Social baseline theory

Emotion regulation refers to the conscious and unconscious processes that help us to influence our own and others’ emotional states (Gross, 1998; McRae &

Gross, 2020). Most theorists agree that emotion regulation is profoundly social in nature, and social context has an important role in the emotion regulation strategies that people deploy in daily life (Gross et al., 2006). Nevertheless, research and literature concerning social and dyadic emotion regulation are scarce, which may be related to the fact that the subject is challenging to explore in tightly controlled experiments. Social baseline theory (SBT) views emotion regulation as social, systemic, and dynamic phenomena. According to Beckes and Coan (2011, p. 977), “social proximity represents an innate, prepared, default

or baseline strategy for human emotion regulation”, which saves individuals’ own, biological resources when they are coping with adversities of life.

The scientific background of SBT is based on the findings of neuroscientific investigations according to which the neural circuits associated with the self- regulation of emotion are actually less active in the presence of supporting people (Beckes & Coan, 2011; Coan et al., 2017). These findings surprised scientists and led them to suspect that regulation of emotion through social interaction might not be based on the activation of internal self-regulatory processes, but rather enable the restoration or maintenance of a safe baseline state (Gross & Thompson, 2007). Social proximity attunes the brain to be less vigilant in a potentially threatening situation because social support returns the brain to its innate baseline state that requires less emotional activation and self-regulatory inhibition. Interaction and social support reduce the activation of the sympathetic nervous system and consumption of stress hormones, in this way decreasing the need to use personal, metabolically costly regulation resources (Beckes & Coan, 2011). Thus, social interaction can be considered as an energy saving mechanism in challenging or stressful situations. Individuals with responsive social contacts use less self-regulatory effort and personal resources while responding to threatening situations (Coan et al., 2013). If the state of the social baseline is not achieved, an individual prepares to cope alone and use metabolically costly internal resources (Bar-Kalifa & Rafaeli, 2015). A child’s serious illness loads parents mentally and physically, and the state of the social baseline produced by mutual proximity could save their metabolic resources in this stressful situation.

SBT is based on a principle called economy of action, which states that organisms must take in more energy than they consume to survive and reproduce (Proffitt, 2006). SBT explains how social resources optimize individual energy consumption and serve energy-saving functions. Social resources are mentally included in the self, and the need to use one’s own resources is estimated to be lower if support is available. According to SBT, the availability of social resources is a fundamental, inherent “factory reset” of a human being.

Beckes and Coan (2011, p. 977) stated that “the human brain is designed to assume that it is embedded within a relatively predictable social network characterized by familiarity, joint attention, shared goals, and interdependence”.

Coan et al. (2006) found in functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies that social interaction regulates many of the brain responses to potential threats. In their study, the proximity and quality of social resources influenced, for example, how threatening a situation was perceived. Consequently, the amount and quality of social relations affect the assessment of need to use one’s own resources in coping with the situation. One form of interpersonal emotion regulation is load sharing which means sharing emotional loads associated with challenging situations in social relationships (Ehrenberg et al., 2001; Lougheed et al., 2016). Load sharing affects brain encoding and interpretation of “self”, available resources, and personal resource investment.

The closeness and presence of a partner are interpreted as available resources, which reduces the need to use one’s own energy and effort in a situation (Coan

& Maresh, 2014). Diamond et al. (2008) investigated reactions of romantic couples during temporary physical separation and found substantial changes in couples’ affects, stress levels, physical symptoms, and cortisol consumption.

Separation of a couple when their child is seriously ill can be particularly stressful due to the load of the situation, fear, and need for support. Load sharing and interpretation of a partner as one’s own resource may help parents cope with adverse situations and the additional burden of separation.

According to Beckes and Coan (2011), social contacts and proximity are essential as prerequisites of human emotion regulation. Coan and Maresh (2014) even suggest that emotion regulation is a key function of social relationships. In addition to the downregulation of negative emotions, social relations, and proximity also serve the amplification of positive emotions. The impact of a partner’s positive reactions on the use of individual resources can be understood through the process of capitalization, in which the partner’s positive feedback is interpreted as a personal and social resource, which reduces the need to consume one’s neural resources (Coan & Maresh, 2014).

Thus, SBT is in many respects in line with adult attachment theory and adds an understanding of the biological mechanisms that attune human beings from their birth to social modes of positive and negative emotion regulation and load sharing (Table 1). SBT also helps in understanding the phenomena of parenting a seriously ill child, the need for support between parents, and the importance of sharing the burden in parental coping.