Everyday Emotion Regulation and Empathic Accuracy in the Parent–Adolescent Relationship

Abstract

Empathic accuracy, the ability to accurately infer another’s emotions, is critical for relational well-being. Adolescence is marked by heightened emotional intensity and increased conflict within the parent–adolescent relationship. It is therefore important to identify factors that contribute to accuracy in these relationships. Developmental theories suggest that perceivers’ emotion regulation supports empathic accuracy, yet little is known about whether targets’ regulation is associated with perceivers’ accuracy, particularly in naturalistic settings and during adolescence.

The present study addressed this gap using 28-day daily diary data from 112 parent–adolescent dyads. Once per day, both members reported on their own emotions and regulation strategies and inferred their partner’s emotions. Empathic accuracy was calculated as the correlation between inferred and reported emotions. Actor–Partner Interdependence Models tested between- and within-person associations among regulation and accuracy.

Consistent with the hypotheses, greater use of typically maladaptive strategies for regulating negative and positive emotions by the target was associated with lower empathic accuracy by the perceiver at both between- and within-person levels among parents and adolescents. Targets’ greater use of adaptive strategies to regulate positive (but not negative) emotions was associated with higher same-day empathic accuracy for both perceivers and targets, but only at the within-person level.

The findings elucidate the relationship between targets’ emotion regulation and perceiver empathic accuracy within parent–adolescent relationships, emphasizing the significance of adaptive positive emotion regulation. The results offer new pathways for clinical interventions aimed at enhancing family dynamics through supporting adolescents’ and parents’ regulation strategies to promote mutual understanding.

Introduction

Adolescence is a developmental period characterized by significant biological, cognitive, and social transformations (Blakemore & Mills, 2014; Steinberg & Morris, 2001; Zarrett & Eccles, 2006). While early empathic abilities emerge in infancy (Davidov et al., 2021; Eisenberg et al., 2015), adolescence introduces an advanced capacity to comprehend others’ mental states and navigate increasingly complex social environments (Crone & Dahl, 2012; Desatnik et al., 2023; Luyten et al., 2020). Empathic skills are cultivated through emotionally meaningful interactions with peers, romantic partners, and family members, thereby fostering both cognitive and affective empathy, as well as prosocial behavior and moral reasoning (Eisenberg et al., 2013; Eisenberg et al., 2006). Consequently, adolescents’ self-reported empathy has been linked to greater social competence, improved relationships with parents and peers, and lower levels of externalizing behaviors (Laible et al., 2004; Markiewicz et al., 2001; Soenens et al., 2007).

In the present study, we focus specifically on empathic accuracy—a cognitive component of empathy referring to the ability to accurately infer another person’s emotional state (Ickes, 1993)—rather than on affective empathy or empathic concern (Shamay-Tsoory, 2011). Empathic accuracy depends on advanced perspective-taking skills and continues to mature during adolescence. Adults show better skills in accurately reading others’ mental states than adolescents (Dumontheil et al., 2010; Singer, 2006). However, adolescent performance improves with age and is closely tied to the development of brain regions involved in social cognition, particularly the medial prefrontal cortex (MPFC) (Bensalah et al., 2016; Dvash & Shamay-Tsoory, 2014; Kral et al., 2017; Weimer et al., 2021). Notably, empathic accuracy can buffer against negative social experiences: adolescents with higher (vs. lower) levels of empathic accuracy exhibit better adaptation in the face of peer difficulties (Bosacki, 2000; Devine & Hughes, 2013), whereas lower (vs. higher) levels of empathic accuracy is associated with internalizing and social adjustment problems (Gleason et al., 2009; van der Graaff et al., 2014). Given its significance for youth’s healthy development, it is important to identify modifiable factors that may contribute to empathic accuracy and consider emotion regulation as a potential such factor. To accurately infer another person’s emotional state, one must manage one’s own affective reactions while remaining attuned to others’ mental states (Decety & Lamm, 2006). In close interpersonal contexts, the ability to regulate one’s own emotions may therefore play a critical role in facilitating – or constraining – empathic accuracy.

Emotion Regulation and Empathic Accuracy

Emotion regulation—the ability to modulate the intensity, duration, and expression of emotional and physiological responses (Gross, 2015) is a modifiable factor that may contribute to empathic accuracy. Emotion regulation strategies are traditionally categorized as typically adaptive, i.e., strategies that typically help downregulate negative affect and maintain positive affect (e.g., cognitive reappraisal, savoring), or typically maladaptive, i.e., strategies that lead to upregulation or maintenance of negative affect and to downregulation of positive affect (e.g., expressive suppression, dampening; Aldao & Nolen-Hoeksema, 2012; Gadassi-Polack et al., 2024; Gullone et al., 2010; Zimmermann & Iwanski, 2014; c.f., Sheppes, 2020 for criticism on this categorization). As adolescents mature, their emotion regulation skills become increasingly flexible and refined (Gadassi-Polack et al., 2024; Rueth et al., 2023).

Throughout development, poor emotion regulation is associated with self-focused distress and diminished capacity to attend to others’ emotional states (Davidov & Grusec, 2006; Roth-Hanania et al., 2011; Zaki, 2014). Additionally, more (vs. less) regulated youth show higher levels of sympathy and prosociality (Arató et al., 2020; Ciarrochi et al., 2020; Jambon et al., 2019). Similarly, studies have shown that expressive suppression, typically categorized as a maladaptive emotion regulation strategy, is associated with lower empathic accuracy (Eckland & English, 2018; Gross & Cassidy, 2019). In contrast, cognitive reappraisal, typically categorized as an adaptive emotion regulation strategy, is generally associated with better empathic responding (Ford & Troy, 2019; Lebowitz & Dovidio, 2015; McRae, 2016).

Most up-to-date studies have focused almost exclusively on the regulation of negative affect, with little information available on the regulation of positive emotions. This lacuna in research on positive emotion regulation contrasts with theoretical claims that positive emotions play a central role in enhancing close relationships (Fredrickson, 2001, 2004, 2013). Indeed, positive emotions throughout development have been shown to broaden social and cognitive resources that support adaptive functioning (Fredrickson & Joiner, 2002; Stifter et al., 2020). On the other hand, maladaptive regulation of positive emotions has been associated with increased risk for psychopathology (Gilbert et al., 2013).

Beyond shaping emotional experience, regulatory strategies influence how positive emotions are expressed, thereby affecting their interpersonal consequences (Fredrickson, 2001, 2004, 2013; Quoidbach et al., 2010, 2015). We propose that these effects operate via emotional signal clarity—the extent to which emotional states are expressed in ways that are visible, coherent, and interpretable to others (Zaki et al., 2008). Strategies that attenuate expression (e.g., suppression, dampening) may reduce cue clarity and impair empathic accuracy (Gross & John, 2003; English & John, 2013), whereas strategies that sustain or amplify positive affect (e.g., savoring, positive rumination) may enhance emotional salience and facilitate accurate inference (Bryant & Veroff, 2007). The current study seeks to explore the potential role of positive emotion regulation in empathic accuracy in the close relationships between adolescents and their parents.

