Abstract
<p>Moral disagreements are common in interpersonal relationships, yet people vary widely in how they respond to them–from avoiding interaction and keeping silent, to finding common ground, persuading others, or updating belief. The present work examines whether emotion regulation (ER) can systematically predict how individuals choose among these responses when facing disagreements. Across three online studies (total N = 892), participants reported their likelihood of using eleven response strategies in hypothetical disagreement scenarios. Response strategies formed meaningful clusters that reflect different regulatory approaches: disengaging from disagreement, attempting to resolve it, or accommodating opposing views. In turn, these response categories were systematically predicted by individual differences in trait ER (e.g., reappraisal, avoidance) as well as situation-specific appraisals of the moral, relational, and social stakes of disagreement. Together, these findings indicate that ER provides a useful lens for understanding interpersonal moral disagreements.</p>