↓ Skip to main content

Why Try (Not) to Cry: Intra- and Inter-Personal Motives for Crying Regulation

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
8 news outlets
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Why Try (Not) to Cry: Intra- and Inter-Personal Motives for Crying Regulation
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00597
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gwenda Simons, Martin Bruder, Ilmo van der Löwe, Brian Parkinson

Abstract

This article discusses inter- and intra-personal motives for the regulation of crying, and presents illustrative findings from an online survey (N = 110) exploring why and how people regulate crying in their everyday lives. In line with current theorizing on emotion regulation and crying (e.g., Vingerhoets et al., 2000), we propose that emotional crying is regulated using both antecedent-focused techniques targeting the underlying emotion and response-focused techniques targeting the act of crying itself. Indeed, our survey respondents reported having used both antecedent- and response-focused strategies to either up-regulate or down-regulate their crying. Motives for crying regulation may be both inter- and intra-personal and may serve both immediate, pleasure motives, and future, utility motives (Tamir, 2009). Our findings suggest that down-regulation attempts are often driven by inter-personal motives (e.g., protecting the well-being of others; impression management) in addition to intra-personal motives such as maintaining subjective well-being, whereas up-regulation attempts are mostly driven by intra-personal motives. Further progress requires methodologies for manipulating or tracking regulation motives and strategies in real-time crying episodes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 4%
Germany 1 2%
Portugal 1 2%
Chile 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 49 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 25%
Student > Master 11 20%
Researcher 6 11%
Student > Bachelor 3 5%
Lecturer 3 5%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 11 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 31 56%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 7%
Neuroscience 2 4%
Engineering 2 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 11 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 64. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 February 2024.
All research outputs
#659,169
of 25,330,051 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#1,340
of 34,208 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,857
of 293,781 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#69
of 969 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,330,051 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,208 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 293,781 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 969 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.