Emotion Regulation and Empathic Accuracy in the Parents-Adolescent Relationship

Developmental theory emphasizes that social and emotional development unfolds through transactional processes, in which children and caregivers mutually influence one another over time (Sameroff, 2009). This perspective is particularly relevant to empathic accuracy and emotion regulation in parent–adolescent dyads, where both partners’ behaviors and emotional capacities shape the quality of their interactions. Adolescence is a time of transition in parent–child relationship, characterized by increased emotional intensity and conflict (Branje, 2018; De Goede et al., 2009; Moed et al., 2015; Van Doorn et al., 2008). Despite this shift, parent–adolescent interactions remain critical for the development of emotion regulation and empathy (Ho et al., 2025; Morris et al., 2007; Mu et al., 2025). Lower levels of empathic accuracy of both parents and adolescents in reading one another’s thoughts and emotions may exacerbate relational strain and hinder effective conflict resolution (McLaren & Sillars, 2020; Lopez-Perez & Wilson, 2015; Shay et al., 2025; Sillars et al., 2005, 2010).

Although direct research linking emotion regulation and empathic accuracy in parent-adolescent dyads is limited, emerging evidence is promising. Lab-based studies show that adolescents’ physiological regulation during emotionally charged (i.e., conflict) interactions with their parents predicts empathic accuracy, such that adolescents who were better able to regulate their physiological arousal were more accurate in inferring their parents’ feelings. Here, physiological regulation refers to the modulation of autonomic responses to emotional stimuli (e.g., heart rate variability, stress reactivity), reflecting the capacity to downregulate arousal and remain engaged during emotionally salient interactions (Diamond et al., 2011; Hinnekens et al., 2021). Additional indirect support for the role of emotion regulation in promoting empathic accuracy comes from studies showing that adolescents demonstrate greater empathic accuracy when their parents engage in supportive listening (e.g., cognitively engaged, emotionally attuned, and responsive) than when they are more probing or confrontational (McLaren & Sillars, 2020). Thus, supportive communication has been conceptualized as a form of interpersonal emotion regulation that facilitates co-regulation by reducing emotional arousal and increasing emotional disclosure and clarity (Nozaki & Gross, 2025).

Target’s Emotion Regulation and Perceiver’s Empathic Accuracy

Importantly, empathic accuracy depends not only on the perceiver’s ability or motivation but also on the target’s characteristics and the clarity of the emotional cues they provide (Flury et al., 2008; Gadassi et al., 2011; Zaki et al., 2008). Emotions serve critical social functions: they communicate internal states and coordinate social interaction (Keltner et al., 2019; Shariff & Tracy, 2011; Van Kleef & Côté, 2022). Thus, the visibility, coherence, and interpretability of emotional signals—often conceptualized as cue clarity (Zaki et al., 2008) directly shape perceivers’ ability to accurately infer another’s feelings. Emotion regulation strategies may therefore influence empathic accuracy in interpersonal interactions by altering emotional signaling.

Emotion regulation strategies play an important role in cue clarity. For example, expressive suppression and dampening are strategies that reduce outward emotional display and weaken the correspondence between internal experience and observable expression (English & John, 2013; Gross & Cassidy, 2019). By reducing the clarity of the emotional signal, these strategies may make targets more difficult to “read,” thereby compromising empathic accuracy. In contrast, strategies that sustain or openly process emotional experiences (e.g., reappraisal, savoring, sharing positive affect) may enhance cue clarity, facilitating more accurate inference. Recent research on “target effects” further demonstrates that empathic accuracy varies with individual differences in emotional expressivity (Morningstar et al., 2025), underscoring the importance of considering how targets’ regulation shapes emotional communication within dyads. Thus, individuals differ in how their unique characteristics influence the production and manifestation of non-verbal emotional cues, and consequently, the clarity of those cues. Additional indirect support for the importance of target’s emotion regulation comes from psychopathology literature, which shows that adults with more (vs. fewer) symptoms of depression and borderline personality disorder (psychopathologies characterized by emotion dysregulation) and children with difficult temperament (associated with poorer emotion regulation) are more challenging to read (Borelli et al., 2021; Flury et al., 2008; Gadassi et al., 2011; Kupferberg & Hasler, 2023).

These emotional-expressive mechanisms may be particularly relevant during adolescence, a developmental period characterized by heightened emotional intensity, increased social sensitivity, and ongoing maturation of socio-cognitive neural systems (Crone & Dahl, 2012; Morningstar et al., 2022). As adolescents’ regulation repertoire continues to develop (Gadassi-Polack et al., 2024; Haag et al., 2024; Lennarz et al., 2018; Páez et al., 2013), variability in emotional expression may be especially pronounced in parent–adolescent interactions, amplifying the interpersonal consequences of regulatory strategies for empathic accuracy.

Parents and Adolescents’ Emotion Regulation and Empathic Accuracy in Daily Life

A significant gap remains in the literature on empathic accuracy and emotion regulation in everyday interactions. Most of the literature used lab-based or cross-sectional designs, which limit ecological validity and obscure the dynamic, bidirectional nature of these processes (Morelli et al., 2015). Intensive longitudinal designs, in which researchers collect daily, real-time reports of participants’ experiences in their natural environments, offer unique benefits for addressing this gap (Howland & Rafaeli, 2010; Russell & Gajos, 2020). This method offers unique insight into individuals’ daily thoughts, emotions, and relational dynamics. It holds three key methodological advantages: first, it reduces recall bias by capturing behaviors and symptoms shortly after they occur, improving the accuracy of reported experiences (Kenny et al., 2016; Shiffman et al., 2008); second, it enhances ecological validity by reflecting participants’ real-world activities rather than lab-based behavior (Shiffman et al., 2008); and finally, it allows for within-person analyses over time, helping isolate and control for individual variability (Bolger et al., 2003; Bolger & Laurenceau, 2013).

Another gap in the literature on empathic accuracy and emotion regulation is that studies often assess these constructs outside the context of close relationships (e.g., Ickes et al., 1990; Zaki et al., 2008). Using dyadic designs to explore relational processes is particularly important (Lougheed & Hollenstein, 2012). Dyadic – or parent-adolescent studies – are designs in which parents and adolescents actively participate in the investigation, thereby enhancing the ecological validity of the study and reducing the risk of shared-reporter bias, which can occur when both predictor and outcome are reported by the same individual, artificially inflating associations (Burk & Laursen, 2010). The present study aims to bridge the current gaps in the literature by using a dyadic daily diary, a methodology that combines the advantages of intensive longitudinal designs with the advantages of dyadic designs (Gadassi-Polack et al., 2025b; Keijsers et al., 2022), to examine changes in both emotion regulation and empathic accuracy within parent-adolescent dyads over time.

The Current Study

Because adolescence is characterized by increased parent-child conflict (Branje, 2018) and intensified adolescents’ emotional experiences (Reitsema et al., 2022), exploring factors that support the parent-adolescent relationship is important. The current study examined empathic accuracy and emotion regulation in parents and their adolescent children. Specifically, it explored whether parents’ and adolescents’ ability to use putatively maladaptive vs. putatively adaptive strategies for regulating positive and negative emotions was associated with their ability to accurately identify each other’s emotions (i.e., their empathic accuracy). To accomplish this goal, a sample of 112 parent-adolescent dyads was recruited. Each dyad member reported using both adaptive and maladaptive strategies to regulate positive and negative affect and inferred their partner’s feelings at a given time. To address the bidirectional nature of the parent-adolescent relationship, we employed the actor-partner interdependent framework (APIM; Kenny et al., 2020) to examine both actor/target (e.g., how a person’s emotion regulation is associated with their own empathic accuracy) and partner/perceiver (e.g., how a person’s emotion regulation is associated with their partner’s empathic accuracy) effects.

