Subjects: Psychology >> Cognitive Psychology submitted time 2024-07-17
Abstract： Emotional regulation (ER) can be categorized into early proactive ER and late reactive ER based on the involved time course of cognitive control resources. The proactive ER mode facilitates regulatory effects by initiating regulatory goals early, but it may also consume cognitive control resources, potentially reducing the availability of these resources during the ER implementation stage. In contrast, the reactive ER mode does not require the expenditure of cognitive control resources for early preparation, but may fail due to inadequate preparation. Previous studies have indicated that proactive ER mode, compared to the reactive ER mode, initiates regulatory goals and prepares cognitive resources earlier, thus providing a regulatory advantage. Given the differences in cognitive control resource involvement and consumption between proactive and reactive ER, it is necessary to further explore whether the regulation effectiveness of these two modes differs across various situational characteristics that influence cognitive control resource consumption. The theoretical framework of ER flexibility suggests that the effectiveness of emotional regulation depends on the match between different regulatory strategies and situational characteristics. Therefore, this study investigates whether the match between the two ER modes and different situational characteristics affects their regulation effectiveness within this framework. Study 1 employed a 2 (regulation mode: proactive vs. reactive) × 2 (situational intensity: low vs. high) within-subject design, mainly manipulating the negativity level of situational stimuli to examine whether there are differences in the regulation effectiveness of proactive and reactive cognitive reappraisal in high and low negativity situations (N = 41, 36 females). Results indicated that in high negativity situations, reactive cognitive reappraisal showed a regulatory advantage compared to proactive cognitive reappraisal. In low negativity situations, no significant difference in regulation effectiveness between the two modes was observed. These findings suggest that the reactive ER mode is conducive to preserving cognitive resources, thereby increasing the involvement of these resources in high negativity situations. Study 2a employed a 2 (regulation mode: proactive vs. reactive) × 2 (content expectation: with vs. without) within-subject design, manipulating content expectation to examine whether there are differences in the regulation effectiveness of the two ER modes in situations with and without content expectation (N = 40, 25 females). Results showed that in situations without content expectation, proactive cognitive reappraisal had a regulatory advantage over reactive cognitive reappraisal. In situations with content expectation, reactive cognitive reappraisal was more effective than proactive cognitive reappraisal, but this difference did not reach statistical significance. Study 2b employed a 2 (regulation mode: proactive vs. reactive) × 2 (probability expectation: high vs. low) within-subject design, manipulating probability expectation to examine whether there are differences in the regulation effectiveness of the two emotional regulation modes in high and low negativity probability expectation situations (N = 41, 26 females). Results indicated that both proactive and reactive cognitive reappraisal were more effective in high probability expectation situations compared to low probability expectation situations, but there was no difference in regulation effectiveness between the two modes. These results collectively demonstrate that the effectiveness of proactive and reactive ER modes differs across different situational characteristics, without a consistent cross-situational regulatory advantage. This suggests that the regulatory effectiveness may depend on the match between these two ER modes and cognitive control resource preparation and consumption in different situations. These findings enrich the theoretical framework of dual control in emotional regulation by comparing the regulation effectiveness of proactive and reactive ER in different situational characteristics, but also extend the theory of ER flexibility, indicating that ER flexibility also involves the match between different emotional regulation modes and situational characteristics.
Peer Review Status:
Awaiting Review
Subjects: Psychology >> Social Psychology submitted time 2023-03-27 Cooperative journals: 《心理学报》
Abstract： In our complex social environments, life situations are ever-changing. When dealing with these changes, there is no one-size-fits-all response or regulatory strategy suitable for all situations. Emotion regulation flexibility (ERF)—a framework for understanding individual differences in adaptive responding to ever-changing life contexts—emphasizes that individuals can flexibly deploy and adjust emotion regulation strategies according to specific characteristics of stressful situations in daily life. To achieve regulatory efficacy, it is important that one can utilize a balanced profile of ER strategies and select strategies that fit well with particular stressful situations. Specifically, using multiple ER strategies in daily life, rather than relying on only single-strategies, would indicate higher ERF. Additionally, based on leading models of strategy-situation fit, certain ER strategies are more appropriate for high versus low intensity stressful events. For instance, distraction involves with shielding oneself from negative stimuli and replacing them with irrelevant things, which may have a greater regulatory effect in high-intensity negative situations. Conversely, strategies such as reappraisal, which involves the processing of negative situations through deep cognitive change, may be more effective in lower-intensity negative situations and as a cornerstone of longer-term ER. We used the experience-sampling method (ESM) to quantify individual’s ERF; more specifically we assess participants for 1) having more or less balanced ER strategy profiles and 2) showing greater strategy-situation fit, in regard to the use of distraction versus reappraisal in the regulation of high-intensity versus low-intensity negative life events. To test the adaptive value of ERF on negative emotions and mental health, we investigated the influence of ERF on depressive and anxiety symptoms in two samples. We hypothesized that individuals with a more balanced profile of ER strategy use and a great level of strategy-situation fit would have higher levels of mental health, indicated by low levels of anxiety and depressive feelings. In sample 1, two hundred eight college students finished the ESM procedure (2859 beeps). Intensity of negative situations was measured by self-reported negative feelings for the time points where participants reported an adverse event. Simultaneously, we assessed participants’ use of two ER strategies (i.e., distraction and reappraisal). Considering the negative impact of COVID-19 on people’s daily life, we collected another sample (sample 2, 3462 beeps) with one hundred people who lived in Hubei Province, where Wuhan was in lockdown during the severe phase of COVID-19 (March 7-13, 2020). We measured intensity of negative situations (by averaging individuals’ negative feelings), as well as the use of two ER strategies at corresponding time points. After completing the ESM procedure, the participants were asked to fill out a series of emotional health questionnaires, including Beck Depression Inventory-II, Beck Anxiety Inventory and Spielberger State Anxiety Scale. Multilevel models were used to fit the covariation between the use of distraction versus reappraisal ER strategies and the intensity of negative events. Additionally, we used multiple level regression models to test whether high level of strategy-situation fit would result in lower negative feelings. To test whether a single-strategy preference would lead to higher levels of anxiety and depressive feelings compared to a multiple-strategy preference, latent profile analyses (LPA) was used. Results from the LPA indicated that individuals with preferences for rumination and express suppression reported higher levels depression and anxiety than individuals with a multi-strategy preference. In the multilevel models, results of the two independent samples both suggested individuals who were more inclined to use a higher level of distraction in response to high-intensity negative situations (e.g., adverse events or during COVID-19) and use higher levels of reappraisal during low-intensity situations (i.e., high level of ERF) reported lower levels of anxiety and depressive feelings. On the converse, individuals who tended to use more distraction in low intensity situations and more reappraisal in high intensity situations, (i.e., those showing lower ERF) reported a higher level of negative feelings. Together, our findings revealed a negative relationship between ERF and mental health problems in two samples, suggesting that having balanced ER profiles and flexibly deploying strategies in specific life contexts may have adaptive value in facilitating positive mental health. This work deepens our understanding of the interaction between ER strategies and situational demands, paving the way for future intervention research to help alleviate negative emotions associated with affective disorders or the experience of major traumatic events (such as epidemics, earthquakes, etc.).
Hits
Hits
Downloads
Comment