersonal and interpersonal strategies to regulate one’s emotions would impact relationship closeness during times of stress.
• The way emotional experiences are processed is based on the emotion regulation ability of an individual.
• The use of distraction helped in dealing with emotional distress.
• There was no significant shift in negative affect when co-rumination is used.
• However, it is important to note that those who used co-rumination did not have intense levels of negative affect compared to those who utilized distraction

Marroquin, Tennen, and Stanton (2017)

Current Study

Coping, Emotion Regulation, and Well-Being: Intrapersonal and Interpersonal Processes

Similarities: Both aims to evaluate the effects of social sharing in emotion regulation Uniqueness: This present study focuses on co-rumination only. This is to shed light on whether this type of strategy can help a person regulate their emotions or would it relate to maladjustment specifically.

• Studying emotion regulation is important to understand the coping mechanisms of people during stressful situations.
• Emotion regulation is linked to maladjustment.
• Social support is reported to play a big impact on one’s psychological wellbeing, specifically on its quality rather than
• Sharing negative emotions decreases emotional distress.
• Overall, social resources may affect well-being through emotion regulation.

Chapter 2:

METHODOLOGY

Research Design

Descriptive-Correlational

• Significant relationship between Co-rumination and Emotion Regulation
• NOT casual link

Respondents of the Study

Characteristics

• Young Adults (18-25)
• Has a same-sex best friend (Must be high in friendship satisfaction
• Selected areas in the Philippines

Multiple Sampling Techniques

• Purposive sampling
• Snowball Sampling
• Voluntary Sampling

Respondents of the Study

Purposive Sampling

• Intentional selection of respondents based on their ability to discuss a specific theme, concept, or phenomenon.
• Qualifications:

1. They should be young adults (18-25) who is in a same-sex friendship that is platonic and nonfamilial
2. They should meet the cut-off score in the McGill Friendship Questionnaire that will be used as a qualifier to determine respondents who are in a highly satisfying same-sex friendship.

Respondents of the Study

Snowball Sampling

• Respondents may refer the questionnaire to other potential respondents who may be qualified to answer

Voluntary Sampling

• Respondents voluntarily choose to participate in the study
• How: A Facebook and Twitter post about the questionnaire and details and who would be qualified to answer

Research Instruments

Difficulties in Emotion Regulation

Co-Rumination Scale

McGill Friendship Questionnaire-Respondent’s Affection

Rose (2002)

Gratz & Roemer (2004)

Mendelson and Aboud (1999)

Qualifier

• It has 16 items
• 9-point likert scale
• Measures how satisfied the individual is with their same-sex friendship.
• The scores will be interpreted based on the overall mean score of the respondent.

McGill Friendship Questionnaire-Respondent’s Affection

• Higher scores:
• has a positive affection with their same-sex friend
• they are satisfied with the bond that they share.

• Lower scores
• respondent does not perceive their friendship to be a significantly strong connection
• may not feel close with them
• would indicate that they are not qualified for the study and will be excluded

Mendelson and Aboud (1999)

Qualifier

Sample questions: 1. I am happy with my friendship with ___. 6. I feel my friendship with ___ is good. 9. I feel close to __.

• 27 items, 5-point Likert scale
• 3 items each assessing the nine components presented

(1) frequently discussing problems(2) discussing problems instead of other activities, (3) encouraging the friend to keep discussing problems, (4) being encouraged by the friend to keep discussing problems, (5) discussing the same problem repeatedly, (6) speculating about causes of problems, (7) speculating about consequences of problems, (8) speculating about other parts of the problem (9) focusing on negative feelings

Co-Rumination Scale

Rose (2002)

Sample questions: 1. We spend most of our time together talking about the problems that my friend or I have 5. When one of us has a problem, we talk to each about it for a long time. 17. ...we talk about how bad the person with the problem feels

• Overall mean score: basis for interpretation.
• Higher scores will be interpreted as higher tendencies to excessively talk to your same-sex friend about personal problems. This means that the individual tends to dwell about their negative thoughts with their close same-sex friend without actively seeking out a solution.
• Lower scores would mean the individual has fewer tendencies to engage in such maladaptive behavior.