Research Hypotheses

We hypothesized that (1) Adolescents would exhibit lower levels of empathic accuracy compared with their parents; (2) Perceivers’ use of more (vs. fewer) adaptive strategies for the regulation of positive and negative emotions would be associated with higher levels of their own empathic accuracy, whereas perceivers’ use of more (vs. fewer) maladaptive strategies will be linked to lower levels of their own empathic accuracy (Actor/Perceiver effect) (3) Targets’ use of more (vs. fewer) adaptive strategies for positive and negative emotion regulation would be associated with higher levels of perceivers’ empathic accuracy, whereas targets’ use of more (vs. fewer) maladaptive strategies would be associated with lower levels of perceivers’ empathic accuracy (Partner/Target effect).

We examined hypotheses 2 and 3 at both the between-person and within-person levels; we had no a priori reason to predict any difference between these levels. Finally, we examined adolescents’ age and biological sex as moderators of all effects, as previous studies have shown that age and sex are associated with differences in emotion regulation (e.g., Gadassi-Polack et al., 2024; Zimmermann & Iwanski, 2014).

Method

The present study is part of the Parent-Adolescent Interpersonal Emotion Regulation Study (PAIRS; Gadassi-Polack, 2025a), a project examining emotional processes in parent-adolescent dyads. Only measures relevant to the current study are described.

Participants

Dyads were recruited through advertisements posted on social networks, such as Facebook, and on online participant recruitment platforms, such as ResearchMatch. Additionally, families who had previously participated in other studies were contacted. The inclusion criteria for adolescents involved being between 12 and 18 years of age and cohabiting with the participating parent for at least half of the study duration. Both parents and adolescents were required to have access to a device with internet connectivity, reside on the East Coast of the United States, and be fluent in English. Parent-adolescent dyads were excluded from the analysis if either member completed fewer than 14 out of 28 daily diaries. Detailed information regarding data quality checks is provided in Gadassi-Polack et al., 2025a.

The final sample consisted of 112 dyads, comprising 112 adolescents and 108 parents, as parents were permitted to participate multiple times with different children. The adolescents’ mean age was 14.13 years (SD = 1.74; range = 12–18 years), while the parents’ mean age was 43.99 years (SD = 6.03; range = 33–64 years). Of the adolescents, 61 (54.5%) identified as female, 49 (43.8%) as male, and two (1.8%) as “other”. Among the parents, 96 (88.9%) identified as female and 12 (11.1%) as male. Most participants identified as White (64.3% of adolescents and 75% of parents) and non-Hispanic (92% of adolescents and 91.7% of parents). Adolescents completed an average of 25.27 diary entries (SD = 3.45), while parents completed an average of 26.63 diary entries (SD = 2.37), culminating in a total of 5,442 observations. The median time difference between diary entries of parents and their children was 21 minutes (range = 0 – 931, M = 111.50, SD = 208.02, skew = 2.29, kurtosis = 4.01).

Procedure

Data collection was conducted from July 2022 to May 2023. During an initial Zoom session, participants received a detailed briefing about the study procedure and daily diary items. Subsequently, parents and adolescents were provided with separate links for consent and assent forms, as well as demographic questionnaires and other measures not pertinent to the current investigation. Upon completion of the baseline survey by both dyad members, participants commenced the daily diaries. Once per day over a 28-day period, participants completed data entries on a secure website (Qualtrics). Links to the surveys were dispatched via separate emails to parents and adolescents. Dyads were instructed to complete the surveys independently, approximately one hour prior to their bedtime, ideally at the same time. Participant compensation was contingent upon their completion rates: $15 for completing the baseline survey, an additional $10 if fewer than 60% of the diary entries were completed, $50 if at least 60% of the entries were completed, and $70 if at least 90% of the entries were completed. To further promote compliance, participants received weekly telephone calls or text messages (according to their preference) from a research assistant to address any technical difficulties, along with a weekly email informing them of their completion rate and estimated compensation. Participants were contacted if they missed two or more consecutive diary entries. In instances where a participant missed an entry for justified reasons (e.g., technical issues, illness), the diary period was extended by one day for both members of the dyad; consequently, the number of completed diary entries could exceed 28.

Sample Size

The sample size was determined using power calculations for the original study (see Gadassi-Polack et al., 2025a, for further details).

Measures

Inferred and own affect

Participants evaluated their own and their dyad partner’s affect using the 10-item child version of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS-C; Ebesutani et al., 2012). Within the PANAS-C, negative affect is assessed with five items (i.e., mad, afraid, miserable, sad, scared), while positive affect is measured via five items (i.e., cheerful, happy, lively, joyful, proud). The response scale ranged from 1 (“very slightly or not at all”) to 5 (“extremely”). Following the instruction “Please rate how you are feeling right now.”, participants evaluated their own affect, whereas the instruction for rating their dyad partner’s affect was: “Please rate how your [child/mom/dad] is feeling right now.”.

Emotion regulation in response to negative affect

Participants evaluated the intrapersonal emotion regulation strategies they endorsed in response to the inquiry, “Did you engage in any of the following behaviors when experiencing a bad mood between last night and the present moment?” using a 5-point scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 4 (almost all of the time). Our prior research employed comparable adaptations of these emotion regulation scales for daily diary assessments (e.g., Gadassi-Polack et al., 2024; Hohensee et al., 2025).

Putatively maladaptive emotion regulation strategies encompassed (1) rumination, evaluated through three items derived from the ‘Rumination’ subscale of the Children’s Response Style Questionnaire (CRSQ; Abela et al., 2002; e.g., “I thought about other times I have felt bad”), (2) suppression of negative emotions, assessed via two items from the ‘Suppression’ subscale of the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire for Children and Adolescents (ERQ–CA; Gullone & Taffe, 2012; e.g., “I controlled my feelings by not showing them.”), (3) behavioral avoidance, measured through the statement “I tried to avoid being around the people or situation that was bothering me,” and (4) experiential avoidance, measured through the statement “I tried not to think about it or to forget about it.” Both avoidance items were based on Silk et al. (2003).

Putatively adaptive emotion regulation strategies included (1) acceptance of negative emotions, which was assessed via the item “I accepted my feelings without trying to change them,” from the adolescent version of the Comprehensive Inventory of Mindfulness. Experiences (CIME-A; Johnson et al., 2017), (2) problem-solving, which was assessed with three items from the ‘Problem-Solving’ subscale of the Children’s Response Style Questionnaire (CRSQ; Abela et al., 2000; e.g., “I talked it out with someone I think can help me feel better.”), (3) cognitive reappraisal which was assessed via two items from the Regulation of Emotion Systems Survey (RESS; De France & Hollenstein, 2017; e.g., “I tried to see the situation in a more positive light.”) and one item - “I tried to think of the problem in a different way so it didn’t seem as bad.” - based on previous work from Silk et al. (2003), and (4) distraction which was assessed with three items from the ‘Distracting’ subscale of the Children’s Response Style Questionnaire (CRSQ; Abela et al., 2002; e.g., “I did something I enjoy.”).

Emotion Regulation Strategies in Response to Positive Affect

Participants were asked to rate the use of different intrapersonal emotion regulation strategies in response to the question, “Did you do any of the following things when you were in a good mood between last night and right now?” on a 5-point scale from 0 (not at all) to 4 (almost all of the time). Items for all emotion regulation strategies were again based on well-validated self-report questionnaires and instructions adapted for use in a daily diary, as described in our prior work (e.g., Gadassi-Polack et al., 2024; Hohensee et al., 2025). To enhance reliability and reduce the number of analyses, we grouped emotion regulation strategies into putatively adaptive and putatively maladaptive categories in response to positive affect.

