How Do Foreign Students from Different Collectivist Countries Perceive Interpersonal Emotion Regulation? A Thematic Analysis in Lithuania

Abstract

The main aim of our qualitative research is to find out how foreign students from different Collectivistic countries perceive interpersonal emotion regulation (IER). Using semi-structured interviews as a method of data collection and thematic analysis as a method of data analysis, we found that the majority of participants used IER to provide psychological support to their colleagues and friends in a variety of contexts—64% of participants highlighted cognitive strategies as key in emotional regulation, especially the use of temporal perspective shifting—and that, finally, the majority of the participants highlighted the evident results of the interventions, the most common of which was the increased adaptive behavior of the targets of IER. These findings highlight the persistence of cultural orientation in heterogeneous settings and suggest situational flexibility in IER strategies. They also highlight the importance of designing culturally sensitive interventions in international educational contexts.

1. Introduction

1.1. Theoretical Considerations

Emotion regulation (ER) or, more specifically, “attempts to influence which emotions one has, when one has them, and how one experiences or expresses these emotions” (Gross, 2015, pp. 4–5), has been a widely recognized topic of research for around three decades. It has been studied from various perspectives. For example, James Gross’ process model of ER (Gross, 1998, 2015) distinguished between processes that precede the occurrence of emotions and processes that follow emotional arousal. This model has provided the basis for classifying a wide variety of ER strategies, i.e., specific ways to influence emotions (Niedenthal & Ric, 2017). On the other hand, Maya Tamir’s motivational analysis of ER distinguished to broad categories of regulatory goals—hedonistic and instrumental motives—each of which have their own subcategories (Tamir, 2016).

While most research since the mid-1990s has focused on ER at the intra-personal level, the last decade has seen an increasing focus on ER at the inter-personal level. However, the very attempt to arrive at a definition of interpersonal emotion regulation (IER) that provides sufficient and necessary characteristics of the subject being defined demonstrates the lack of consensus and a unified conceptual framework in this research area (Turliuc & Jitaru, 2019; Petrova & Gross, 2024). Niven and colleagues (2009) provide what can be called a narrower conception of IER and define the concept as “the process of deliberately influencing the feeling states of another person” which “occurs between a variety of interlocutors and in a variety of contexts” (Niven et al., 2009, p. 489; also see Niven, 2016, p. 306). In other words, it is characteristic of this regulation that the “regulator” (“the person doing the regulation”) and the “target” (“the person receiving the regulation attempt”) are different individuals (Niven, 2024, p. 153). In order to refine the definition, Niven (2017) identifies four main characteristics of IER: (1) it is a form of regulation (an effort to change or maintain an emotional state); (2) this regulation has an affective target state (the effort is directed at a particular emotion); (3) this regulation is a deliberate process (the use of certain personal resources for a specific purpose); (4) this regulation has a social target (“the target state is social in that it belongs to someone other than the regulator”) (p. 90).

Zaki and Williams (2013) present a broader conception of IER, according to which such regulation involves “episodes (a) occurring in the context of a live social interaction, and (b) representing the pursuit of a regulatory goal” (p. 804). It should be stressed that in this case the first condition, i.e., occurrence “in the context of a live social interaction”, does not imply that the regulator and the target are different people. On the contrary, social (or interpersonal) interactions can be used both to regulate one’s own emotions (intrinsic IER) and the emotions of another person (extrinsic IER) (Zaki & Williams, 2013).

Petrova and Gross (2024) provide their own version of a broader conception; in their view, IER “encompasses all instances of emotion regulation that directly involve two or more individuals, as a result of activation of other-focused regulatory goals, reliance on social regulatory means, or both” (p. 46). In this case, “other-focused regulatory goals” refers to the intention to change another person’s emotions, while “social regulatory means” refers to the use of another person’s resources to change emotions (Petrova & Gross, 2024). These authors also note that IER can involve the simultaneous regulation of one’s own and the other person’s emotions: that the level of involvement of the regulator and the target in the interpersonal interaction can differ (Petrova & Gross, 2024). Due to such nuances, it can be said that a broader conception leaves the relationship between intra-personal and inter-personal ER unclear (e.g., Hofmann, 2014).

The indecision on the definition of IER also relates to other theoretical aspects, such as the variety of classifications of IER strategies. For example, Niven (2024) distinguishes between (1) relationship-oriented (changing the target’s perception of the relationship between them and the regulator), (2) problem-oriented (changing the target’s perception of the emotional situation), and (3) emotion-oriented strategies (directing the target’s attention to or away from their emotions). Zaki and Williams (2013) identify two groups of strategies: response-dependent regulation (which relies on feedback from the target) and response-independent regulation (which does not rely on feedback). Petrova and Gross (2024) emphasize that a large proportion of affective states are expressed in social contexts (p. 37); thus, Gross’ process model of ER “can be used to describe both self-oriented and other-oriented ER, achieved through both non-social and social means” (p. 41).

Given the conceptual inconsistencies, the qualitative data processing in our study was aimed at inductive (“data-driven”) rather than deductive (“theory-driven”) analysis. On the other hand, in order not to overstep the boundaries of the field of IER, we have taken a narrower conceptual perspective in our study, i.e., we have focused on the participants’ efforts to regulate other people’s emotions. For example, the narrower conception has been applied in Little and colleagues’ (Little et al., 2016) research on the application of IER in organizational contexts.

