Reappraisal-but not Suppression-Tendencies Determine Negativity Bias After Laboratory and Real-World Stress Exposure

The role of trait reappraisal in response to emotional ambiguity: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Individuals exhibit a systematic valence bias-a specific form of interpretation bias-in response to emotional ambiguity. Accumulating evidence suggests most people initially respond to emotional ambiguity negatively and differ only in subsequent responses. We hypothesized that trait-level cognitive reappraisal-an emotion regulation strategy involving the reinterpretation of affective meaning of stimuli-might explain individual differences in valence bias. To answer this question, we conducted a random-effects meta-analysis of 14 effect sizes from 13 prior studies (n = 2,086), identified via Google Scholar searches. We excluded studies (a) in languages other than English, (b) from non-peer-reviewed sources, or (c) nonempirical sources. We included studies with (a) the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire, (b) a putative measure of valence bias prior to any study-specific manipulations, and (c) adult human participants (i.e., 17+). Supporting our prediction, we found individuals with higher trait reappraisal exhibited a less negative bias (r = -.18, z = -4.04, p < .001), whereas there was a smaller, opposite effect for trait expressive suppression (r = .10, z = 2.14, p = .03). The effects did, however, vary across tasks with stronger effects observed among studies using the scrambled sentences task compared to the valence bias task. Although trait reappraisal accounted for only a small amount of variance, reappraisal may be one mechanism contributing to variability in response to ambiguity. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

In the face of ambiguity: intrinsic brain organization in development predicts one's bias toward positivity or negativity

Exacerbated negativity bias, including in responses to ambiguity, represents a common phenotype of internalizing disorders. Individuals differ in their propensity toward positive or negative appraisals of ambiguity. This variability constitutes one's valence bias, a stable construct linked to mental health. Evidence suggests an initial negativity in response to ambiguity that updates via regulatory processes to support a more positive bias. Previous work implicates the amygdala and prefrontal cortex, and regions of the cingulo-opercular system, in this regulatory process. Nonetheless, the neurodevelopmental origins of valence bias remain unclear. The current study tests whether intrinsic brain organization predicts valence bias among 119 children and adolescents (6 to 17 years). Using whole-brain resting-state functional connectivity, a machine-learning model predicted valence bias (r = 0.20, P = 0.03), as did a model restricted to amygdala and cingulo-opercular system features (r = 0.19, P = 0.04). Disrupting connectivity revealed additional intra-system (e.g. fronto-parietal) and inter-system (e.g. amygdala to cingulo-opercular) connectivity important for prediction. The results highlight top-down control systems and bottom-up perceptual processes that influence valence bias in development. Thus, intrinsic brain organization informs the neurodevelopmental origins of valence bias, and directs future work aimed at explicating related internalizing symptomology.

Habitual Expressive Suppression of Positive, but not Negative, Emotions Consistently Predicts Lower Well-being across Two Culturally Distinct Regions

Habitual expressive suppression (i.e., a tendency to inhibit the outward display of one's emotions; hereafter suppression) is often conceptualized as a maladaptive emotion regulation strategy. Yet, is this equally true for suppression of positive and of negative emotions? Across three studies and seven samples (total N > 1300 people) collected in two culturally distinct regions (i.e., Taiwan and the US), we examined the separability and distinct well-being effects of suppressing positive vs. negative emotions. Results consistently showed that (a) people suppressed their positive (vs. negative) emotions less, (b) the construct of suppression of positive (vs. negative) emotions was conceptually farther away from that of suppression of emotions in general, (c) suppression of positive and of negative emotions were only moderately correlated, and (d) only suppression of positive, but not negative, emotions, predicted lower well-being. An internal meta-analysis (k = 52 effect sizes) showed that these associations were robust to the inclusion of age, gender, and region as covariates. Future research may further probe the respective links between suppression of positive and of negative emotions and well-being across more cultural regions and across the life-span.

Characterizing Relationships Among the Cognitive, Physical, Social-emotional, and Health-related Traits of Military Personnel

INTRODUCTION

Personnel engaged in high-stakes occupations, such as military personnel, law enforcement, and emergency first responders, must sustain performance through a range of environmental stressors. To maximize the effectiveness of military personnel, an a priori understanding of traits can help predict their physical and cognitive performance under stress and adversity. This work developed and assessed a suite of measures that have the potential to predict performance during operational scenarios. These measures were designed to characterize four specific trait-based domains: cognitive, health, physical, and social-emotional.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred and ninety-one active duty U.S. Army soldiers completed interleaved questionnaire-based, seated task-based, and physical task-based measures over a period of 3-5 days. Redundancy analysis, dimensionality reduction, and network analyses revealed several patterns of interest.