Putatively maladaptive emotion regulation strategies included (1) dampening, which was assessed using three items from the ‘Dampening’ subscale of the Responses to Positive Affect Questionnaire for Children (RPA-C; Bijttebier et al., 2012; e.g., “Thought “I don’t deserve this.”) and (2) suppression of positive emotions, evaluated through two items from the ‘Suppression’ subscale of the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire for Children and Adolescents (ERQ–CA; Gullone & Taffe, 2012).

Putatively adaptive emotion regulation strategies included (1) emotion-focused rumination which was assessed using three items from the ‘Emotion-focus’ subscale of the Responses to Positive Affect Questionnaire for Children (RPA-C; Bijttebier et al., 2012; e.g., “Thought about how happy I felt.”) and (2) self-focused rumination which was assessed using three items from the ‘Self-focus’ subscale of the Responses to Positive Affect Questionnaire for Children (RPA-C; Bijttebier et al., 2012; e.g., “Thought about how proud I am of myself.”). Although the term “rumination” is often associated with maladaptive repetitive negative thinking (Nolen-Hoeksema et al., 2008), in the context of the RPA-C, emotion-focused positive rumination refers to savoring and amplifying positive affect, consistent with its original conceptualization (Bijttebier et al., 2012).

Data Analysis

Data were analyzed utilizing the statistical software R version 4.4.1 (R Core Team, 2024).

Reliability Calculation

Throughout the daily diaries, parents and children used consistent items to report on affect and emotion-regulation behaviors once per day. The supplementary materials delineate the between- and within-person reliabilities, calculated according to the methodology described by Shrout and Lane (2012). More specifically, we fitted random effects intercept-only models for all measures. The models included random intercepts for participants, diary day, items, and their interactions. We subsequently calculated both within-person (i.e., consistency of an individual’s score over time) and between-person (i.e., consistency of scores across individuals for a given item) reliability indices using the estimated variance components. Between-person reliabilities ranged from .67 to .87, indicating a good level of reliability, while within-person reliabilities were predominantly acceptable, ranging from .49 to .59, except for maladaptive positive emotion regulation strategies, which yielded a reliability of .17. Additionally, we extracted intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). ICCs for emotion regulation strategies were as follows: 0.61 (children) and 0.54 (parents) for maladaptive negative emotion regulation strategies, 0.62 (children) and 0.55 (parents) for adaptive negative emotion regulation strategies, 0.64 (children) and 0.61 (parents) for maladaptive positive emotion regulation strategies, and 0.71 (children) and 0.72 (parents) for adaptive positive emotion regulation strategies, indicating that 54% to 72% of the variance in these measures was accounted for by between-person variations (see Table S1).

Empathic Accuracy Calculation

We calculated empathic accuracy for both negative and positive emotions, using the methodologies outlined by Allik et al. (2015) and McCrae (2008). Empathic accuracy for a specific diary day was quantified through Pearson correlation coefficients between a participant’s ratings of their dyad partner’s perceived emotions and the dyad partner’s self-reported emotions on the PANAS-C/P. Consequently, the targets’ ratings of their own affect at each designated time point (across the 10 PANAS items) were correlated with the perceivers’ ratings of the targets’ affect. Higher correlation scores indicated greater congruence between self-perceived and other-perceived affect at the respective time point. The resulting correlation coefficients were subsequently transformed using Fisher’s z transformation. Analyses conducted at the intra-individual level used daily scores, whereas inter-individual analyses employed average scores across the entire diary period. Following common practices in empathic accuracy research, time difference between dyad member’s diary completion was not accounted for (e.g., Erbas et al., 2016; Howland & Rafaeli, 2010; Kotiuga et al., 2025)

Hypothesis Testing

To test Hypothesis 1, we conducted a paired-sample t-test to examine differences in average empathic accuracy between parents and adolescents across the whole diary period. To assess hypotheses 2 and 3, we utilized several multilevel regression models implemented through the R package “nlme” (Pinheiro et al., 2014). To address the non-independence characteristic of dyadic data, the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model (APIM; Kenny et al., 2014) was employed. APIM is a specialized data-analytic approach designed explicitly to evaluate dyadic effects by concurrently estimating actor/target effects—such as the influence of an individual’s independent variable scores (e.g., adolescents’ utilization of maladaptive negative emotion regulation strategies) on their own dependent variable scores (e.g., adolescents’ empathic accuracy)—as well as partner/perceiver effects, which pertain to the impact of the partner’s variable scores (e.g., parents’ engagement in maladaptive negative emotion regulation strategies) on the actor’s dependent variable (e.g., adolescents’ empathic accuracy). Furthermore, we analyzed solely fully completed prompts, thereby excluding any items with missing data.

Between-person models.

For between-person analyses, participants (Level 1) were nested within dyads (Level 2), which necessitated the inclusion of random intercepts for the dyads. The average empathic accuracy was regressed on the mean utilization of emotion regulation strategies—namely, maladaptive positive, maladaptive negative, adaptive positive, or adaptive negative—across the entire diary period, by both members of each dyad. Furthermore, a binary variable was incorporated to denote the role within the relationship, coded as 1 for adolescents and 0 for parents. Consequently, the default values presented in Table 1 pertain to parents, whereas the effects for adolescents (when statistically significant) are detailed in the main text. To account for potential differential patterns of results between parents and adolescents, interaction effects between the target’s use of emotion regulation strategies and the relationship role, as well as the perceiver’s use of emotion regulation strategies and the relationship role, were included. An exemplary model illustrating empathic accuracy as an outcome variable, utilizing maladaptive negative emotion regulation strategies, is provided below.

Table 1.

Regressing parents’ empathic accuracy on intrapersonal ER strategy use in response to negative and positive affect: Between-person level APIM results (N_dyads = 112)

I. ER strategy use in response to negative affect
	A. Maladaptive ER strategies						B. Adaptive ER strategies
	β	SE	df	t	CI	f 2	β	SE	df	t	CI	f 2
Intercept	0.69	0.04	111	17.20 ***	0.61, 0.77	.090	0.68	0.04	111	16.23 ***	0.60, 0.77	.064
Role1	−0.19	0.04	107	−4.57 ***	−0.27, −0.11	.051	−0.17	0.04	107	−4.02 ***	−0.25, −0.09	.038
Perceiver’s ER	−0.19	0.05	107	−3.59 ***	−0.29, −0.08	.073	−0.02	0.06	107	−0.35	−0.14, 0.10	<.001
Target’s ER	−0.06	0.07	107	−0.92	−0.19, 0.07	.005	−0.07	0.07	107	−0.97	−0.20, 0.07	.005
Role × Perceiver’s ER	0.04	0.09	107	0.51	−0.13, 0.22	.002	−0.09	0.10	107	−0.94	−0.28, 0.10	.005
Role × Target’s ER	−0.01	0.09	107	−0.15	−0.19, 0.16	<.001	−0.00	0.10	107	−0.00	−0.19, 0.19	<.001
II. ER strategy use in response to positive affect
	A. Maladaptive ER strategies						B. Adaptive ER strategies
	β	SE	df	t	CI	f 2	β	SE	df	t	CI	f 2
Intercept	0.68	0.04	111	16.93 ***	0.60, 0.76	.087	0.68	0.04	111	17.38 ***	0.60, 0.75	.011
Role	−0.18	0.04	107	−4.37 ***	−0.27, −0.10	.047	−0.17	0.04	107	−4.73 ***	−0.24, −0.10	.043
Perceiver’s ER	−0.16	0.06	107	−2.77 **	−0.28, −0.05	.043	0.21	0.05	107	4.57 ***	0.12, 0.30	.120
Target’s ER	−0.10	0.07	107	−1.48	−0.24, 0.03	.012	0.04	0.05	107	0.81	−0.06, 0.14	.004
Role × Perceiver’s ER	−0.02	0.09	107	−0.20	−0.21, 0.17	<.001	−0.23	0.07	107	−3.14 **	−0.38, −0.09	.061
Role × Target’s ER	0.00	0.09	107	0.02	−0.18, 0.19	<.001	−0.04	0.07	107	−0.56	−0.19, 0.11	.002

Note. ER = emotion regulation.