1.2. Overview of Empirical Research

Empirical studies have explored various aspects and contexts of IER. For example, the links between such regulation and well-being have been investigated. It has been found (Tran et al., 2024) that when people regulate the emotions of others (extrinsically), the three most frequent motives of IER are to make others feel better, to establish or maintain a good relationship, and to help others. Other studies (Williams et al., 2018) have found that individuals with high IER propensity and efficacy are more emotionally expressive, empathetic, and feel a stronger social connection with others. When examining the use of IER in couple relationships, it has been found that when participants sought to distract their partners’ attention (instead of encouraging them to suppress their emotions), the latter experienced a greater positive effect and felt closer to their partner (Pauw et al., 2024). Researchers (Coo et al., 2022) have found that frequent use of these IER strategies in providing social support to expectant mothers makes it easier for them to cope with anxiety. In a sample of adults, the infrequent use of perspective-taking as an IER strategy is associated with higher levels of depression, suggesting that such intervention plays a buffering role when individuals lack the internal resources to cope with challenging situations (Altan-Atalay & Saritas-Atalar, 2022).

Among other things, scientific literature has examined the role of IER in educational contexts. For example, it has been found (Bielak & Mystkowska-Wiertelak, 2022) that university language teachers use a wide range of IER strategies, with cognitive change, situation modification, and competence enhancement being among the most used; however, students noted that this repertoire could be improved. When examining the IER strategies used by students, it was found that in situations of social exclusion, children and adolescents attending primary and secondary schools most often seek to improve the victims’ and worsen the excluders’ emotions; the strategies they use the most are cognitive engagement (altering the target’s attitude towards an unpleasant situation) and affective engagement (sharing one’s own feelings with the target) (Gummerum & López-Pérez, 2020). Another study (Chan & Rawana, 2021) found that in a sample of undergraduate students, enhancing positive affect (approaching others with the goal of increasing the intensity of one’s emotions) and perspective taking (approaching others with the goal of changing one’s perspective on a situation) were significantly associated with lower internalizing symptoms (such as perceived stress) and better psychological well-being.

Finally, research on IER from a cross-cultural perspective needs to be addressed. It should be noted at the outset that most of these studies (including qualitative) rely on the distinction between Individualistic and Collectivistic cultures. According to Geert Hofstede’s cultural dimensions theory (Hofstede et al., 2010), Individualistic cultures include most Western countries (USA, UK, Netherland, Sweden, Baltic countries, etc.) and are characterized by such features as nuclear families (including only parents and children) and an emphasis on individual autonomy, privacy, and efficacy. Collectivistic cultures, in turn, include most Eastern countries (India, Japan, China, Bangladesh, Pakistan, etc.) and are characterized by extended families (including grandparents and other relatives), an emphasis on relationships with others, clear distinction between in-group and out-group, and strong identification with in-group. On the other hand, according to Markus and Kitayama’s (2010) self-construal theory, the “independent self” is constructed by taking personal feelings, thoughts and actions as the basis, while the “interdependent self” is constructed by focusing on social relationships; the former type of self-construal is more typical of Individualistic cultures, while the latter is more typical of Collectivistic ones. Despite various criticisms, distinction between “Individualism” and “Collectivism”, as two poles of one cultural dimension, is considered to be the most important assumption of cross-cultural research that aims “to empirically test the potential influence of cultural conditions on individual experience and behavior” (Helfrich, 2023, p. 65).

It has been found that representatives of Individualistic cultures studying in Collectivistic countries (or vice versa) experience a variety of challenges requiring ER. For example, French exchange students studying in Thailand, like Chinese students in the UK, face challenges such as language barriers, academic miscommunication with lecturers and other students, acculturation stress, etc. (Chaiyasat, 2020; Cheng et al., 2019). Cultural emotion norms (e.g., emotion evaluation norms, emotion display rules) are thought to be important for motivation in ER (Matsumoto & Juang, 2017). Although the prevailing view is that Individualistic (Western) cultures, unlike Collectivistic (Eastern) cultures, value positive emotions more than negative ones (e.g., Ma et al., 2018), and that Collectivistic cultures, unlike Individualistic ones, are dominated by a norm of less expressiveness (e.g., Ramzan & Amjad, 2017), more recent research reveals uneven adherence to emotion norms across cultural groups (Vishkin et al., 2023). When examining ER strategies from a cross-cultural perspective, the prevailing view is that expressive suppression strategies are used more frequently in Collectivist cultures than in Individualistic ones (e.g., Sun & Nolan, 2021). In Collectivistic cultures, this strategy is not associated with depressive symptoms or a decrease in the quality of social relationships, so this strategy is not seen as maladaptive (Tsai et al., 2017). Research on the use of IER strategies in different cultures is scarce and the existing results are broadly in line with research on ER strategies. For example, it has been found that members of Collectivistic cultures are less likely to engage in enhancing positive affect compared to members of Individualistic cultures (Yang & Maccann, 2024). It has also been found that members of Collectivistic cultures are more likely to regulate their own emotions, unlike members of Individualistic cultures (Wei et al., 2013).

