Allison S. Troy

A Person-by-Situation Approach to Emotion Regulation Cognitive Reappraisal Can Either Help or Hurt, Depending on the Context

Emotion regulation is central to psychological health. For instance, cognitive reappraisal (reframing an emotional situation) is generally an adaptive emotion-regulation strategy (i.e., it is associated with increased psychological health). However, a person-by-situation approach suggests that the adaptiveness of different emotion-regulation strategies depends on the context in which they are used. Specifically, reappraisal may be adaptive when stressors are uncontrollable (when the person can regulate only the self) but maladaptive when stressors can be controlled (when the person can change the situation). To test this prediction, we measured cognitive-reappraisal ability, the severity of recent life stressors, stressor controllability, and level of depression in 170 participants. For participants with uncontrollable stress, higher cognitive-reappraisal ability was associated with lower levels of depression. In contrast, for participants with controllable stress, higher cognitive-reappraisal ability was associated with greater levels of depression. These findings support a theoretical model in which particular emotion-regulation strategies are not adaptive or maladaptive per se; rather, their adaptiveness depends on the context.

Don't hide your happiness! Positive emotion dissociation, social connectedness, and psychological functioning.

It is now clear that positive emotion leads to enhanced psychological functioning. What is less clear, however, is just why this is so. Drawing on a social-functional perspective, we argue that positive emotional behavior that accurately signals to others the individuals internal state will enhance social connectedness. Positive emotional behavior that does not accurately signal a persons experience--such as a smile that is not felt--may impede social connectedness and, in turn, psychological functioning. This perspective suggests that (a) the degree to which experience and behavior are dissociated during positive emotional episodes, over and above level of positive behavior, should predict worse psychological functioning and (b) the effect of dissociation should be mediated by social connectedness. To test these hypotheses, we conducted a short-term prospective longitudinal study, with a baseline assessment of depressive symptoms and well-being at Time 1. Six months later, at Time 2, we used a novel within-individual laboratory paradigm to measure the degree to which positive emotional behavior was dissociated from (vs. coherent with) a participants positive emotional experience. We also assessed level of positive behavior and experience. Then, another 6 months later, we assessed social connectedness as a mediator and depressive symptoms and well-being as outcomes at Time 3. Even when controlling for baseline functioning and for level of positive emotion behavior and experience, we found that greater positive experience-behavior dissociation at Time 2 predicted higher levels of depressive symptoms and lower levels of well-being at Time 3. As predicted, these associations were mediated by social connectedness.

Let it be: Accepting negative emotional experiences predicts decreased negative affect and depressive symptoms

The present studies examined whether a tendency to accept negative emotional experiences buffers individuals from experiencing elevated negative affect during negative emotional situations (Study 1) and from developing depressive symptoms in the face of life stress (Study 2). Both studies examined female samples. This research expands on existing acceptance research in four ways. First, it examined whether acceptance has beneficial correlates when it matters most: in emotionally taxing (versus more neutral) contexts. Second, in Study 2 a prospective design was used in which acceptance was measured before stress was encountered and before outcomes were measured. Third, depressive symptoms (rather than general functioning or trauma symptoms) were examined as a particularly relevant outcome in the context of stress. Fourth, to enhance generalizability, a community sample (versus undergraduates or a purely clinical sample) was recruited. Results indicated that acceptance was correlated with decreased negative affect during a negative emotion induction but not an affectively neutral condition (Study 1). In Study 2, acceptance interacted with life stress such that acceptance predicted lower levels of depressive symptoms after higher, but not lower, life stress. These results suggest that accepting negative experiences may protect individuals from experiencing negative affect and from developing depressive symptoms.