¹Role is coded “0” for parent and “1” for adolescent. Therefore, default estimates are those in which parents are the targets and the associated outcome is theirs.

^*p < .05;

^**p < .01,

^***p < .001.

Y_ij (mean of empathic accuracy of person i in dyad j) = β₀ + β₁(target’s mean of maladaptive negative emotion regulation strategy use [grand-mean centered]) + β₂(perceiver’s mean of maladaptive negative emotion regulation strategy use [grand-mean centered]) + β₃(relationship role) + β₄(target’s mean of maladaptive negative emotion regulation strategy use*relationship role)+ β₅(perceiver’s mean of maladaptive negative emotion regulation strategy use*relationship role) + b_i(random effect for dyad) + r_ij

Within-person models.

For within-person analyses, assessment days (Level 1) were nested within participants who were nested in dyads (Level 2). Daily empathic accuracy was regressed on both dyad members’ use of emotion regulation strategies (maladaptive positive, maladaptive negative, adaptive positive, or adaptive negative) measured on the same day. Again, we included a binary variable indicating the role in the relationship. It was coded 1 for adolescents and 0 for parents; therefore, the default values in Tables 2 and 3 are for parents, and the effects for adolescents are presented in the text. We also included interaction effects between the target’s use of emotion regulation strategy and their relationship role, as well as between the perceiver’s use of emotion regulation strategy and their relationship role. For within-person models, we also included additional control variables, following Bolger and Laurenceau (2013). To account for autocorrelation, we always included the previous day’s empathic accuracy score. To distinguish between-person and within-person effects, we also included average empathic accuracy across the whole diary period and average emotion regulation strategy use of both dyad members in our models. All within-person models included random intercepts and random slopes on the dyad and between-person levels to account for shared variance between dyad members. Independent variables at the within-person level were person-mean-centered, and those at the between-person level were grand-mean-centered. One exemplary model for empathic accuracy as an outcome variable and maladaptive negative ER strategy use is presented below:

Table 2.

Regressing parents’ empathic accuracy on intrapersonal ER strategy use in response to negative affect: Within-person level APIM results (N_dyads = 112)

	A. Maladaptive ER strategies						B. Adaptive ER strategies
	β	SE	df	t	CI	f 2	β	SE	df	t	CI	f 2
Intercept	−0.02	0.03	4368	−0.79	−0.08, 0.03	<.001	−0.02	0.03	4368	−0.64	−0.07, 0.03	<.001
Role1	0.00	0.02	108	0.28	−0.03, 0.04	<.001	0.01	0.01	108	0.55	−0.02, 0.04	<.001
Lagged EA	0.05	0.02	4368	3.14 **	0.02, 0.09	.006	0.15	0.02	4368	7.06 ***	0.11, 0.19	.003
Mean EA	1.01	0.02	108	49.90 ***	0.97, 1.05	.607	1.01	0.02	108	57.07 ***	0.97, 1.04	.663
Mean Perceiver’s ER	−0.00	0.01	108	−0.11	−0.03, 0.02	<.001	−0.00	0.01	108	−0.34	−0.03, 0.02	<.001
Mean Target’s ER	0.01	0.01	108	0.86	−0.01, 0.03	<.001	0.01	0.01	108	0.65	−0.01, 0.03	<.001
Perceiver’s daily ER	−0.07	0.03	4368	−2.44 *	−0.13, −0.01	.002	0.02	0.03	4368	0.91	−0.03, 0.08	<.001
Target’s daily ER	−0.01	0.03	4368	−0.34	−0.06, 0.04	<.001	0.03	0.03	4368	1.00	−0.03, 0.09	<.001
Role × Perceiver’s daily ER	0.01	0.04	4368	0.14	−0.07, 0.08	< 0	−0.02	0.03	4368	−0.44	−0.08, 0.05	<.001
Role × Target’s daily ER	−0.01	0.03	4368	−0.38	−0.07, 0.05	< 0	−0.07	0.04	4368	−1.83	−0.14, 0.00	<.001

Note. EA = empathic accuracy; ER = emotion regulation.

¹Role is coded “0” for parent and “1” for adolescent. Therefore, default estimates are those in which parents are the targets and the associated outcome is theirs.

^*p < .05;

^**p < .01,

^***p < .001.

Table 3.

Regressing parents’ empathic accuracy on intrapersonal ER strategy use in response to positive affect: Within-person level APIM results (N_dyads = 112)

	A. Maladaptive ER strategies						B. Adaptive ER strategies
	β	SE	df	t	CI	f 2	β	SE	df	t	CI	f 2
Intercept	−0.03	0.03	4364	−1.17	−0.09, 0.02	<.001	−0.02	0.02	4364	−0.71	−0.06, 0.03	<.001
Role1	0.01	0.02	108	0.54	−0.02, 0.04	<.001	0.01	0.02	108	0.34	−0.03, 0.04	<.001
Lagged EA	0.06	0.02	4364	3.29**	0.02, 0.09	.006	0.04	0.02	4364	2.46*	0.01, 0.07	.005
Mean EA	1.01	0.02	108	49.51***	0.97, 1.05	.619	1.01	0.02	108	53.04***	0.97, 1.05	.666
Mean Perceiver’s ER	0.00	0.01	108	0.37	−0.02, 0.03	<.001	−0.00	0.01	108	−0.06	−0.02, 0.02	<.001
Mean Target’s ER	0.01	0.01	108	0.84	−0.01, 0.03	<.001	0.00	0.01	108	0.42	−0.01, 0.02	<.001
Partner’s daily ER	−0.07	0.03	4364	−2.01 *	−0.13, −0.00	.001	0.18	0.03	4364	5.90 ***	0.12, 0.24	.016
Target’s daily ER	−0.02	0.03	4364	−0.64	−0.09, 0.09	<.001	0.10	0.03	4364	3.67 ***	0.05, 0.16	.006
Role × Perceiver’s daily ER	0.00	0.04	4364	0.02	−0.08, 0.09	< 0	−0.09	0.04	4364	−2.24 *	−0.17, −0.01	<.001
Role × Target’s daily ER	−0.00	0.04	4364	−0.06	−0.07, 0.07	<.001	−0.10	0.03	4364	−3.16 **	−0.17, −0.04	.004

Note. EA = empathic accuracy; ER = emotion regulation.

¹Role is coded “0” for parent and “1” for adolescent. Therefore, default estimates are those in which parents are the targets and the associated outcome is theirs.

^*p < .05;

^**p < .01,

^***p < .001.