Unfortunately, there have been no studies on IER in the Lithuanian context. The Lithuanian context was chosen because according to Hofstede’s (Hofstede et al., 2010) classification, Lithuania is considered an Individualistic country. Moreover, scientific evidence (Huettinger, 2008) has shown that the Baltic countries (including Lithuania) are culturally similar and can be classified as non-Collectivistic. This is the originality of our study, as the sample of our research consists of foreign (or international, or exchange) students from Collectivistic countries studying at the Lithuanian Sport University. In our study, a foreign student is “one who has left his or her country, or territory of origin, and moved to another country for the specific purpose of studying” (Ambrósio et al., 2019, p. 368). On the other hand, the originality of our study is related to the fact that our subjects come from different Collectivistic countries. The studies discussed above usually compare two homogeneous groups (e.g., Chinese and Australians). We were interested to see whether the common IER characteristics of Collectivistic cultures identified in previous studies are also manifested in the heterogeneous sample. This is important given that according to some previous research, groups belonging to the same category of Collectivistic cultures/countries may differ in their emotion norms (e.g., Senft et al., 2023).

1.3. Current Research

We have chosen a qualitative research approach for our study. Accordingly, the main aim of our study is to explore how foreign students from different Collectivistic countries perceive IER. The choice to study foreign students from Collectivistic countries in a non-Collectivistic (Lithuanian) context was motivated by previous research showing that foreign students often face various psychological risks and educational challenges due to the changes in their socio-cultural environment (e.g., Ma et al., 2020; Oduwaye et al., 2023). Focus on the participants’ subjective perceptions is important because ER processes are dependent on a variety of beliefs (which arguably include the cultural emotion norms) (Ford & Gross, 2019). In line with the main aim, we posed the following research questions: (a) How do foreign students from different Collectivistic countries perceive their motives for engaging in IER? (b) How do these students perceive the strategies they use in the process of IER? (c) How do they perceive the consequences of the IER strategies used?

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Methodology

This study was guided by the methodological principles and recommendations of thematic analysis (TA), as formulated by Braun and Clarke (2006, 2013, 2022). TA is defined as “a method for identifying, analyzing and reporting patterns (themes) within data”; by focusing on the participants’ subjective account of their relationship to the world (which is typical of qualitative research), this method allows for a comprehensive description and synthesis of the collected data, as well as for its interpretation in relation to the research aims and questions (Braun & Clarke, 2006, p. 79). TA methodology emphasizes the active role of the researcher in the analysis of the data and considers the results of the analysis to be dependent on the researcher’s personal perspective, assumptions, and choices and the ability to reflect on these at all stages of the research (Braun & Clarke, 2022).

In the design and conduct of this study, the researchers adopted a constructionist perspective, that is, an epistemological stance that focuses on “the ways in which events, realities, meanings, experiences and so on are the effects of a range of discourses operating within society” (Braun & Clarke, 2006, p. 81). Researchers have also adopted the ontological stance of critical realism, according to which the researcher’s relationship with knowable reality is mediated by socio-linguistic constructs (Braun & Clarke, 2013). Finally, researchers have adopted an experiential orientation, that is, they have privileged the experiences and meanings that participants express, distancing themselves from the question of what social factors are relevant to the construction of these experiences and meanings (Byrne, 2022).

2.2. Study Participants

Demographic characteristics of the participants are presented in

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the participants.

Participant	Gender	Age	Time (months) Spent in the Host Country	Country of Citizenship (and Its Individualism Index Value)
P1	Male	27	7–9	Bangladesh (IDV = 20)
P2	Male	21	3–6
P3	Male	22	4–6
P4	Male	27	7–9	Egypt (IDV = 37)
P5	Male	25	7–9
P6	Male	22	3–6	India (IDV = 48)
P7	Female	20	3–6
P8	Female	20	3–6
P9	Male	23	7–9
P10	Male	20	3–6	Nigeria (IDV = 30)
P11	Male	25	3–6
P12	Male	26	7–9	Pakistan (IDV = 14)
P13	Male	23	3–6
P14	Male	26	3–6
P15	Male	26	7–9	Turkey (IDV = 37)
P16	Female	19	3–6
P17	Male	20	7–9

Notes: Lithuania’s individualism index value (IDV) is equal to 60, so according to Hofstede et al.’s (2010) classification, it belongs to the category of Individualistic countries. All IDVs were determined via an online tool (Country comparison tool. Available online: https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison-legacy. Accessed on 1 January 2024).

.

Qualitative research, in general, and thematic analysis research in particular usually uses a purposive sampling strategy (Braun & Clarke, 2013). It was also chosen for this study. More specifically, it combined convenience sampling (subjects are selected based on their accessibility to the researchers) and criterion sampling (subjects are selected based on certain predefined criteria). Three main characteristics of the “ideal participants” were identified, depending on the aim and questions of the study:

(a)

The participant comes from a country with a low (<50) Individualism Index Value (IDV) according to the Hofstede’s classification (Hofstede et al., 2010).

(b)

The participant has at least 3 months of study experience in the host country. It is likely that during this period, “culture shock” is overcome and there is a more active involvement in academic and social activities (Quan et al., 2016).

(c)

In the host country, the participant is studying in multicultural (culturally heterogeneous) groups, which include students from Individualistic cultures (IDV > 50). It is likely that studying in such groups provides students with additional challenges, as well as an incentive to reflect on their own preconceptions (Acquah & Commins, 2018).

The participants were recruited by both researchers (T.S. and R.M.). It was carried out directly by meeting students before the classes (with the consent of the teachers). No reward was promised for participation. Seventeen undergraduate students who came to study at the Lithuanian Sports University for full-time studies or on exchange programs agreed to participate in the study. None of them subsequently withdrew from the study.

