Is Crying Beneficial?

Lay opinion and extensive survey data indicate that crying is a cathartic behavior that serves to relieve distress and reduce arousal. Yet laboratory data often indicate that crying exacerbates distress and increases autonomic arousal. In this article, we present a framework for explaining variations in the psychological effects of crying as a function of (a) how the effects of crying are measured, (b) conditions in the social environment, (c) personality traits of the crier, and (d) the affective state of the crier. Recognizing the heterogeneity of crying effects represents a step toward a more nuanced understanding of this behavior, including its implications for psychosocial adjustment. KEYWORDS—crying; well-being; distress; arousal; catharsis It is a relief to weep; grief is satisfied and carried off by tears. Ovid (43 BC–17 AD; quoted in Lutz, 1999, p. 118) Crying behavior punctuates the lifecourse, from our start as helpless infants through adulthood, where tears can mark both our most important moments (e.g., weddings, births, and deaths) and the most mundane of events (e.g., a petty squabble). A capacity to cry is part of being human. Is it important for our well-being? If one consults Western folk psychology about crying in adulthood, this question is answered strongly in the affirmative. In one analysis of 140 years of popular articles about crying, 94% promoted crying as beneficial and warned readers that suppressing tears would be deleterious to the body and mind (Cornelius, 2001). Likewise, the average respondent to a scientific survey also answers affirmatively: In a sample spanning 30 countries, in every nation both men and women reported feeling better after crying, even though cultural norms are often less favorable to male crying than to female crying (Becht & Vingerhoets, 2002). Indeed, it seems that people will even pay to cry. Films we colloquially refer to as ‘‘tearjerkers’’ gross millions of dollars worldwide every year (Lutz, 1999). Moreover, more formal theories—from psychodynamic theories that view the blocking of tears as a form of repression that produces psychological damage, to biochemical theories that view tears as a means to rid the body of harmful toxins—also affirm the idea that crying is beneficial (Cornelius, 2001). Finally, if one consults clinicians, most will say that crying is a positive therapeutic experience for their clients, with over 70 percent of clinical practitioners reporting active encouragement of client crying (Nelson, 2005). A FRAMEWORK FOR UNDERSTANDING THE ELUSIVE EFFECTS OF CRYING Given this chorus of opinion, one might naturally expect to find overwhelming evidence that crying provides tangible psychological benefits. For this, one would search in vain: The empirical record is at best spotty, with many studies finding no benefits of crying. In this article, we present a framework for understanding the psychological consequences of crying in adulthood, including why its benefits have been elusive in past research. As displayed in Figure 1, this framework considers (a) how the effects of crying are measured, (b) the crier’s social environment, (c) the crier’s personality traits, and (d) the crier’s affective state. Reviewing each of these domains, the psychological consequences of crying behavior appear more heterogeneous and contextually dependent than previously believed. Recognizing the heterogeneity of crying is part and parcel of developing a nuanced account of this behavior. Finding Benefits of Crying Depends on the Research Paradigm When asked on surveys to consider past episodes of crying, 60 to 70% of people report that crying brings them psychological benefits (Bylsma, Vingerhoets, & Rottenberg, in press). Subjectively, this is reported as a release of tension and feeling of relief, a pattern captured by the term catharsis. However, when crying episodes are induced in a laboratory setting (e.g., by presenting a sad film clip), people rarely report that their tears provide any immediate mood benefits. In fact, in most laboratory studies, people who cry to an eliciting stimulus actually report feeling worse (e.g., increased sadness and distress) than do people who view the same stimulus without crying (e.g., Rottenberg, Gross, Wilhelm, Najmi, & Gotlib, 2002; Gross, Fredrickson, & Levenson, 1994). Moreover, when indices of physiological arousal are concurrently measured, criers are more activated on these indices than are noncriers (e.g., increased Address correspondence to Jonathan Rottenberg, Department of Psychology, University of South Florida, 4202 E. Fowler Ave., PCD 4118G, Tampa, FL 33620–7200; e-mail: [email protected]. CURRENT DIRECTIONS IN PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE 400 Volume 17—Number 6 Copyright r 2008 Association for Psychological Science heart rate or sweat-gland activity; Rottenberg et al., 2002)—a profile one would expect to accompany feelings of distress during crying. In sum, survey data suggest that crying is cathartic, whereas laboratory studies often indicate that crying increases distress and arousal (see Bylsma et al., in press, for review). While it is possible that these divergent findings are irreconcilable and in direct conflict, another possibility is that the use of different assessment methods across studies is influencing whether benefits of crying are found. One reason crying benefits may be elusive is that studies vary in when the effects of crying are measured. Survey data finding benefits of crying tend to examine the effects of crying retrospectively, often long after the crying episodes have ended. Unfortunately, this measurement lag makes it impossible to reconstruct when the positive effects of crying occurred. By contrast, in most laboratory studies, the time frame of effects is better specified but very limited in duration (i.e., just the few minutes after crying are assessed). Few investigations have carefully tracked the effects of crying minute-by-minute as crying episodes unfold. Interestingly, a recent physiological study found that crying involved both arousing effects (e.g., increased heart rate) and calming effects (e.g., slowed breathing). Importantly, the calming effects associated with crying lasted 2 to 3 minutes longer than the arousing effects did (Hendriks, Rottenberg, & Vingerhoets, 2007). These findings underscore the possibility that the calming effects of crying arise later than the arousing effects, and point to a need for precisely timed measurements to better characterize the course of crying’s effects. Another reason why crying benefits may be elusive is that the effects of crying are subject to the social context surrounding crying episodes. Input from the social environment may be critical for activating the benefits of crying. Theorists have long commented on the social salience of crying: Through infancy and adulthood, crying has potent signal value and moves others to provide solace and physical contact (Nelson, 2005). Perhaps one reason why mood benefits have been elusive is that field studies (which find benefits) and laboratory studies (which usually do not) examine crying in radically different social contexts. For example, laboratory settings are typically devoid of social support (e.g., solitary viewing of a movie; Cornelius, 2001), and laboratory crying rarely involves situations that others can remedy (e.g., a dispute). Finally, crying in the laboratory often involves being captured on video or watched by strangers, conditions that might produce negative social emotions in criers (e.g., embarrassment) that neutralize crying-related benefits. In sum, the inconsistent literature suggests there is value in paying careful attention to social and contextual factors that surround crying episodes to explain when crying might be beneficial. Benefits of Crying Depend on Social-Environmental Conditions To gain some empirical purchase on the role of contextual factors in shaping the mood benefits of crying, we analyzed over 3,000 Fig. 1. Our proposed framework for understanding variation in the mood effects of crying. This includes individual traits and affective states, the triggers of the crying episode, and the context surrounding the crying episode. Illustrations of specific factors within each domain known to influence mood change are provided in the boxes where data is available. The influence of these domains on mood change is represented in its proximity to an unfolding crying episode (time). The possibility that crying-related changes vary with the assessment point and choice of crying-related indicator is indicated at the bottom of the figure. Volume 17—Number 6 401 Jonathan Rottenberg, Lauren M. Bylsma, and Ad J.J.M. Vingerhoets