Y_ijk(Empathic accuracy on day k for person j in dyad i) = (β₀+ b_0i + b_0ij) + (β₁ + b_1i + b_1ij)*(lagged empathic accuracy [day k-1, mean-centered]) + (β₂+ b_2i + b_2ij) * (target’s maladaptive negative emotion regulation strategy use on day k [mean-centered]) + (β₃+ b_3i + b_3ij)*(perceiver’s maladaptive negative emotion regulation strategy use on day k [mean-centered]) + β₄*(relationship role) + β₅*(target’s maladaptive negative emotion regulation strategy use on day k*role) + β₆*(perceiver’s maladaptive negative emotion regulation strategy use on day k*role) + β₇*(mean empathic accuracy) + β₈*(target’s mean maladaptive negative emotion regulation strategy use) + β₉*(perceiver’s mean maladaptive negative emotion regulation strategy use) + ε_ijk

To estimate partial effect sizes for specific coefficients, we calculated partial f² values using the procedure outlined by Selya et al. (2012). In certain rare instances, effect sizes may be negative when variables contribute minimally to variance, resulting in a slight increase in the model R² upon their removal.

To evaluate the moderating influences of adolescents’ age and gender, supplementary models that include two-way interactions between these variables and the emotional strategy use of both the target and the perceiver were developed. For brevity, these variables are excluded from the results presented herein; however, the detailed outcomes of the moderation analyses are provided in the supplementary materials. The results for adolescents presented in the text account for age and gender as covariates.

Transparency and Openness

We followed the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) guidelines. All study procedures were preregistered on the Open Science Framework (see preregistration at https://osf.io/c7h98; Gadassi-Polack et al., 2022). The data analysis code is openly available at https://osf.io/q8kpv/. Study materials and measures are described in detail in the manuscript and supplementary materials; additional documentation is available upon request. Deidentified data can be accessed upon reasonable request from the senior author, in line with ethical approval and participant consent restrictions. The Institutional Review Board of Yale University (Human Investigation Committee #2000022492) approved the study’s procedures. All participants furnished informed consent, and adolescents provided assent. We disclose all measures, manipulations, and exclusions, and our sample size was established based on a priori power analyses conducted for the preregistered project. We followed the APA Journal Article Reporting Standards (JARS) for quantitative research. Effect sizes are documented for all primary analyses, and confidence intervals are included where applicable.

Results

For the descriptive statistics of daily diary measures and the correlation matrix, please refer to Tables S1 and S2 in the online supplementary materials.

Difference in empathic accuracy between parents and adolescents

Parents showed higher empathic accuracy than their children across the whole diary period (M_parent= 0.68_s[SD_parents=0.52], M_children= 0.51 [SD_children= 0.33], p < .001, Cohen’s d = 0.26).

Associations between emotion regulation strategies and empathic accuracy

Maladaptive emotion regulation strategies of negative affect

Between-person level.

Table 1 (section I, part A) shows that as hypothesized, parents’ empathic accuracy was negatively and significantly associated with their children’s use of maladaptive emotion regulation strategies in response to negative affect. Similarly, adolescents’ empathic accuracy was negatively associated with their parents’ use of maladaptive negative emotion regulation strategies (β = −0.153, SE = 0.06, t[105] = −2.38, p = .019, 95% CI [−0.28, −0.03], f² = .030). Empathic accuracy was not associated with parents’ or adolescents’ own use of maladaptive emotion regulation strategies (β = −0.072, SE = 0.05, t[105] = −1.39, p = .167, 95% CI [−0.17, 0.03], f² = .011).

Within-person level.

Table 2 (Part A) shows that as hypothesized, parents’ empathic accuracy was higher than usual on days when their children used fewer-than-usual maladaptive emotion regulation strategies in response to negative affect. Similarly, adolescents’ empathic accuracy was higher than usual on days when their parents used fewer-than-usual maladaptive emotion regulation strategies (β = −0.065, SE = 0.02, t[4368] = −3.36, p = .001, 95% CI [−0.102, −0.027], f² = .002). Parents’ and adolescents’ changes in empathic accuracy was unrelated to changes in their own emotion regulation strategy use (β = −0.023, SE = 0.02, t[4368] = −1.37, p = .170, 95% CI [−0.057, 0.010], f² < .001).

In sum, for both parents and adolescents, at both between- and within-person levels, use of more maladaptive emotion regulation strategies in response to one’s own negative affect was associated with dyad-partner’s decreased empathic accuracy (i.e., partner/perceiver effect), but unrelated to one’s own empathic accuracy (i.e., actor/target effect).

Adaptive emotion regulation strategies of negative affect

Between-person level.

Table 1 (section I, part B) shows that neither adolescents’ nor parents’ use of adaptive emotion regulation strategies in response to negative affect was associated with parent or adolescent empathic accuracy (β_actor = −0.064, SE_actor = 0.06, t_actor [105] = −1.09, p_actor = .277, 95% CI_actor [−0.18, 0.05], f² _actor = .007; β_partner = −0.116, SE_partner = 0.07, t_partner [105] = −1.71, p_partner = .090, 95% CI_partner [−0.25, 0.02], f²_partner = .016).

Within-person level.

Table 2 (part B) shows that neither adolescents’ nor parents’ use of adaptive emotion regulation strategies in response to negative affect was associated with parent or adolescent daily empathic accuracy (β_actor = −0.024, SE_actor = 0.02, t_actor [4368] = −1.28, p_actor = .201, 95% CI_actor [−0.061, 0.013], f²_actor < .001; β_partner = 0.012, SE_partner = 0.02, t_partner [4368] = 0.62, p_partner = .534, 95% CI_partner [−0.027, 0.052], f²_partner < .001).

In sum, the use of adaptive emotion regulation strategies in response to negative affect was unrelated to one’s own or dyad-partner’s empathic accuracy.

Maladaptive emotion regulation strategies of positive affect

Between-person level.

Table 1 (section II, part A) shows that as hypothesized, parents’ empathic accuracy was negatively and significantly associated with their children’s use of maladaptive emotion regulation strategies in response to positive affect. This partner/perceiver effect was also found for adolescents, i.e., adolescents’ empathic accuracy was negatively associated with their parents’ use of maladaptive positive emotion regulation strategies (β = −0.183, SE = 0.07, t[105] = −2.70, p = .008, 95% CI [−0.32, −0.05], f² = .039). Neither parents’ nor adolescents’ own use of maladaptive emotion regulation strategies was associated with their empathic accuracy (β = −0.096, SE = 0.06, t[105] = −1.67, p = .098, 95% CI [−0.21, 0.02], f² = .018).

Within-person level.

Table 3 (part A) shows that, as hypothesized, parents’ empathic accuracy was higher than usual on days in which their children used fewer-than-usual maladaptive emotion regulation strategies in response to positive affect. Similarly, adolescents’ empathic accuracy was higher than usual on days when their parents used fewer-than-usual maladaptive emotion regulation strategies (β = −0.069, SE = 0.02, t[3937] = −2.86, p = .004, 95% CI [−0.117, −0.022], f² = .001). Changes in parents’ and adolescents’ empathic accuracy was, however, unrelated to changes in their own emotion regulation strategy use (β = −0.026, SE = 0.02, t[3937] = −1.21, p = .226, 95% CI [−0.069, 0.016], f² < .001).

In sum, for both parents and adolescents, at both between- and within-person levels, use of more maladaptive emotion regulation strategies in response to one’s own positive affect was associated with the dyad partner’s decreased empathic accuracy (i.e., perceiver effect), but unrelated to one’s own empathic accuracy (i.e., target effect).

Adaptive emotion regulation strategies of positive affect

Between-person level.