In line with Braun and Clarke’s (2022) recommendations for TA, saturation was not applied to determine the sample size of our research. Instead, the study applied the information power principle, whereby the sample size of a qualitative study depends on the purpose of the study, the specificity of the sample, the theoretical assumptions, the quality of the data, and the analytical approach (Braun & Clarke, 2022). After interviewing 17 subjects, qualitative data were obtained that were rich enough to answer the research questions and achieve the research aim, and the researchers decided not to recruit more participants. This decision is in line with the results of a systematic review (Hennink & Kaiser, 2022) showing that in qualitative studies (including studies with heterogeneous samples), data saturation is usually achieved by interviewing between 9 and 17 (on average 12–13) participants.

2.3. Data Collection

The data were collected via semi-structured interviews. This was chosen because our study sought to uncover the attitudes (perceptions) of the subjects and because interviews “are best suited to exploring understandings, perceptions and constructions of things that participants have some kind of personal stake in” (Braun & Clarke, 2013, p. 81). Considering the research questions and the general guidelines for semi-structured interviews (Braun & Clarke, 2013), the following key questions (interview items) were selected:

(1)

Can you tell me about the most memorable situation in which you had to manage or influence the emotions of another person(s)?

(2)

What emotions did the other person(s) try to influence in this situation?

(3)

Why haven’t you left things as they are in this situation? What was your main motive or reason for intervening in the situation?

(4)

In what ways have you tried to manage or influence the emotions of the other person(s) in the situation we are talking about?

(5)

To what extent are you accustomed to dealing with such situations in this way? Would you have chosen a different way to intervene while in your home country?

(6)

How did the situation we were talking about resolve after your intervention? What was the result of your intervention?

(7)

If you find yourself in a similar situation again, what (if anything) would you do differently? Why?

Interviews were conducted in English. It should be noted that according to the University’s requirements, only students with IELTS 5.5, TOEFL iBT (0–120) 46–59 or an equivalent foreign language test certificate (demonstrating B2 level in English) are eligible to enroll in the undergraduate programs. All interviews were conducted by one of the researchers (T.S.), who was known to the participants from a previous lecture course. Fourteen interviews were conducted face-to-face in a university classroom (neutral environment). At the request of the participants, 3 interviews were conducted online via MS Teams software. All interviews (audio) were recorded. The average duration of the interviews was 58 min. Verbatim transcription of the interviews was carried out by both researchers (T.S. and R.M.). In case of uncertainty about any of the answers, the researchers remotely asked the participants to provide explanations and to confirm the accuracy of the data recorded. To avoid possible cultural or linguistic biases in data collection, the technique of member checking was applied; transcripts were reviewed by 6 randomly selected participants (previously interviewed).

2.4. Analysis

TA was chosen as the method of analysis for several reasons. First, the application of this approach is not dependent on a specific theoretical perspective (theoretical framework) (Braun & Clarke, 2022), which is important given that, as mentioned above, there is no universally accepted and conceptually unambiguous conception of IER. Second, the thematic analysis approach allows for an in-depth look at how participants construct their experiences and meanings (Braun & Clarke, 2022), and the aim of the present study was to explore participants’ perceptions of the process of IER in a variety of real-life situations, in this case by treating “perceptions” as a construct rather than a given.

To ensure the trustworthiness of the data, both researchers (T.S. and R.M.) performed hard-copy coding of all transcripts independently of each other. Later in the discussion, the main codes were identified by consensus. Finally, member checking was used to review the results of the analysis: a focus group of 6 randomly selected participants (previously interviewed) was set up, and a final list of meta-themes, themes, and subthemes was drawn considering their comments (discussion duration—40 min).

2.5. Ethical Considerations

The study was conducted with permission from the University’s Ethics Committee. Informed consent was obtained from the students recruited to participate in the study. In this way, they were informed about the purpose and procedures of the study, as well as the measures taken to ensure the anonymity and confidentiality of the participants. They were informed of the possibility of withdrawing at any stage of the study.

3. Results

The analysis of the qualitative data led to the identification of three meta-themes (overarching themes): “Motives”, “Strategies”, and “Consequences”. Eight themes were also distinguished. In distinguishing these, researchers were guided by the principle that “all aspects of the theme should cohere around a central idea or concept” (Braun & Clarke, 2006, p. 96). Finally, a total of 10 subthemes were distinguished to reveal the “hierarchy of meaning” in complex themes (Braun & Clarke, 2022). When discussing the themes and subthemes, the decision was made to indicate next to each the number of different participants who articulated the theme or subtheme. Although the value of indicating the frequency (prevalence) of themes is still debated (Braun & Clarke, 2022), we believe that indicating frequency in specific numbers is more informative than vague expressions (e.g., “the majority of participants”, “many participants”, etc.). An overview of the meta-themes, themes, and subthemes is given in the map (see Figure 1).

3.1. Motives for Interpersonal Emotion Regulation

As shown in

Table 2. Content of the meta-theme “Motives”.

T1. “Just to Give a Bit of Discipline” (n = 5)	T2. Importance of Personal Socialization and Well-Being (n = 7)	T3. Importance of Providing Psychological Support (n = 11)
		ST3.1. Helping others to cope with personal problems (n = 4) ST3.2. Helping others to adapt to new social-cultural conditions (n = 5) ST3.3. Helping others “when studying gets tuff” (n = 5)

Notes: T—theme; ST—subtheme; n—number of participants whose answers highlighted the theme or subtheme.

