Emotion Review

http://emr.sagepub.com/

Comment: Butler and Randall's ''Emotional Coregulation in Close Relationships''

Wendy M. Troxel
Emotion Review 2013 5: 211
DOI: 10.1177/1754073912451631
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://emr.sagepub.com/content/5/2/211

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

International Society for Research on Emotion

Additional services and information for Emotion Review can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://emr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://emr.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

>> Version of Record - Mar 20, 2013

What is This?

Downloaded from emr.sagepub.com by ancuta anca on October 25, 2014

451631
2013

EMR5210.1177/1754073912451631Emotion ReviewTroxel Commentary on Butler and Randalls Emotional Coregulation in Close Relationships

Comment

Comment: Butler and Randalls Emotional

Coregulation in Close Relationships

Emotion Review
Vol. 5, No. 2 (April 2013) 211212
The Author(s) 2013
ISSN 1754-0739
DOI: 10.1177/1754073912451631
er.sagepub.com

Wendy M. Troxel
RAND Corporation, Pittsburgh, USA

Abstract
The study of dyadic coregulation has emerged as a compelling and
innovative approach to understanding the links between close relationships
and health and functioning. However, the study of dyadic coregulation has
been hampered, in part, by the lack of a precise operational definition of
the construct and a lack of a framework for systematically evaluating and
statistically modeling coregulatory processes. Butler and Randall (2013)
present a cogent framework that clearly defines what coregulation is
and what it is not, which is critical for advancing this important area of
study. Nevertheless, several important questions still remain unaddressed,
including the role of individual differences in coregulatory processes; the
feasibility of distinguishing between coregulation and related constructs,
such as stress-buffering; and potential clinical implications of coregulation.

Keywords
close relationships, coregulation, emotions

Close relationships not only make us feel good but are critically
important for health and functioning. Bowlbys (1969) seminal
work on the role of attachment relationships in motherinfant
dyads set the stage for the past 50 years of subsequent research
which has sought to understand how and why attachment relationships across the lifespan, including adult romantic attachments, help to regulate emotional and physiological states, and
ultimately impact diverse indices of emotional and physical
health and well-being. To date, the most prominent hypotheses
concerning the pathways through which adult attachment relationships affect health and functioning have focused on pathways that can be reduced to individual behaviors or experiences
that are purported to have an effect on the other dyadic member
(Kiecolt-Glaser & Newton, 2001). That is, previous research
has generally failed to consider the interdependency in attachment relationships, itself, as a potential pathway explaining the
regulatory, and ultimately health-promoting, properties of close
relationships. The study of coregulation, however, is a notable
exception to this tendency, and has emerged as a compelling and
innovative framework for understanding the specific role of
attachment relationships in regulating affect and physiology at
the level of the couple, rather than the individual (Sbarra &

Hazan, 2008). However, the scientific study of coregulation has

been hampered by a lack of a precise operational definition of
what coregulation is, and what it is not, thus hindering the
development of reliable and valid measures. Butler and Randall
(2013) present a cogent operational definition of coregulation,
provide clear examples of how coregulation can be distinguished from correlated constructs, such as stress-buffering or
emotional contagion, and pose several important practical considerations to advance the study of coregulation in dyadic relationships. This work clearly builds on the previous elegant
framework provided by Sbarra and Hazan (2008) which discussed coregulation and dysregulation in the context of separation, loss, and recovery, but more systematically focuses on
operationally defining emotional coregulation.
In particular, Butler and Randall (2013) suggest that coregulation is a bidirectional linkage of oscillating emotional channels
(subjective experience, expressive behavior, and autonomic
physiology) between partners, which contributes to emotional
and physiological stability for both partners in a close relationship (2013, p. 203). Moreover, they highlight the notion that
coregulation involves a morphostatic process that allows dyads to
dynamically organize and influence each others behaviors within
an optimal set point (Feldman, 2007; Sbarra & Hazan, 2008). I
found this latter distinction particularly useful for distinguishing
coregulation from other related but distinct constructs such as
synchrony or emotional contagion. While harmonious dyads
may or may not be synchronous in terms of affect, behavior, and
physiology, what is uniquely powerful about coregulation is that
it suggests that healthy couples will covary along these dimensions within certain bounds that maintain optimal well-being.
Therefore, from an evolutionary perspective, attachment relationships should provide a unique advantage in terms of metabolic
efficiency, due to the psychological and physiological interdependencies within dyads which fluctuate around an optimal
emotional and physiological state of balance.
As a researcher who studies sleep in the context of close
relationships, I would like to conclude by highlighting the
striking similarities between the definition and function of
coregulation and that of the human circadian system (Hofer,
1984). Specifically, circadian rhythms refer to oscillating