• 30 items, 5-point Likert scale
• 5 subscales

• Clarity
• 3. I have no idea how I am feeling
• 6. I am confused about how I feel
• Goals
• 9. When I'm upset, I have difficulty getting work done
• 28. When I'm upset, I have difficulty thinking about anything else
• Impulse
• 2. I experience my emotions as overwhelming and out of my control
• 14. When I'm upset, I feel out of control
• Non-acceptance
• 7. When I'm upset, I feel angry for feeling that way.
• Strategies
• 26. When I'm upset, I believe that wallowing in it is all I can do

Difficulties in Emotion Regulation

Gratz & Roemer (2004)

The scores per subscale will indicate the subjective emotional ability of the respondent.

• Higher scores, meaning greater difficulty on that dimension.

If the overall mean score is high, it would mean that they struggle in many areas of emotion regulation.

• 2 Types of scores will be collected
• Overall mean score
• The scores on each subscale individually.

Research Instruments

Difficulties in Emotion Regulation

Co-Rumination Scale

McGill Friendship Questionnaire-Respondent’s Affection

Rose (2002)

Gratz & Roemer (2004)

Mendelson and Aboud (1999)

The Cronbach Alpha for all scales were high in previous study validating the instruments.

Validation of Instruments

Face and Content Validity assessment by the Dean of Psychology

Cronbach Alpha testing for Internal Consistency

Ethical Considerations

Validation of Tools

Data Gathering

Cascading of Results

• Consent from Authors to use their scales
• To date, I have been granted permission to use all scales

• Informed Consent
• Objectives and other information are told to the respondents
• Participation is anonymous and voluntary
• Respondents are free to withdraw at any time.

• Confidentiality
• Data will not be accessed by just anyone, only those required for purpose of this present study

Data Gathering Procedure

1. Initial and Selection Phase

Those qualified to answer will be messaged and a post on Facebook and Twitter will be created to scout for respondents.

All have access to a google form link. Their consent will be retrieved in the process.

The link is where their qualifications will be checked further.

Data Gathering Procedure

1. Initial and Selection Phase

Firstly, they will be asked if they have a same-sex friend.

Afterward, they will answer the McGill questionnaire to measure their friendship satisfaction.

Data Gathering Procedure

2. Data Collection Phase

After screening, they will answer questionnaires regarding co-rumination and emotion regulation.

3. Scoring of the Data Gathered

Microsoft excel

The data to be collected from the eligible participants will undergo statistical analysis

Data Gathering Procedure

4. Analysis Phase

Assisted by Statistician

Statistical analysis will be done based on the problem statement

Once results are ready:

Informal Interview

Interpretation based on related literature

5. Review and Writing Phase

All the information will be reviewed and all necessary editing for the paper will be done

Statistical Treatment of Data

PROBLEM 1: What is the profile of the respondents in terms of 1.1 Demographics: Sex, Employment Status, Length of friendship, and Area of Residence? 1.2 Variables: Co-rumination and Emotional regulation?

STATISTICAL TREATMENT: Arithmetic Mean and Standard Deviation.

• To present the data the respondents provided Co-rumination and Difficulties in emotion regulation.
• They will be categorized into their demographic profiles: sex, employment status, length of friendship, and area of residence.
• The mean scores of each subscale will be used to verbally interpret the data to be collected.
• The standard deviation will also be calculated by computing the square root of the variance.

Statistical Treatment of Data

PROBLEM 2: Is there a significant relationship between Co-rumination and the Emotional Regulation of the respondents?

STATISTICAL TREATMENT: The Pearson’s R correlation

• Used to determine whether there is a significant relationship between the two variables.
• Pearson’s correlation coefficient (R-value): the strength of correlation
• A high R coefficient value: strong significant relationship between the two variables.
• A low R coefficient value: low relationship between the two variables which can be neglected.

Statistical Treatment of Data

STATISTICAL TREATMENT 1: T-test (Multivariate Analysis of Variance)

PROBLEM 3: Is there a significant difference between Co-rumination and Emotional Regulation of the respondents, when grouped according to: 3.1 Sex 3.2 Employment Status 3.3 Length of friendship 3.4 Area of residence

• Determines if there is a significant difference between co-rumination and emotion regulation when grouped by demographic profile

STATISTICAL TREATMENT 2: Independent One-way ANOVA

• Will be used to identify if there is a significant difference in a certain independent variable when the respondents would be grouped according to their demographic profile
• Hochberg’s GT 2 will be used as a post hoc to identify which groups have significant differences on a specific variable.

Co-Rumination and Emotion Regulation among Individuals in Same-sex Friendships

A Thesis Proposal

MENDOZA, SHANES ALEYA M.

Adviser: Ms. Dee Imperio

Bachelor of Science in Psychology