, the “Motives” meta-theme includes three themes, the first of which is T1, “Just to give a bit of discipline”. The main idea behind this theme is that the participants’ (regulators’) involvement in IER is motivated by the desire to discipline those individuals (targets) who publicly express intense emotions that appear to be unacceptable to regulators because of an alleged violation of the “rules”. Notably, in the cases under this theme, the targets of IER were representatives of both Individualistic and Collectivistic cultures. Moreover, in all cases, the aim was to reduce the expression of positive emotions (e.g., joy) and the emotional states (e.g., good mood) of others.

T1 includes codes such as “rules are rules”, “you cannot do that here”, “this is inappropriate behavior for a public place”, etc. This theme can be illustrated by the following interview excerpt: “After the exam, they [the other students] laughed loud and were happy that they had done well. Outside the door, in the classroom, other students were still taking the exam. I think the noise was disturbing them… I didn’t like it, and I said that it is not allowed here. They were not at home to behave like that” (P14).

The theme T2, “Importance of personal socialization and well-being”, also belongs to the “Motives” meta-theme. The main idea behind this theme is that the regulation of other people’s emotions is pursued for pure personal reasons, which include, among other things, the desire to socialize (to establish closer social ties with peers). In other words, while T1 focuses on group or society and norms that ensure social well-being, T2 focuses on the individual self and the needs (including social needs) that are important for one’s well-being. Theme T2 includes codes such as “to make friends”, “to socialize”, “to be in peace”, “I needed to rest before an exam”, etc. This theme can be illustrated by the following example: “My jokes may be lame, but they broke the ice. The point is to create a good vibe for everyone… It helps to make friends, be part of a team… I like being among friends” (P17).

Finally, the theme T3, “Importance of providing psychological support,” belongs to the “Motives” meta-theme. In this case, the main idea is that IER is applied to help other people cope with various problems/situations. In other words, in topic T3, the well-being of the other person is prioritized. As the theme T3 is quite broad (n = 11), three subthemes were identified.

The main idea of ST3.1, “Helping others cope with personal problems,” is that emotions are regulated in the domain of sensitive personal matters. This subtheme includes the codes “Helping to manage a conflict with a partner”, “Helping to manage a conflict with a family member”, “Helping to understand what one wants”, etc. This subtheme can be illustrated by the following example: “Why?… I saw that he needed help. He did not know what to do; he did not know how to respond to this weird [his girlfriend’s] SMS. I was there, and I felt I had to help” (P3).

Subtheme ST3.2, “Helping others adapt to new sociocultural conditions”, refers to the idea that IER is directed towards helping others adapt in a new country. This subtheme includes codes such as “when many things are different” and “being foreigner here” and can be illustrated by the following example: “It may have been easier for me because I have traveled more. A lot of things were outlandish to my roommate. The country, the people, the language—a lot” (P15).

The main idea of ST3.3, “Helping others ‘when studying gets tuff’”, is that IER is applicable to academic adjustment. The subtheme includes codes such as “teacher speaks without making sense”, “struggling with even basic matters”, etc., and can be illustrated by the following excerpt from an interview: “It was a shock for her when she had to do her first tasks. She looked at one point with tears in her eyes. She did not even dare to ask me what to do [for an assignment]” (P8).

In this case, the main result is that most of the participants (n = 11) employed IER to provide psychological support to their colleagues and friends in different situations. No significant differences in dominance were found across the subthemes.

3.2. Strategies for Interpersonal Emotion Regulation

As shown in

Table 3. Contents of the meta-theme “Strategies”.

T4. Sometimes Emotions Need to Be “Tuned” (n = 9)	T5. “It Depends on the Point of View” (n = 14)	T6. “Sometimes Just Being There Is Enough” (n = 5)
ST4.1. Demanding to withhold positive emotions (n = 5) ST4.2. Cheering up a person or collective with jokes (n = 6)	ST5.1. Switching between long- and short-time perspectives (n = 10) ST5.2. Adjusting one’s self-perception/self-perception (n = 7)

, the meta-theme “Strategies” includes three themes, the first of which is T4, “Sometimes emotions need to be ‘tuned’”. The main idea behind this theme is that regulation is directed towards changing emotion as a complex response (involving more than just the feeling element), which can serve a variety of purposes. As this theme is quite broad (n = 9), two subthemes were identified.

Subtheme ST4.1, “Demanding to withhold positive emotions”, includes codes such as “making to keep one’s emotions to oneself”, “silencing this irritating laughter”, etc. Its basic idea is that the regulator aims to reduce the expression of positive emotions by using verbal demands to achieve various goals (personal and social). This subtheme can be illustrated by the following example: “I just did not want to hear them giggling nonstop… Their behavior was disturbing to others; it did not allow me to rest. I had to take a break… I told them firmly to stop” (P4).

Subtheme ST4.2, “Cheering up a person or collective with jokes”, refers to codes such as “even silly jokes can cheer up everyone”, “to make one smile when one is sad”, etc., and refers to the idea of using humor to evoke positive emotions in a person or group in different situations. An illustration of this subtheme can be given as follows: “Hey, people, what’s the matter with you! Everybody is sitting in silence. You should be glad it’s over… Someone sitting next to you says: ‘Penny for your thoughts.’ I say, even a hundred euros will not be made here.’ Therefore, little by little, everyone cheered up” (P17).

Theme T5, “It depends on the point of view”, is based on the idea that a target’s emotions can be regulated by changing their subjective view of emotional situations (emotional triggers) and their ability to cope with such situations. Notably, the IER strategies belonging to T5 were exclusively associated with the participants reducing the intensity of negative emotions.

