Emotion differentiation, which involves experiencing and labeling emotions in a granular way, has been linked with well-being. It has been theorized that differentiating between emotions facilitates ...effective emotion regulation, but this link has yet to be comprehensively tested. In two experience-sampling studies, we examined how negative emotion differentiation was related to (a) the selection of emotion-regulation strategies and (b) the effectiveness of these strategies in downregulating negative emotion (Ns = 200 and 101 participants and 34,660 and 6,282 measurements, respectively). Unexpectedly, we found few relationships between differentiation and the selection of putatively adaptive or maladaptive strategies. Instead, we found interactions between differentiation and strategies in predicting negative emotion. Among low differentiators, all strategies (Study 1) and four of six strategies (Study 2) were more strongly associated with increased negative emotion than they were among high differentiators. This suggests that low differentiation may hinder successful emotion regulation, which in turn supports the idea that effective regulation may underlie differentiation benefits.
Emotion regulation (ER) strategies are often categorized as universally adaptive or maladaptive. However, it has recently been proposed that this view is overly simplistic: instead, adaptive ER ...involves applying strategies variably to meet contextual demands. Using data from four experience-sampling studies (Ns = 70, 95, 200, and 179), we tested the relationship between ER variability and negative affect (NA) in everyday life. The constantly changing demands of daily life provide a more ecologically valid context in which to test the role of variability. We calculated 2 global indicators of variability: within-strategy variability (of particular strategies across time) and between-strategy variability (across strategies at one time-point). Associations between within-strategy variability and NA were inconsistent. In contrast, when controlling for mean strategy endorsement, between-strategy variability was associated with reduced NA across both individuals and measurement occasions. This is the first evidence that variably choosing between different strategies within a situation may be adaptive in daily life.
Emotion goals (i.e., what people want or do not want to feel) have important implications for emotional and mental health because they can shape whether, when, and how people regulate their emotions. ...Although research has shown that emotion goals vary across individuals and situations, we know relatively little about the dynamic changes in emotion goals in daily life and their potential implications. Given the dynamic features of emotions and emotion regulation, emotion goals may also fluctuate across time and their fluctuations may be critically linked to mental health. This research assessed the everyday dynamics of emotion goals, in particular, variability and inertia, and their associations with mental health. In two studies (N = 56 in Study 1 and N = 173 in Study 2), we included different indices of mental health and used Ecological Momentary Assessments to measure both pleasant and unpleasant emotion goals and experiences at a momentary level in daily life. We found that variability in unpleasant, but not pleasant, emotion goals was linked to better mental health outcomes, even after controlling for the mean levels of emotion goals, and the variability and mean levels of the corresponding emotional experiences. Emotion goal inertia was unrelated to mental health. These findings suggest that emotion goal variability is an important novel factor that may contribute to or reflect mental health.
Posttraumatic Stress Disorder is associated with emotion regulation difficulties. However, our understanding of these difficulties has been limited by the reliance of previous work on retrospective ...trait self-reports, which are unable to capture dynamic, ecologically-valid use of emotion regulation strategies.
To address this issue, this study used an ecological momentary assessment (EMA) design to understand the impact of PTSD on emotion regulation in daily life. We conducted an EMA study in a trauma exposed sample with varying levels of PTSD severity (N = 70; 7 days; 423 observations).
We found that PTSD severity was linked to greater use of disengagement and perseverative-based strategies to manage negative emotions, regardless of emotional intensity.
Study design did not allow investigation into the temporal use of emotion regulation strategies and small sample size.
This pattern of responding to emotions may interfere with engaging with the fear structure and thus impair emotion processing in current frontline treatments; clinical implications are discussed.
•Used ecological momentary assessment to investigate emotion regulation in PTSD•Results indicate a preference for rumination, suppression, and distraction in daily life.•Cognitive reappraisal and relaxation were not associated with PTSD severity.
People regulate their emotions not only for hedonic reasons but also for instrumental reasons, to attain the potential benefits of emotions beyond pleasure and pain. However, such instrumental ...motives have rarely been examined outside the laboratory as they naturally unfold in daily life. To assess whether and how instrumental motives operate outside the laboratory, it is necessary to examine them in response to real and personally relevant stimuli in ecologically valid contexts. In this research, we assessed the frequency, consistency, and predictors of instrumental motives in negative emotion regulation in daily life. Participants (N = 114) recalled the most negative event of their day each evening for 7 days and reported their instrumental motives and negative emotion goals in that event. Participants endorsed performance motives in approximately 1 in 3 events and social, eudaimonic, and epistemic motives in approximately 1 in 10 events. Instrumental motives had substantially higher within- than between-person variance, indicating that they were context-dependent. Indeed, although we found few associations between instrumental motives and personality traits, relationships between instrumental motives and contextual variables were more extensive. Performance, social, and epistemic motives were each predicted by a unique pattern of contextual appraisals. Our data demonstrate that instrumental motives play a role in daily negative emotion regulation as people encounter situations that pose unique regulatory demands.
