The Relationship between Interpersonal Emotion Regulation and Interpersonal Competence Controlled for Emotion Dysregulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study is to examine the role of interpersonal emotion regulation on interpersonal competency when controlled for emotion dysregulation. The sample of the study consists of 342 (235 female; 107 male) undergraduate students attending to the various departments of a private university in Turkey. The average age of participants was 20.81 (SD=2.29). The Interpersonal Emotion Regulation Scale, Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale and Interpersonal Competency Scale were used. Analyses were conducted through the SPSS 20 (IBM, 2011). Results of hierarchical regression analysis revealed that interpersonal emotion regulation and emotion dysregulation seem to predict interpersonal competency. After controlling for the effect of emotion dysregulation, interpersonal emotion regulation alone explains 18% of the overall variance in interpersonal competency. Interpersonal emotion has the highest contribution on interpersonal competency followed by emotion dysregulation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".