As T5 is a very broad theme (n = 14), two subthemes were distinguished. In one of them, ST5.1, “Switching between long- and short-time perspectives,” the main idea is that the target’s emotions are regulated by modifying (widening or narrowing) the time perspective in which the emotional situation is interpreted. This subtheme includes codes such as “things will change in the future”, “the exam is still a long way off”, “it is important to be in the here and now”, etc. Subtheme ST5.1 can be illustrated by the following excerpt from an interview: “Now everything seems bad. Today, it might not go well. So what? Tomorrow will be different. Tomorrow, you’ll take it, and you’ll do it. Take a break, and things look different. Now let it go until tomorrow” (P1).

The second subtheme, ST5.2, “Adjusting one’s self-perception/self-reflection”, is based on the idea that the target’s emotional reactions can be adjusted by changing their view of themself (expectations, beliefs, abilities, etc.). This subtheme includes codes such as “demanding too much of oneself”, “unfulfilled expectations as a problem”, “capable of more than one thinks”, etc. This subcategory is illustrated by the following example: “He came here thinking that everything would be easy. He is not in his own country or university. Change is not easy… He was angry because his thoughts made him angry. He needed to change his thoughts to make it better” (P12).

The last theme in the “strategy” meta-theme is T6, “Sometimes just being there is enough”, which includes codes such as “You need to show attention”, “Don’t leave a person alone when they’re having a hard time”, “It helps to know that you’re not alone”, etc. This theme is based on the idea that the presence of a regulator close to the target, coupled with displays of attention, empathy, etc., can serve the purpose of IER. The theme T6 can be illustrated by the following passage: “I struggled to find the right words. I was silent, and he was talking… I think he needed to talk. He needed someone to listen to… Most of the time, we just talk and hear ourselves and no other people” (P3).

To summarize, in the “strategy” meta-theme, the main results are that the participants mostly (n = 14) used perspective-changing strategies, particularly the change (narrowing or broadening) of temporal perspective in the interpretation of emotional events (n = 10).

3.3. Outcomes of Interpersonal Emotion Regulation

As shown in

Table 4. Contents of the meta-theme “Outcomes”.

T7. Obvious Outcomes of Intervention (n = 14)	T8. Supposed Psychological Outcomes (Miscellaneous) (n = 6)
T7.1. Evidence that bonds of friendship strengthen (n = 5)
T7.2. “More adequate behavior, at least for a while” (n = 8)
T7.3. Signs of “somewhat colder relationships” (n = 4)

, the “Outcomes” meta-theme covers two themes, or more precisely, the clearly visible (“social”) and hypothetical (“affective” and “cognitive”) results of the participants’ attempts to influence another person’s emotions.

Theme T7, “Obvious outcomes of intervention”, is the broadest (n = 14) and includes three subthemes. It is based on the idea that regulators are primarily concerned with the apparent outcomes of IER, both in terms of observable changes in target behavior and observable changes in regulators’ social interactions with targets. In other words, the dominance of the theme in the participants’ interviews suggests that the targets’ manifest actions are the most important indication of the effectiveness of IER for the participants (regulators). Subtheme T7.1, “Evidence that bonds of friendship strengthen”, is based on the idea that the regulator observes signs of their own better social adaptation in the behavior of the targets. This subtheme includes codes such as “writes a message after lectures”, “friendly smiles”, “easier to ask for help from peers”, etc. This subtheme can be illustrated by the following example: “There is a sense of fellowship… I can chat and invite someone somewhere. Before, they wouldn’t answer or say they couldn’t go. For different reasons. Now, there are mostly people who want to and can… You are less often alone” (P17). Subtheme T7.2, “More adequate behavior, at least for a while”, is the most frequent theme (n = 8), which is to be expected given that when discussing the motives for IER, the participants most often emphasized helping others. The main idea of subtheme T7.2 is that the regulator notices obvious signs of better adaptation (academic, social, etc.) of the target. This subtheme includes codes such as “more civilized behavior”, “no noise at night”, “higher exam grades”, etc., and can be illustrated by the following example: “She is different now… She asks others if anything is unclear. She talks to teachers. If you don’t talk, you won’t determine… Why worry if you can ask. Others can give help… For me, this is a good thing” (P8). The main idea of subtheme T7.3, “Signs of ‘somewhat colder relationships’”, is that efforts to regulate emotions can have negative social consequences for the regulator. This subtheme includes codes such as “doesn’t want to talk”, “tries to make fun of me”, “avoids contact”, etc. This subtheme can be illustrated by the following passage: “Some [of the disciplined students] started to ignore me… Showing some kind of dissatisfaction… Demonstratively turning away or leaving. I find this behavior silly and stupid” (P14). The last theme, T8, “Supposed psychological outcomes (miscellaneous)”, covers the regulators’ supposed consequences of their interventions—those consequences about which they talked in an uncertain way—emphasizing the speculative nature of their conclusions (“it’s hard to say”, “might be”, etc.). Theme T8 includes codes such as “presumed emotional relief”, “supposedly increased self-confidence”, “presumed change in attitude”, etc. This theme can be illustrated by the following example: “It is hard to say what has changed… Maybe his thoughts. It seems to me that his thinking has changed. His expectations… If I had to, I would repeat what I said to him then. There must be a change of thoughts” (P12).

In summary, the main result of the “Outcomes” meta-theme is that the majority of participants (regulators) (n = 14) emphasize the evident results of the intervention, with the most frequent one (n = 8) being a more adequate (adaptive) behavior of the targets.

