Why crying does and sometimes does not seem to alleviate mood: a quasi-experimental study

Abstract

Whereas retrospective studies suggest that crying can be beneficial in terms of mood enhancement, results of quasi-experimental laboratory studies consistently demonstrate its negative effects on mood. The present study was specifically designed to evaluate a parsimonious explanation for this paradox by assessing mood after crying in a laboratory, both immediately and at follow up. Mood ratings of 28 objectively established criers and 32 non-criers were compared before and immediately after the exposure to an emotional movie, as well as 20 and 90 min later. As expected, immediately after the film, negative mood significantly increased in criers, while it did not change in non-criers. This mood deterioration was followed by a recovery that resulted in return to the baseline mood levels at the third measurement. Criers subsequently reported mood enhancements at the final measurement compared to the pre-film measurement. Crying frequency did not predict mood changes above those predicted by the presence of crying. The observed relation between crying and more long-term mood recovery reconciles seemingly contrasting earlier results and provides a simple and obvious explanation. After the initial deterioration of mood following crying that was observed in laboratory studies, it apparently takes some time for the mood, not just to recover, but also to become even less negative than before the emotional event, which corresponds to the results of retrospective studies.

The neurobiology of human crying

“…However, research strongly suggests that the possible mood benefits of crying for the crier depend to a great extent on how observers react to the tears [5,6]. Perhaps the direct effects of crying itself, if any, are very limited at best (see, however, [7]). More recently, the focus of research has turned to the effects of tears on observers in the social environment.…”

The Riddle of Human Emotional Crying: A Challenge for Emotion Researchers

“…Recently, Gračanin et al (2015) have specifically designed a study to obtain better insight into the paradox of why, in retrospective studies, people often report relief after having cried, while immediate measurements (in laboratory studies) consistently showed opposite effects, that is, a deterioration of mood. Similar to previous laboratory studies, this study also examined individuals who cried or did not cry in reaction to emotional films with their mood being assessed immediately after the film.…”

Individual and Social Factors in Crying Appraisal and Recovery: An Exploration into the Functions of Crying

“…Assessments made in close proximity to the crying event tend to yield reports of worse emotion states compared to before crying. Meanwhile, assessments made more distantly in time tend to result in reports that crying led to feeling better following crying, suggesting crying might lead to a positive emotional change (Bylsma et al, 2011(Bylsma et al, , 2008Gračanin et al, 2015;. Thus, research in this area is often conflicted, with reports of mood or emotional state following crying potentially influenced by memory distortions or bias.…”

“…That is, immediate measures of affective change may not reflect the true impact of crying on individual recovery from stressors. To date, only one study has investigated mood changes over a longer period following crying, finding that, indeed, mood improves after a short amount of time for both criers and non-criers, but appears to improve even further only for those who cried at follow up 90 minutes later (Gračanin et al, 2015). Notably, however, by definition all studies suffer from the limitations of a quasi-experimental design with in most cases a limited number of participants who actually cry and with no neutral condition for comparisonthus only comparing people who cry and who don't cry in response to a sadness induction in these designs.…”

“…Despite some laboratory studies recruiting over 100 participants comparing criers to non-criers, these larger studies have only managed to elicit crying in 22% of participants, while also neglecting to include a neutral comparison group (see Table 3.1; Gross et al, 1994;Rottenberg et al, 2002). In fact, of the laboratory studies that have reported the proportion of participants who cried during exposure to a sad stimulus, the total number of criers range from as low as 6 or 8 to as high as 33, with the number of non-criers in comparison often much higher, with one such study reporting up to 117 non-criers (Gračanin et al, 2015;Gross et al, 1994;Hendriks et al, 2007;Kraemer & Hastrup, 1988;Labott et al, 1990;Marston, Hart, Hileman, & Faunce, 1984). These often small and unequal sample sizes undermine the reliability of the current crying research using emotion elicitation procedures to induce crying, with the possibility that results of some of these investigations may not reflect true effects with potential overestimates of effect size and low reproducibility.…”