A study from the University of Queensland has challenged common beliefs about crying, suggesting that public displays of tears may not be as negative as often assumed. The research, led by Leah Sharman, developed the first standardised test of people's beliefs about crying, identifying three main types of beliefs. The findings indicate that while many people view private crying as potentially helpful, public crying is often seen as unhelpful, though this perception may be shifting.
The study's results come amid observations of public figures like former Prime Minister Theresa May, whose visible struggle to hold back tears during her resignation announcement was seen by many as humanising. Commentators noted that this emotional display generated sympathy, even among critics, suggesting that public crying can have a positive impact on reputation.
Sharman's research, based on surveys of hundreds of volunteers, found that participants generally disagreed with the idea that crying in private is unhelpful, scoring around 2 on a scale of 0 to 7. However, they neither strongly agreed nor disagreed that private crying is helpful, averaging around the midway mark. This aligns with anecdotal accounts and historical media portrayals, which have largely presented crying as beneficial.
Despite popular belief in the cathartic benefits of crying, psychological studies have often found the opposite. A 2011 diary study by Lauren Bylsma showed that people's mood was worse on days they cried, with effects lasting up to two days. Similarly, crying during sad films was associated with mood drops, though some research suggests a delayed mood improvement after 90 minutes. These findings contradict the widespread notion that crying provides immediate emotional relief.
The University of Queensland study, published in a recent paper, emphasises that beliefs about crying can influence how often people cry, how they feel afterwards, and whether it helps them cope. The researchers note that these beliefs are shaped by social context, past experience, and individual factors like personality and gender. However, they caution that the findings are based mostly on white, Western participants, limiting generalisability.
