Ding on the relationship in question), and then to indicate the extent to which they had used the various AMI-1 site interpersonal emotion regulation strategies to influence the way that person had felt over the previous 4 weeks. The cognitive improving factor was measuring using items such as “I gave [person x] helpful advice to try to improve how they felt” (s for the different relationships ranged between 0.79 and 0.88). An example behavioral improving item was “I did something nice with [person x] to try to make them feel better” (s for the differentrelationships ranged between 0.81 and 0.85). Cognitive worsening items included “I explained to [person x] how they had hurt myself or others, to try to make them feel worse” (s for the different relationships ranged between 0.76 and 0.82). Finally, the behavioral worsening factor included items such as “I was unfriendly to [person x] to try to make them feel PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19910450 worse” (s for the different relationships ranged between 0.79 and 0.85). Respondents’ self-reports of their use of interpersonal emotion regulation were validated using a follow-up measure of their strategy use as reported by the other person in each of their relationships. At the end of the survey, respondents were 
invited to leave the email addresses of those individuals who they had reported their use of interpersonal emotion regulation toward. These people were then contacted with a link to a new LY341495 survey which comprised a single interpersonal emotion regulation scale; this time people were asked to report on use of strategies by 
their relationship partner (the original participant) toward themselves over the same 4 week period. Although only a small number of matched pairs were collected (N = 50), analyses revealed medium to large sized correlations between original participants’ self-reports of their use of interpersonal emotion regulation strategies and their relationship partners’ reports (cognitive improving r = 0.32, p < 0.05; behavioral improving r = 0.44, p < 0.01; cognitive worsening r = 0.46, p < 0.01; behavioral worsening r = 0.64, p < 0.01), providing support for the validity of our data. The self-report data was used to calculate spin. The first step to calculate spin was to create a motive score and a resource score for each relationship. The motive score was derived by taking the mean score of all six worsening items within a given relationship from the mean score of all six improving items. The resource score was similarly calculated by taking the mean score of all six behavioral items within a given relationship from the mean score of the six cognitive items. In the second step, the resulting scores on the dimensions of resource and motive for each relationship were treated as Cartesian coordinates (x, y) from which polar coordinates (r, ) were calculated (see Figure 2), so that each relationship could be represented as a vector with in radians. In the final step, a single spin score for each participant was computed. Conceptually, spin is the standard deviation of the values of across the relationships, but because observations were vectors rather than scalars, we used Mardia's (1972) method to calculate the standard deviation (see Moskowitz and Zuroff, 2004, for a detailed description). In brief, the circular variance (CVar) and the circular standard deviation (spin) measure the variability of the individual vectors around the circular mean angle. M cos is the mean of the cosines from the angles of those vectors and M si.Ding on the relationship in question), and then to indicate the extent to which they had used the various interpersonal emotion regulation strategies to influence the way that person had felt over the previous 4 weeks. The cognitive improving factor was measuring using items such as "I gave [person x] helpful advice to try to improve how they felt" (s for the different relationships ranged between 0.79 and 0.88). An example behavioral improving item was "I did something nice with [person x] to try to make them feel better" (s for the differentrelationships ranged between 0.81 and 0.85). Cognitive worsening items included "I explained to [person x] how they had hurt myself or others, to try to make them feel worse" (s for the different relationships ranged between 0.76 and 0.82). Finally, the behavioral worsening factor included items such as "I was unfriendly to [person x] to try to make them feel PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19910450 worse” (s for the different relationships ranged between 0.79 and 0.85). Respondents’ self-reports of their use of interpersonal emotion regulation were validated using a follow-up measure of their strategy use as reported by the other person in each of their relationships. At the end of the survey, respondents were invited to leave the email addresses of those individuals who they had reported their use of interpersonal emotion regulation toward. These people were then contacted with a link to a new survey which comprised a single interpersonal emotion regulation scale; this time people were asked to report on use of strategies by their relationship partner (the original participant) toward themselves over the same 4 week period. Although only a small number of matched pairs were collected (N = 50), analyses revealed medium to large sized correlations between original participants’ self-reports of their use of interpersonal emotion regulation strategies and their relationship partners’ reports (cognitive improving r = 0.32, p < 0.05; behavioral improving r = 0.44, p < 0.01; cognitive worsening r = 0.46, p < 0.01; behavioral worsening r = 0.64, p < 0.01), providing support for the validity of our data. The self-report data was used to calculate spin. The first step to calculate spin was to create a motive score and a resource score for each relationship. The motive score was derived by taking the mean score of all six worsening items within a given relationship from the mean score of all six improving items. The resource score was similarly calculated by taking the mean score of all six behavioral items within a given relationship from the mean score of the six cognitive items. In the second step, the resulting scores on the dimensions of resource and motive for each relationship were treated as Cartesian coordinates (x, y) from which polar coordinates (r, ) were calculated (see Figure 2), so that each relationship could be represented as a vector with in radians. In the final step, a single spin score for each participant was computed. Conceptually, spin is the standard deviation of the values of across the relationships, but because observations were vectors rather than scalars, we used Mardia's (1972) method to calculate the standard deviation (see Moskowitz and Zuroff, 2004, for a detailed description). In brief, the circular variance (CVar) and the circular standard deviation (spin) measure the variability of the individual vectors around the circular mean angle. M cos is the mean of the cosines from the angles of those vectors and M si.