RESULTS

First, unique variable analysis revealed a minimally redundant battery of instruments. Second, principal component analysis showed that metrics tended to cluster together in three to five components within each domain. Finally, analyses of cross-domain associations using network analysis illustrated that cognitive, health, physical, and social-emotional domains showed strong construct solidarity.

CONCLUSIONS

The present battery of metrics presents a fieldable toolkit that may be used to predict operational performance that can be clustered into separate components or used independently. It will aid predictive algorithm development aimed to identify critical predictors of individual military personnel and small-unit performance outcomes.

Emotion regulation moderates the association between COVID-19 stress and mental distress: findings on buffering, exacerbation, and gender differences in a cross-sectional study from Norway

Background

Maintaining good mental health is important during a crisis. However, little attention has been given to how people achieve this, or how they evaluate emotions associated with stressors, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aims to (1) investigate whether emotion regulation, in particular cognitive reappraisal and suppression, moderates the relationship between COVID-19 stress and general mental distress and (2) examine gender differences in the interrelations between COVID-19 stress, emotion regulation, and mental distress.

Methods

Data from a population in Norway (n = 1.225) were collected using a cross-sectional survey during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic. Emotion regulation was measured using the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire Scale (ERQ), COVID-19 stress with the COVID-19 Stress Scale, and mental distress with the Patient Health Questionnaire 4 (PHQ-4). Moderation analyses were conducted using the PROCESS macro for SPSS.

Results

There was a strong association between COVID-19 stress and general mental distress (r = 0.61). The moderation analyses showed substantial moderation effects of cognitive reappraisal and suppression on the relationship between COVID-19 stress and mental distress. Cognitive reappraisal served as a buffer (p = 0.001) and suppression (p = 0.002) exacerbated the relation between COVID-19 stress and mental distress. Men had higher scores of suppression (p < 0.001), and women had higher scores of cognitive reappraisal (p = 0.025). The buffering effect of cognitive reappraisal presented itself only in women (p < 0.001), while the exacerbation effect of suppression appeared only in men (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

The current study suggests that COVID-19 pandemic-related stress is easier to deal with for those who have the tendency to cognitively reappraise. In contrast, suppression is associated with symptoms of depression and anxiety. The prevention of mental distress can be supported by guiding people about the importance of using healthy emotion regulation strategies, as well as helping them to become more aware of the way they interpret and regulate their emotions. Gender differences in emotion regulation suggest gender awareness, e.g., tailored programs for men and women.

Think again: the role of reappraisal in reducing negative valence bias

Stimuli such as surprised faces are ambiguous in that they are associated with both positive and negative outcomes. Interestingly, people differ reliably in whether they evaluate these and other ambiguous stimuli as positive or negative, and we have argued that a positive evaluation relies in part on a biasing of the appraisal processes via reappraisal. To further test this idea, we conducted two studies to evaluate whether increasing the cognitive accessibility of reappraisal through a brief emotion regulation task would lead to an increase in positive evaluations of ambiguity. Supporting this prediction, we demonstrated that cuing reappraisal, but not in three other forms of emotion regulation (Study 1a-d; n = 120), increased positive evaluations of ambiguous faces. In a sign of robustness, we also found that the effect of reappraisal generalised from ambiguous faces to ambiguous scenes (Study 2; n = 34). Collectively, these findings suggest that reappraisal may play a key role in determining responses to ambiguous stimuli. We discuss these findings in the context of affective flexibility, and suggest that valence bias (i.e. the tendency to evaluate ambiguity more positively or negatively) represents a novel approach to measuring implicit emotion regulation.

Tendency to Share Positive Emotions Buffers Loneliness-Related Negativity in the Context of Shared Adversity

Loneliness is associated with adverse outcomes, and the COVID-19 pandemic threatened to increase loneliness. How loneliness-related outcomes unfold, though, varies across individuals. Individuals' sense of social connectedness and engagement with others to regulate emotional experiences (interpersonal emotion regulation; IER) may modulate loneliness-related outcomes. Individuals failing to maintain social connectedness and/or regulate emotions may be at heightened risk. We assessed how loneliness, social connectedness, and IER related to valence bias, a tendency to categorize ambiguity as more positive or negative. Loneliness was associated with a more negative valence bias among individuals reporting above average social connectedness but who shared positive emotion less often (z=-3.19, p=.001). These findings suggest that sharing positive emotional experiences may buffer loneliness-related outcomes during shared adverse experiences.