4. Discussion

In our study, we aimed to reveal the attitudes of foreign students from collectivist countries towards IER. The research questions and interview items focused on three aspects of the regulation process: motives, strategies, and outcomes. This chapter focuses on a discussion of the results of the study in the context of previous research. As stated earlier, a distinctive feature of this context is that most of the studies use the categories of “collectivism” and “individualism” and aim to compare countries within them in terms of various ER and IER parameters.

In general, there is a consensus (e.g., Matsumoto & Juang, 2017) that in Collectivistic cultures individuals are more likely to experience and prioritize socially engaging emotions such as friendliness, respect, sympathy, guilt, and shame. These emotions promote social harmony and connectedness. In contrast, representatives of Individualistic cultures tend to experience and prioritize more socially disengaging emotions, including pride, self-esteem, sulkiness, and frustration, which align with their focus on independence and self-expression. It is also generalized (e.g., Helfrich, 2023) that Individualistic cultures prioritize strategies with environmental behavioral impacts, such as assertive or aggressive acts, while Collectivistic cultures favor strategies that preserve social harmony, like seeking social support. Cognitive reappraisal, a method of reinterpreting emotion-triggering situations more positively, is more commonly employed by individuals from Collectivistic cultures. Emotion suppression is also prevalent in East Asian contexts, such as Japan. Thus, it is necessary to consider cultural contexts in understanding ER and IER.

The first main finding of our study is that the majority of the subjects (n = 11) used IER to provide psychological support to their colleagues and friends in different situations, more specifically, in solving personal problems, as well as in solving socio-cultural and academic adaptation issues. None of these types of problems dominated as the main type of problem in our study. It should be noted that to our participants the provision of psychological support was associated with a reduction in the intensity or duration of target negative emotions such as “sadness”, “despair”, “feeling lost”, etc. Overall, empirical research leads to the conclusion that in Western (Individualistic) cultures, unlike Eastern (Collectivistic) cultures, positive emotions are valued more than negative emotions, whereas in the East, negative emotions are not necessarily considered harmful, but rather are valued in a more moderate way (Miyamoto et al., 2017; Ma et al., 2018; Klein et al., 2024). The fact that our participants felt motivated to regulate the targets’ negative emotions is probably due to the fact that negative emotions were evaluated (perceived) as unwanted (as a sign that the targets were experiencing some kind of problem). However, we can hardly conclude that our result contradicts the above studies. After all, the participants are in an alien cultural environment, which is likely to require them to evaluate negative emotions differently than in their usual environment. Studying in Individualistic countries, members of Collectivistic cultures are exposed to new challenges (e.g., language barriers), which raises negative emotions (stress levels) while also highlighting the importance of ER (Cheng et al., 2019). One study found that Chinese students’ engagement in IER was more motivated by a desire to reduce negative affect, while Australians were more motivated by a desire to increase positive affect (Yang & Maccann, 2024). Similar results have been obtained previously (Liddell & Williams, 2019). This is perfectly in line with the results of our study.

The second main finding of our study is that the participants mostly (n = 14) used perspective-changing strategies (T5), particularly the change (narrowing or broadening) of temporal perspective in the interpretation of emotional events (n = 10). From a theoretical point of view, this theme is partly related to the category “situational cognitive reframing”, which refers to “changing how the target thinks about the situation that caused an emotion” (Niven, 2024, p. 155). However, the link is only partial, as our topic covers not only the perspective on the situation, but also the perspective on oneself (as an agent). Gross’ notion of “cognitive strategies”, defined as efforts “to alter emotion by modifying the cognitive representations of situations (i.e., interpretations) or one’s goals” (Petrova & Gross, 2024, p. 44), is also too narrow for this theme. However, the second category could fully capture T5 if it were theoretically redefined to include the target’s attitudes about things other than their goals (i.e., beliefs, values, abilities, etc.), which seems entirely reasonable (e.g., Thumvichit, 2023). A previous quasi-experimental study found that Chinese participants used the cognitive reappraisal (judging the emotionally arousing situation more favorably) significantly more often than American participants (Qu & Telzer, 2017). As cognitive reappraisal is a form of cognitive strategy, we can conclude that the results of our study are in line with the results of this study. Previous research has found that the representatives of Collectivistic cultures are more likely to use IER strategies such as social modeling (observing how others behave in a similar challenging situation) and perspective taking in daily life (receiving help from others to reflect on an emotional situation) compared to the Western European group (Liddell & Williams, 2019; Yang & Maccann, 2024). Temporal perspective shifting is likely to fall under the umbrella of perspective taking (Allemand, 2008), so it can be said that our results are partially in line with the results of these studies.

Previous research reports the tendency of Eastern (Collectivistic) cultures to use the expressive suppression strategy (an effort to prevent emotional reactions), which, unlike in Western cultures, is not considered maladaptive (Sun & Nolan, 2021; Weiss et al., 2022). The application of this strategy is not frequent in our sample (n = 5). However, such way of dealing with emotions has been found to depend not only on the nature of the emotion (Schouten et al., 2020), but also on the partner in the social interaction (i.e., whether it is a close person or a stranger); for example, Chinese participants are less likely to suppress positive emotions when interacting with close people, whereas Dutch participants suppressed negative emotions more with non-close people (Huwaë & Schaafsma, 2018). Thus, the result could be explained by the heteronomous nature of the subject group (participants are from different countries). In any case, this aspect requires further research.