Resilience and Mental Health: Resilience in the face of stress: emotion regulation as a protective factor

Introduction Everyone experiences stress at one time or another – from major events such as the death of a loved one, to more minor stressors such as financial difficulties. Not surprisingly, exposure to stress is generally associated with a wide range of negative outcomes, including decreased well-being, increased incidence of disease, post-traumatic stress disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and major depressive disorder (Dohrenwend & Dohrenwend, 1974; Kendler et al., 1999; Monat et al., 2007). However, not all individuals who are exposed to even high levels of stress develop such negative outcomes. In fact, recent evidence suggests that a considerable number of individuals exhibit resilience, which is commonly defined as maintained or improved mental health in the face of stress, after short disruptions (if any) to normal functioning (Freitas & Downey, 1998; Rutter, 1999; Luthar et al., 2000; Bonanno, 2005). Note that this definition, which we adapt here, conceptualizes resilience as a potential outcome after exposure to stress rather than a psychological trait that leads to positive outcomes (c.f. Norris et al., 2008). It, therefore, appears that, in the face of comparable stressors, some individuals exhibit significantly impaired functioning while others show impressive resilience. Understanding the factors that govern the great individual variance in outcomes after stress is important for understanding mental health and for developing interventions and prevention programs that foster resilience. What factors, then, might predict resilience? One key to this question might lie in the fact that stressful events are inherently highly emotional (Sarason et al., 1978; Lazarus, 1999). For this reason, people’s ability to regulate emotions may be a critically important factor in determining resilience (Figure 2.1). The present chapter will review relevant literatures and suggest that there is indeed evidence to support this thesis. More specifically, we will propose that a specific type of emotion regulation, cognitive emotion regulation, holds particular promise for contributing to resilience.

The unconscious pursuit of emotion regulation: Implications for psychological health

Because of the central involvement of emotion regulation in psychological health and the role that implicit (largely unconscious) processes appear to play in emotion regulation, implicit emotion-regulatory processes should play a vital role in psychological health. We hypothesised that implicitly valuing emotion regulation translates into better psychological health in individuals who use adaptive emotion-regulation strategies. A community sample of 222 individuals (56% women) who had recently experienced a stressful life event completed an implicit measure of emotion regulation valuing (ER-IAT) and reported on their habitual use of an important adaptive emotion-regulation strategy: cognitive reappraisal. We measured three domains of psychological health: well-being, depressive symptoms, and social adjustment. As hypothesised, individuals who implicitly valued emotion regulation exhibited greater levels of psychological health, but only when they were high in cognitive reappraisal use. These findings suggest that salutary effects of unconscious emotion-regulation processes depend on its interplay with conscious emotion-regulation processes.

High cardiac vagal control protects against future depressive symptoms under conditions of high social support

High cardiac vagal control (as measured by respiratory sinus arrhythmia; RSA) is associated with lower depression. Recent theories argue that peoples responsiveness to social resources is a key mechanism in this association. This argument implies two hypotheses: first, high RSA should be related to decreased depressive symptoms only when social resources (social support) are available; second, utilization of available social resources (social engagement) should serve as a mechanism for the positive effects of RSA. To test these hypotheses, we measured RSA in 131 adults. Participants reported their social support, social engagement, and depressive symptoms. Six months later, they again reported their depressive symptoms. Participants with higher RSA reported fewer depressive symptoms six months later, but only under conditions of high social support. The interaction between RSA and social support in predicting depressive symptoms was fully mediated by social engagement. These findings provide crucial support for the idea that cardiac vagal control contributes to decreased depressive symptoms via social processes. Implications for biological sensitivity to context and differential susceptibility theories as well as for the prevention and treatment of depression are discussed.

Emotional reactivity and emotion regulation among adults with a history of self-harm: laboratory self-report and functional MRI evidence.