Both older and younger employees experience age-based stereotype threat in the workplace, but only older employees appear to be vulnerable to disengagement as a consequence. The present study ...examines 2 mechanisms that might explain this age difference: (a) stress appraisals of challenge and hindrance and (b) rumination. Using a weekly diary study design over 5 weeks, 280 employees across the life span (aged between 18 and 66 years), completed 1,288 weekly surveys. Work outcomes examined were job satisfaction, job engagement, affective organizational commitment, workplace well-being, and intentions to quit. Results showed that while both older and younger employees experienced age-based stereotype threat, it was uniquely problematic for older employees. Furthermore, challenge appraisals mediated the relationships between age-based stereotype threat and job engagement, commitment, and intentions to quit among older, but not younger, employees. Rumination mediated the relationships between age-based stereotype threat and job satisfaction, commitment, well-being, and intentions to quit among older, but not younger, employees. These findings suggest that stereotype threat might be detrimental to work outcomes because older employees are less likely to appraise stereotype threat as a challenge, and more likely to ruminate when they experience stereotype threat.
Although selecting emotion regulation strategies constitutes means to achieve emotion goals (i.e., desired emotional states), strategy selection and goals have been studied independently. We propose ...that the strategies people select are often dictated by what they want to feel. We tested the possibility that emotion regulation involves choosing strategies that match emotion goals. We expected people who are motivated to decrease emotional intensity to select strategies that are tailored for decreasing emotions (e.g., distraction), whereas those who are motivated to increase emotional intensity to select strategies that are tailored for increasing emotions (e.g., rumination). We expected this pattern to be evident both in the lab and in everyday life. We first verified that some strategies (i.e., distraction) are more effective in decreasing, and other strategies (i.e., rumination) more effective in increasing emotions (Study 1). Next, we tested whether emotion goals (decrease vs. increase emotion) direct the selection of strategies inside (Studies 2-3) and outside (Study 4) the laboratory. As predicted, participants were more likely to select strategies that decrease emotions (e.g., distraction, suppression) when motivated to decrease, and strategies that increase emotions (e.g., rumination) when motivated to increase negative (Studies 2-4) and positive (Study 3) emotions. Finally, in Study 5, we demonstrated that emotional dysfunction is linked to less flexibility in matching strategies to goals. Compared to healthy participants, depressed participants selected rumination less for increasing emotions and selected distraction less for decreasing emotions. Our findings show that what people want to feel can determine how they regulate emotions.
In everyday life, people often combine strategies to regulate their emotions. However, to date, most research has investigated emotion regulation strategies as if they occur independently from one ...another. The current study aims to better understand the sequential interplay between strategies by investigating how reappraisal and rumination interact to affect anger experience. After participants (N = 156) recalled a recent anger-provoking event, they were instructed to either a) reappraise the event twice, b) reappraise the event, and then ruminate about the event, c) ruminate about the event, and then reappraise the event, or d) ruminate twice about the event. The effects of the first strategy used replicated a large body of research: reappraisal was associated with a decrease in anger, but rumination was associated with no change in anger. There was a small interactive effect of the combination of the two strategies, such that those who ruminated and then reappraised showed a larger decrease in anger than those who reappraised and then ruminated. There were no other differences between groups. This suggests that the second strategy does have an effect over and beyond the first strategy, but this effect is small in size, highlighting the importance of the initial emotion regulation strategy used.
People hold divergent beliefs regarding the controllability of their emotions. These beliefs can refer to emotion, in general, or to a particular emotion. But are beliefs about particular emotions ...distinct and emotion-specific or do they capture one general construct? To address this question, in this investigation, we tested the emotion-specificity of such beliefs. In Study 1 (
N
= 244), we assessed beliefs about the ability to control sadness, anger, and disgust, cross-sectionally. Beliefs about the ability to control specific emotions were associated but psychometrically distinct. As expected, beliefs about the ability to control a specific emotion were largely associated with experiences of that emotion at both the trait and state levels, although there was some overlap. In Study 2 (
N
= 157), we tested beliefs about the ability to control sadness and irritation in daily life, over 7 daily diaries. As expected, beliefs about the ability to control a specific emotion were associated with the respective trait emotion, and prospectively and differentially predicted experiences of that emotion in daily life. These findings demonstrate that although there is some commonality across them, beliefs about the ability to control particular emotions are emotion-specific. Accordingly, to better understand the experience and regulation of specific emotions, it may be useful to assess beliefs about the controllability of those emotions, in particular.
Can we experience positive (PA) and negative affect (NA) separately (i.e., affective independence), or do these emotional states represent the mutually exclusive ends of a single bipolar continuum ...(i.e., affective bipolarity)? Building on previous emotion theories, we propose that the relation between PA and NA is not invariable, but rather fluctuates in response to changing situational demands. Specifically, we argue that our affective system shifts from relative independence to stronger bipolarity when we encounter events or situations that activate personally relevant concerns. We test this idea in an experience sampling study, in which we tracked the positive and negative emotional trajectories of 101 first-year university students who received their exam results, an event that potentially triggers a personally significant concern. Using multilevel piecewise regression, we show that running PA-NA correlations become increasingly more negative in the anticipation of results release, indicating stronger affective bipolarity, and ease back toward greater independence as time after this event passes. Furthermore, we show that this dynamic trajectory is particularly apparent for event-related PA and NA, and not affect in general, and that such shifts are partly a function of the importance people attribute to that event. We suggest that such flexible changes in the affect relation may function as an emotional compass by signaling personally relevant information, and create a motivational push to respond to these meaningful events in an appropriate manner.
PDF