Our third main finding is that most participants (regulators) (n = 14) emphasize the evident results of the intervention, with the most frequent one (n = 8) being a more adequate (adaptive) behavior of the targets. It is generally accepted that cultures shape emotion goals (representations of a desired emotional state) by specifying the value of emotion-related outcomes; for example, East Asian cultures favor calmness, linking it to better adaptation, whereas Western cultures favor excitement, linking it to influence (Tamir & Hu, 2024). Our results can also be interpreted in the context of cross-cultural differences in the concept of happiness (the ultimate goal of human life). It has been found (Uchida & Kitayama, 2009) that for Americans, happiness is “a form of ultimate personal accomplishment”, whereas for the Japanese, the concept of happiness is related to “the ultimate significance of social relationships and associated ethos of interdependence” (p. 452); this study also revealed that self-improvement is important in coping with unhappiness for the Japanese, in contrast to the Americans. Similar results were obtained in another study (Uchida & Ogihara, 2012). Happiness was found to be perceived as a highly desirable and positive emotional state (e.g., high arousal and a sense of personal achievement) in the European and American cultural context, and personal goal attainment and high self-esteem (self-efficacy) were also found to be predictors of personal happiness in this context. In contrast, in East Asian cultural contexts, happiness is perceived as a state of low arousal (e.g., interpersonal connectedness and harmony); moreover, relationship harmony and emotional support from others are considered to be the best predictors of personal happiness. Representatives of Collectivistic cultures, unlike those of Individualistic cultures, are more motivated to pursue happiness in more socially engaged ways (Ford et al., 2015), and this motivation is important for dealing with emotions (Tamir et al., 2020). Thus, it can be said that by highlighting the evident results of IER and, in particular, the signs of improved target adaptation, our participants demonstrate the social orientation characteristic of Collectivistic cultures that the aforementioned studies refer to.

Limitations

This is a qualitative study using TA, so the conclusions drawn may not exactly reflect the situation in other Baltic countries. However, due to the common cultural Individualistic background of the Baltic countries, the study at least partially reflects how foreign students deal with perceived emotional problems while studying in Baltic countries.

The fact that the participants were predominantly male (14 out of 17 participants) and that the subjects had different previous international experience has to be interpreted as a limitation that may have influenced the findings. As said, our research has taken an experiential orientation, in other words, we have focused on the meanings expressed by the participants and have distanced ourselves from the question of which factors in the social environment are important in the construction of such meanings. However, the influence of such factors on the qualitative data is undeniable. The participants of our study were students who had spent different periods of time in Lithuania (from 3 to 9 months), and on the other hand, had different experiences of foreign studies (during the interviews, three students mentioned that they had previously studied in European countries). Thus, it can be assumed that the experience of some of the participants allowed them to better internalize the norms of Individualistic cultures (including emotional norms). Moreover, our subjects come from quite different Collectivist countries; for example, India’s IDV is 48 (4 participants from India) and Pakistan’s IDV is 14 (3 participants from Pakistan). According to Hofstede’s methodology (Hofstede et al., 2010), the idea of Individualism–Collectivism is a continuum rather than them being mutually exclusive opposites. Thus, it can be assumed that participants who came from countries with higher IDV were closer to Individualistic norms than those who came from countries with lower IDV. Thus, our study, as well as other studies on the subject, touches upon the relevant question of the significance of the categories of “Individualism” and “Collectivism” in today’s global and multicultural world. This question requires further research, particularly those linking ER processes to the underlying mechanisms of acculturation (cultural adaptation). We also consider that potential quantitative follow-up and comparative investigations of students from individualist cultures studying in collectivist contexts would be appropriate.

5. Conclusions and Suggestions

In our study, we aimed to explore how foreign students from different Collectivistic countries perceive IER and focused on three aspects of the process: motives, strategies used, and perceived outcomes. Our study revealed that the participants, who are exposed to the Lithuanian Individualistic culture and study together with students from different Individualistic and Collectivistic countries, are motivated to help others to cope with various emotional problems related to relationships with relatives, social and academic integration processes, etc. It can therefore be assumed that the social orientation (“we-consciousness”) characteristic of Collectivistic cultures persists in heterogeneous cultural environments as well. However, this aspect requires further research. On the other hand, there is an important change in the application of IER strategies; the suppression of emotions, which is characteristic of Collectivistic cultures, is less applicable in a culturally heterogeneous environment than in a homogeneous environment (within the same culture). This suggests that the value of IER strategies is situational, i.e., environmental factors determine which strategy is chosen to influence specific targets and achieve specific emotional goals. The fact that the participants emphasized the apparent results of IER (i.e., feedback from the environment is important for regulators) is probably also a sign of the situational nature of IER. More generally, the participants’ reported choice of strategies and their assessment of the results of their application are likely to be indicative of a relatively high degree of reflexivity when engaging in IER in new environments.

As to the practical implications of our study, the reduced use of emotion suppression strategies in heterogeneous cultural environments indicates that ER strategies, in general, and IER strategies in particular should be adapted to the situation, which is relevant for designing intercultural education and work environment models. Secondly, the participants’ reflexivity and their ability to choose appropriate strategies in new environments demonstrate that emotion regulation competencies can be developed, which can be beneficial in both educational and psychological support fields.

To enhance university support for students during their initial three-month adjustment period, particularly concerning culture shock, universities, for instance, can include workshops on navigating cultural shock, mental health resources, and social integration, and establish a peer mentorship system where incoming students are paired with current or recently graduated students from similar cultural backgrounds or with international experience.