An unequal exchange: A within-person examination of conversation role on intra- and interpersonal outcomes of co-ruminative conversations.

Co-rumination is a social emotion regulation strategy involving extensive, cyclical, and negative conversations about a problem. Typically, greater co-rumination is associated with more intrapersonal costs (negative affect) and interpersonal benefits (closeness). However, research often focuses on the individual disclosing a problem, raising the question of whether these expected outcomes of co-rumination apply when responding to others' problems. Across three within-subjects, experimental studies (2018-2021), we assessed whether the discloser (Studies 1-3), responder (Studies 1-3), and shared (Studies 1 and 2) roles within a problem discussion were associated with negative affect and closeness. Results revealed that when individuals were in the discloser or shared (vs. responder) role, they experienced more negative affect (Studies 1-3). Notably, in Study 3, there were few exceptions: Almost all dyads experienced more negative affect when in the discloser versus responder role. Exploratory moderation analyses in Study 3 revealed that close friends endorsed more negative affect when assuming the discloser (vs. responder) role, but the difference was attenuated for romantic couples. The main effect of role on negative affect was not moderated by an experimental manipulation of co-rumination. We found evidence that the responder role was associated with greater closeness (Study 1), but this result did not replicate in Studies 2 and 3. The generalizability of our findings is limited to primarily White, college-aged individuals. Together, we provide the first within-person, experimental evidence that the roles adopted within co-ruminative discussions are differentially associated with intrapersonal and interpersonal outcomes, suggesting this dynamic is important to incorporate when studying social emotion regulation. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).