Intentionally hurting ones body (deliberate self-harm; DSH) is theorized to be associated with high negative emotional reactivity and poor emotion regulation ability. However, little research has assessed the relationship between these potential risk factors and DSH using laboratory measures. Therefore, we conducted 2 studies using laboratory measures of negative emotional reactivity and emotion regulation ability. Study 1 assessed self-reported negative emotions during a sad film clip (reactivity) and during a sad film clip for which participants were instructed to use reappraisal (regulation). Those with a history of DSH were compared with 2 control groups without a history of DSH matched on key demographics: 1 healthy group low in depression and anxiety symptoms and 1 group matched to the DSH group on depression and anxiety symptoms. Study 2 extended Study 1 by assessing neural responding to negative images (reactivity) and negative images for which participants were instructed to use reappraisal (regulation). Those with a history of DSH were compared with a control group matched to the DSH group on demographics, depression, and anxiety symptoms. Compared with control groups, participants with a history of DSH did not exhibit greater negative emotional reactivity but did exhibit lower ability to regulate emotion with reappraisal (greater self-reported negative emotions in Study 1 and greater amygdala activation in Study 2 during regulation). These results suggest that poor emotion regulation ability, but not necessarily greater negative emotional reactivity, is a correlate of and may be a risk factor for DSH, even when controlling for mood disorder symptoms.

Change the things you can: Emotion regulation is more beneficial for people from lower than from higher socioeconomic status.

Emotion regulation is central to psychological health, and several emotion-regulation strategies have been identified as beneficial. However, new theorizing suggests the benefits of emotion regulation should depend on its context. One important contextual moderator might be socioeconomic status (SES), because SES powerfully shapes people’s ecology: lower SES affords less control over one’s environment and thus, the ability to self-regulate should be particularly important. Accordingly, effectively regulating one’s emotions (e.g., using cognitive reappraisal) could be more beneficial in lower (vs. higher) SES contexts. Three studies (N = 429) tested whether SES moderates the link between cognitive reappraisal ability (CRA; measured with surveys and in the laboratory) and depression. Each study and a meta-analysis of the 3 studies revealed that CRA was associated with less depression for lower SES but not higher SES individuals. Thus, CRA may be uniquely beneficial in lower SES contexts. More broadly, the effects of emotion regulation depend upon the ecology within which it is used.

Emotion Regulation Task

During the Emotion Regulation Task, blood oxygenation level-dependent contrast functional images will be acquired with echo-planar T1*-weighted imaging using 3.0 Tesla GE Discovery MR750 scanner (GE Healthcare, Milwaukee, Wisconsin) with a 32-channel head coil. Each whole brain volume will consist of 45 interleaved 3 mm thick axial/oblique slices (74 x 74 matrix; TR, 2000 ms; TE, 27.5 ms; size, 3 x 3 x 3 mm; FOV, 222 mm; flip angle, 77°). For the emotion regulation task, 350 volumes will be acquired over 11 minutes and 40 seconds. To ensure BOLD saturation, three dummy scans will be acquired at the start of each acquisition. A high-resolution T1-weighted structural scan will be acquired using a 3D spoiled gradient echo (SPGR) sequence at the end of the imaging session for use in normalization of the fMRI data into standard space.

Cognitive Reappraisal and Acceptance: Effects on Emotion, Physiology, and Perceived Cognitive Costs.

Two emotion regulation strategies—cognitive reappraisal and acceptance—are both associated with beneficial psychological health outcomes over time. However, it remains unclear whether these 2 strategies are associated with differential consequences for emotion, physiology, or perceived cognitive costs in the short-term. The present study used a within-subjects design to examine the effects of reappraisal (reframing one’s thoughts) and acceptance (accepting feelings without trying to control or judge them) on the subjective experience of negative emotions, positive emotions, and physiological responses during and following recovery from sad film clips shown in the laboratory. Participants also reported on perceived regulatory effort, difficulty, and success after deploying each emotion regulation strategy. In 2 samples of participants (N = 142), reappraisal (vs. acceptance) was associated with larger decreases in negative and larger increases in positive emotions, both during the film clips and recovery period. However, acceptance was perceived as less difficult to deploy than reappraisal, and was associated with a smaller dampening of skin conductance level (indicating more successful regulation) during the film clips in 1 sample. These results suggest that reappraisal and acceptance may exert differential short-term effects: Whereas reappraisal is more effective for changing subjective experiences in the short term, acceptance may be less difficult to deploy and be more effective at changing one’s physiological response. Thus, these 2 strategies may both be considered “effective” for different reasons.