Table 1 (Section II, Part B) shows that, as hypothesized, parents’ empathic accuracy was positively and significantly associated with their children’s use of adaptive emotion regulation strategies in response to positive affect. However, this perceiver effect was not found for adolescents, i.e., adolescents’ empathic accuracy was not associated with their parents’ use of adaptive positive emotion regulation strategies (β = −0.020, SE = 0.05, t[105] = −0.39, p = .696, 95% CI [−0.12, 0.08], f² = .001). This difference between parents and adolescents was significant, as indicated by a significant interaction effect between the relationship role and the partner’s use of emotion regulation strategies (see Table 1 [section II, part B]). Empathic accuracy was not associated with parents’ or adolescents’ own use of adaptive emotion regulation strategies (β = −0.003, SE = 0.05, t[105] = −0.07, p = .943, 95% CI [−0.09, 0.09], f² < 0).

Within-person level.

Table 3 (part B) shows that, as hypothesized, parents’ empathic accuracy was higher than usual on days when their children used more-than-usual adaptive emotion regulation strategies in response to positive affect. Similarly, adolescents’ empathic accuracy was higher than usual on days when their parents used more-than-usual adaptive emotion regulation strategies (β = 0.100, SE = 0.02, t[4364] = 4.25, p = < .001, 95% CI [0.054, 0.146], f² < 0). A significant interaction effect between relationship role and partner’s emotion regulation strategy use indicated that this positive association was more pronounced for parents’ empathic accuracy (β = 0.079, SE = 0.03, t[4364] = 2.51, p = .012, 95% CI [0.017, 0.141], f² < .001).

Table 3 (part B) shows that, as hypothesized, parents’ empathic accuracy was higher than usual on days in which they themselves used more-than-usual adaptive positive emotion regulation strategies. Adolescents’ empathic accuracy was not associated with fluctuations in their own use of adaptive emotion regulation strategies (β = −0.0002, SE = 0.02, t[4364] = −0.01, p = .992, 95% CI [−0.037, 0.037], f² < 0). As shown in Table 3 (part B), these differences between parents and adolescents were significant, as indicated by a significant interaction effect of relationship role and the target’s emotion regulation strategy use (β = 0.111, SE = 0.03, t[4364] = 3.52, p = < .001, 95% CI [0.049, 0.173], f² < 0).

In sum, at both the between- and within-person levels, adolescents’ use of more adaptive emotion regulation in response to their own positive affect was associated with higher empathic accuracy among their parents. In addition, at the within-person level, parents’ use of more adaptive emotion regulation in response to their own positive affect was associated with higher empathic accuracy in both themselves and their children.

As summarized in Table 4, more maladaptive emotion regulation of negative and positive affect was associated with the perceiver’s (but not the target’s) lower levels of empathic accuracy at the between- and within-person levels. Additionally, more adaptive emotion regulation of positive affect in adolescents was associated with their parents’ (but not their own) higher empathic accuracy at both the between- and within-person levels. And finally, adaptive emotion regulation of positive affect by parents was associated with parents’ and adolescents’ higher empathic accuracy at the within-person level.

Table 4.

Overview of main results; results with gray (vs. white) background are consistent with hypotheses

			Parent EA		Adolescent EA
Emotion Regulation			Between-person	Within-person	Between-person	Within-person
Negative Affect	Maladaptive	Parents’ ER	ns	ns	−√	−√
		Adolescents’ ER	−√	−√	ns	ns
	Adaptive	Parents’ ER	ns	ns	ns	ns
		Adolescents’ ER	ns	ns	ns	ns
Positive Affect	Maladaptive	Parents’ ER	ns	ns	−√	−√
		Adolescents’ ER	−√	−√	ns	ns
	Adaptive	Parents’ ER	ns	+√	ns	+√1
		Adolescents’ ER	+√	+√	ns	ns

Note. EA = empathic accuracy; ns = non-significant; − = significant negative association; + = significant positive association. ^√ = indicates significant effects in the direction of formulated hypotheses. ¹ = significantly weaker association than for adolescents’ use of adaptive positive emotion regulation strategies and parents’ empathic accuracy.

Discussion

The present investigation examined the contemporaneous associations between emotion regulation and empathic accuracy within parent-adolescent dyads using a daily diary methodology. By analyzing the effects of both the target and the perceiver, we explored how individuals’ emotion regulation strategies were associated with their own and their partner’s empathic accuracy. Using a dyadic daily diary approach, we observed that individuals’ emotion regulation was more consistently associated with their partner’s empathic accuracy than with their own. These findings offer an ecologically grounded perspective on interpersonal processes linking emotion regulation and empathic accuracy. They may inform intervention programs aimed at enhancing well-being and supporting the parent-child relationship during adolescence.

Targets’ (but not Perceivers’) Maladaptive Emotion Regulation Strategies are Negatively Associated with Perceivers’ Empathic Accuracy

Across both within- and between-person levels, targets’ (i.e., the person being perceived) greater use of maladaptive strategies to regulate negative and positive emotions (e.g., suppression, dampening) was associated with lower empathic accuracy among perceivers. However, perceivers’ emotion regulation use was not significantly associated with perceivers’ empathic accuracy. These findings are consistent with prior work indicating that psychopathology characterized by emotion dysregulation is linked with reduced empathic accuracy of partners (Flurry et al., 2008; Gadassi et al., 2011). Expanding on prior research, the present study examined daily variation in specific emotion-regulatory strategies rather than broader psychopathology symptoms. Because emotion regulation is conceptualized as a transdiagnostic risk and protective factor (Zitzmann et al., 2023), understanding its interpersonal correlates has broader relevance that goes beyond clinical diagnoses (Daros et al., 2021; Moltrecht et al., 2021).

One explanation for these results may be related to emotional signal clarity (Morningstar et al., 2022). Specifically, the use of maladaptive negative- and positive-emotion regulation strategies may reflect patterns of emotional expression associated with reduced mutual understanding. For example, dampening or suppressing emotional expression may reduce signal clarity, potentially making emotional states more difficult for partners to infer (Chadwick et al., 2021; Mauss et al., 2011; Rimé et al., 2020). Such processes may increase the likelihood of misattributions or escalation of conflict (Lebowitz & Dovidio, 2015; Mauroy et al., 2024; Safdar et al., 2009). Future studies are needed to examine this explanation of our results.

Our findings add to prevailing theories (Cohen et al., 2012; Ickes, 2016) and research (Chang-Arana et al., 2021) on empathic accuracy, which have predominantly centered on the perceiver. By employing a dyadic design and analysis, the present study suggests that the target’s (vs. the perceiver’s) behaviors may be more likely to determine perceivers’ empathic accuracy. Although a larger sample might have yielded more detectable effects for perceivers’ emotion regulation, the pattern observed in the current data indicates that targets’ emotion regulation effects were more robust and consistent.

Adaptive Emotion Regulation of Positive (but not Negative) Affect Supports Empathic Accuracy

In contrast to previous studies, which mainly focused on psychopathology as the outcome and found weaker effects for adaptive positive (vs. negative) emotion regulation, our findings show that adaptive regulation of positive (vs. negative) emotions is more strongly associated with greater empathic accuracy. These associations were primarily observed at the within-person level and were more consistent among parents than adolescents. Prior research has linked adaptive regulation of negative affect to enhanced cognitive empathic processes, including empathic accuracy (Eckland & English, 2018; Guo et al., 2023). Our results suggest that similar associations may emerge in the context of positive emotion regulation. Specifically, when adolescents and parents reported greater use of adaptive strategies to regulate positive emotions, parents displayed increased accuracy in discerning adolescents’ emotions. These results are consistent with the broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions (Fredrickson, 2013) and with literature linking shared positive affective experiences to greater emotional understanding and interpersonal closeness (Chadwick et al., 2021; Rose et al., 2014). The findings underscore the potential value of incorporating positive emotion regulation into dyadic research and into interventions designed to support positive emotional experiences within families (Young et al., 2019). Indeed, our results suggest that when examining relational outcomes, the relevance of positive emotion regulation may become more evident (Mueller et al., 2024).