Corresponding author: Wendy M. Troxel, Behavioral and Social Scientist, RAND Corporation, 4570 Fifth Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA. Email: wtroxel@rand.org

Downloaded from emr.sagepub.com by ancuta anca on October 25, 2014

212 Emotion Review Vol. 5 No. 2

patterns of biological processes with a naturally occurring

periodicity that are regulated by environmental cues (e.g.,
exposure to light, regularly occurring social activities) and
that are thought to favor metabolic efficiencies and to allow
physiological and psychological systems to adapt to the environment in a predictive rather than reactive manner. Moreover,
I would argue that the study of coregulation within attachment
relationships could be valuably informed by borrowing methodologies drawn from circadian research. In particular, in
order to unmask the influence of endogenous circadian
rhythms, circadian researchers utilize constant routine
methodologies which limit exposure to typical exogenous
regulators or zeitgebers of circadian rhythms (Monk,
Weitzman, Fookson, & Moline, 1984). Removal of these
exogenous regulators results in a free-running system, in
which these biological rhythms become desynchronized from
the 24-hour day/night cycle. As noted by Hofer (1984) and
reviewed in Sbarra and Hazan (2008), the symptoms of the
free-running individual, including malaise, sleep disturbance,
appetite suppression, depression, and cognitive impairment,
are uncannily similar to the symptoms commonly associated
with the loss of an attachment figure. Therefore, can we draw
from circadian methodologies and advance the research on
coregulation by developing parallel methodologies that can
unmask the role of coregulation that is distinct from correlated constructs, such as stress buffering? Butler and Randall
(2013) highlight the work of Coan, Schaefer, and Davidson
(2006) which showed differential stress-reducing effects on
womens neural circuitry associated with threat responding
when holding a strangers hand versus their husbands hand.
However, the demonstration of an additive effect on stress
reduction of holding the husbands hand (i.e., the closer attachment relationship) does not conclusively demonstrate coregulation, above and beyond the effects of stress buffering. Using
this example to effectively unmask coregulation from stress
buffering, it would be informative to simultaneously measure
neural circuitry in the hand holder (i.e., the husband or the
stranger) as well.
As compelling as Butler and Randalls (2013) framework
for understanding emotional coregulation may be, several

important questions remain unaddressed. In particular, it is still

unclear why some couples are able to achieve a state of balance
around an optimal set point while others are not. How do couple- or individual-level difference variables influence the set
point? And how can we operationally define this set point?
These unanswered questions also point to important, though
underinvestigated clinical implications of the work on coregulation, including issues such as whether we can develop interventions that teach couples how to become more effective
coregulators, and whether the study of coregulation, including
how it develops or how it fails to develop, elucidate the etiology
of clinical syndromes, such as autism, whose core symptoms
could be construed as a fundamental deficit in the capacity to
benefit from coregulatory processes. In summary, the study of
coregulation within dyadic relationships provides a compelling
and novel framework for understanding how and why some relationships are health protective whereas others are not, and the
operational definition of coregulation, presented herein, marks
an important step in reliably advancing this area of research.

References
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss. Vol. I: Attachment. London, UK:
Hogarth Press.
Butler, E. A., & Randall, A. K. (2013). Emotional coregulation in close
relationships. Emotion Review, 5, 202210.
Coan, J. A., Schaefer, H. S., & Davidson, R. J. (2006). Lending a hand:
Social regulation of the neural response to threat. Psychological
Science, 17, 10321039.
Feldman, R. (2007). Parentinfant synchrony: Biological foundations and
developmental outcomes. Current Directions in Psychological Science,
16, 340345.
Hofer, M. A. (1984). Relationships as regulators: A psychobiologic
perspective on bereavement. Psychosomatic Medicine, 46, 183197.
Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., & Newton, T. L. (2001). Marriage and health: His and
hers. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 472503.
Monk, T. H., Weitzman, E. D., Fookson, J. E., & Moline, M. L. (1984). Circadian rhythms in human performance efficiency under free-running
conditions. Chronobiologia, 11, 343354.
Sbarra, D. A., & Hazan, C. (2008). Coregulation, dysregulation, selfregulation: An integrative analysis and empirical agenda for understanding adult attachment, separation, loss, and recovery. Personality
and Social Psychology Review, 12, 141167.

Downloaded from emr.sagepub.com by ancuta anca on October 25, 2014