“These findings further highlight the heterogeneity of positive emotion regulation strategies. Indeed, distinct strategies exerting differential interpersonal effects (Naragon-Gainey et al., 2017; Vanderlind et al., 2022), In the current investigation, aggregating suppression and dampening may have obscured meaningful differences in how these strategies shape the clarity of emotional signals (Zaki et al., 2008). It is possible that suppression “blocks” the emotional signal, whereas dampening distorts signal clarity. The low within-day reliability observed for maladaptive positive regulation likely reflects this divergence, rather than solely measurement error. Future work should examine specific strategies separately to capture their distinct interpersonal effects better.”

Differences in Empathic Accuracy Between Parents and Adolescents

Consistent with previous research and our hypotheses, parents exhibited higher levels of empathic accuracy than their adolescent children (Kunzmann et al., 2018; O’Neal & Magai, 2005; Shay et al., 2025). The present study contributes to the literature by being one of the first to use a daily diary design to examine empathic accuracy in a naturalistic parent-adolescent relationship (cf., Shay et al., 2025). We were able to track daily fluctuations in emotion regulation strategies and their associations with both parents’ and adolescents’ empathic accuracy. The finding that parents demonstrated higher empathic accuracy may reflect differences in life experience, emotional maturity, or more advanced cognitive abilities, favoring the parents. It may also be influenced by Western sociocultural norms that emphasize parental attunement to children’s emotional needs (Song et al., 2023). Parents may be more motivated—and perhaps socially expected—to attend to their children’s mental states rather than vice versa (Lebowitz & Dovidio, 2015). Future studies are needed to examine whether age, relational role, motivation, or other contextual factors account for parent-adolescent differences.

Strengths, Limitations, Constraints on Generality, and Future Directions

The current study represents a pioneering effort to examine the link between emotion regulation and empathic accuracy within parent-adolescent dyads in the naturalistic context of everyday life. The use of dyadic daily diaries yielded ecologically valid data (Gadassi-Polack et al., 2025b; Keijsers et al., 2022), enhancing the clinical and developmental relevance of the findings. Nevertheless, several limitations warrant consideration. First, the study design was correlational, precluding causal inferences. Experimental work manipulating regulatory strategies is needed to investigate their potential effects on empathic accuracy more directly. The correlational nature of our study also limits our ability to rule out statistically spurious “third variables” as alternative explanations; specifically, potential confounding variables, such as relationship quality, may account for our results. Although we did not control for potential confounds in our person-level models, our within-person models included participants’ person-level outcome and predictor variables. This procedure, widely used in intensive longitudinal designs, significantly reduces the risk that the results are explained by person-level confounding variables (Bolger & Laurenceau, 2013). Given that all person-level outcomes were also observed in within-person analyses, we feel relatively confident that they are robust. Still, our models do not preclude the possibility of day-level confounds, such as shared context (e.g., some event affecting the whole family). Future studies could address these issues using more fine-grained experience sampling or by introducing interventions.

Second, the use of a community sample limits the generalizability of the results; replication in clinical or high-risk populations is imperative. For example, in contexts characterized by severe emotion dysregulation, perceiver-focused regulatory processes may play a more pronounced role in shaping empathic accuracy. Third, the temporal resolution of once-daily assessments, as well as the fact that dyad members did not complete the daily assessment at the same time, may have obscured more immediate or dynamic effects and specifically introduced noise to the measurement of empathic accuracy; future research should consider employing an ecological momentary assessment (EMA) with higher temporal resolution. Fourth, the within-person reliability of maladaptive positive emotion regulation was low, suggesting that day-to-day fluctuations in this construct partly reflect measurement error. Although low within-person reliability may attenuate the association and the interpretation of potential within-person effects, similar estimates have been reported in prior daily diary research on positive emotion regulation (e.g., Vanderlind et al., 2022), indicating that capturing stable day-to-day variability in positive regulation strategies should be interpreted with caution. Future studies may benefit from expanding item coverage or employing higher-temporal assessments to improve the reliability and precision of measuring positive emotion regulation processes. Fifth, we acknowledge that specific emotions (e.g., anger, sadness, worry) differ in their expression, impact, and identifiability. Yet we did not make this distinction in the current study because we did not want to place an additional burden on our participants. A limitation of the present study is that empathic accuracy was aggregated across positive and negative affect, which may obscure valence-specific associations and should be examined separately in future research. Finally, following our preregistration, we use mixed linear regression, which is recommended for this type of data (Bolger & Laurenceau, 2013). Recently, dynamic structural equation models have been proposed as an alternative (Savord et al., 2023), with advantages in handling latent variables and missing data. As research on these new methods advances, researchers should consider using them for these kinds of data.

Clinical Implications

The findings presented here have implications for interventions aimed at improving emotional communication within families (Van Lissa et al., 2017). Promoting adaptive emotion regulation strategies, such as sustaining positive affect and reducing maladaptive suppression or dampening, may enhance mutual understanding and relational dynamics. Fostering positive affect-sharing and reducing emotional concealment may increase emotional transparency and interpersonal connectedness (Bryant & Veroff, 2007; Rimé et al., 2020).

Importantly, our findings suggest that improving the regulation of the individual whose emotions are being inferred (the target) may be more critical than focusing solely on the individual attempting to infer those emotions (the perceiver). Interventions that enhance the clarity of emotional signals within relationships may indirectly improve empathic accuracy by increasing the availability and coherence of emotional cues.

Converging evidence from research on depression further supports this perspective. Depression is characterized by difficulties regulating both negative emotions and positive emotions, including diminished positive affect and increased maladaptive rumination (Dunn, 2012; Joormann & Vanderlind, 2014). Mothers with postpartum depression often misinterpret their infants’ emotional cues (Barry et al., 2008; Feldman, 2009; Field, 2010; Goodman & Gotlib, 2002), and individuals with elevated depressive symptoms demonstrate reduced empathic accuracy in romantic relationships (Gadassi et al., 2011; Gordon et al., 2013). Although our study examined a community sample, our results may be relevant to clinical disorders characterized by difficulties in emotion regulation, particularly those that affect emotional expressivity and cue clarity, which may compromise accurate understanding in close relationships. Together, this body of work highlights the potential value of targeting emotion regulation processes to enhance empathic accuracy and relational functioning.

Conclusion

The present study investigates the associations between emotion regulation strategies and empathic accuracy within parent-adolescent dyads. This relationship was examined through a dyadic daily diary approach involving parents and their adolescent offspring. Consistent with prior research, the findings suggest that parents exhibit superior empathic accuracy skills compared to their adolescent children. Overall, the data indicate that targets’ – more than perceivers’ - emotion regulation is associated with their perceivers’ empathic accuracy.

Furthermore, our results demonstrate that maladaptive emotion regulation is strongly and negatively correlated with empathic accuracy when compared to adaptive strategies. Finally, in contrast to findings from studies examining psychopathology as outcomes, which show more robust effects for the regulation of negative (vs. positive emotions), the current investigation focused on a relational outcome (empathic accuracy). It showed that in this case, adaptive emotion regulation of positive (but not negative) emotions was more important. The outcomes of this study substantially contribute to the existing literature by emphasizing the benefits of employing a dyadic approach to investigating emotion regulation and empathic accuracy in complex close relationships, such as those between parents and their adolescent children.