Distinguishing Emotion Regulation Success in Daily Life From Maladaptive Regulation and Dysregulation

ACADEMIC ABSTRACT

This paper aims to motivate research on emotion regulation success in naturalistic settings. We define emotion regulation success as achieving one's emotion regulation goal and differentiate it from related concepts (i.e., maladaptive regulation and dysregulation). As goals vary across individuals and situations, it is insufficient to conceptualize emotion regulation success as maximizing positive affect and minimizing negative affect. Instead, emotion regulation success can be measured through novel approaches targeting the achievement of emotion regulation goals. In addition to utilizing novel data analytic tools (e.g., response surface analyses), future research can make use of informant reports and observing ambulatory behavior or physiology. Considering emotion regulation goals when measuring daily emotion regulation success has the potential to answer key questions about personality, development, and mental health.

PUBLIC ABSTRACT

People differ in how they want to feel in daily situations (e.g., excited) and why they want to feel that way (e.g., to make others feel better), depending on factors such as culture or age. Although people manage their emotions to reach these goals, most research assessing emotion regulation success has not taken individual goals into account. When assessing if people successfully regulate their emotions, most research in daily life has been focused on whether people feel more positive or less negative. To help study emotion regulation success in a more thoughtful and inclusive way, we propose a new approach to conceptualizing emotion regulation success that incorporates individual differences in what motivates people to regulate and discuss future research directions and applications.

Reciprocal effects between negative affect and emotion regulation in daily life

The extended process model of emotion regulation provides a framework for understanding how emotional experiences and emotion regulation (ER) mutually influence each other over time. To investigate this reciprocal relationship, 202 adults completed a ten-day experience-sampling survey capturing levels of negative affect (NA) experience and use of ten ER strategies in daily life. Residual dynamic structural equation models (DSEMs) were used to examine within-person cross-lagged and autoregressive effects of NA and ER (strategy use and between-strategy variability). Results showed that NA predicted lower between-strategy variability, lower subsequent use of acceptance and problem-solving, but higher subsequent use of rumination and worry. Moreover, reappraisal and between-strategy variability predicted lower subsequent NA levels, while expressive suppression and worry predicted higher subsequent NA levels. Stable autoregressive effects were found for NA and for maladaptive ER strategies (e.g., rumination and worry). Exploratory correlation analyses revealed positive associations between NA inertia and maladaptive ER strategies. Together, these findings provide evidence of a dynamic interplay between NA and ER. This work deepens how we understand the challenges of applying ER strategies in daily life. Future clinical and translational research should consider these dynamic perspectives on ER and affect.

Social anxiety and emotion regulation flexibility: a daily diary approach

Previous research suggests that social anxiety symptoms are maintained and intensified by inflexible emotion regulation (ER). Therefore, we examined whether trait-level social anxiety moderates ER flexibility operationalised at both between-person (covariation between variability in emotional intensity and variability in strategy use across occasions) and within-person (associations between emotional intensity and strategy use on a given day) levels. In a sample of healthy college-aged adults (N = 185, Mage = 21.89), we examined overall and emotion-specific intensities (shame, guilt, anxiety, anger, sadness) and regulatory strategies (i.e. experiential avoidance, expressive suppression, and rumination) in response to each day's most emotionally intense event over 6 days. During the study period, we found a positive association between variability in emotional intensity and variability of experiential avoidance in individuals with lower, rather than higher, levels of trait social anxiety after controlling for key covariates (i.e. gender, personality traits, and stress exposure). However, we did not find evidence for the moderating role of trait social anxiety in ER flexibility assessed at within-person levels. Our findings highlight the need to delineate dynamic ER flexibility across everyday events.

Outlining a novel psychometric model of mental flexibility and affect dynamics

Theoretically, affective states have always been conceived as complex phenomena enabling individuals to respond flexibly and dynamically to environmental demands. Methodologically, the novel field of Affect Dynamics has started to analyze affective states as inherently dynamic and interdependent phenomena by focusing on how and why they fluctuate over time. Fluctuations of affective states can also be conceived as a function of individuals' ability to flexibly modulate their responses according to environmental demands. However, this ability has been sparsely investigated in different disciplines and domains, thus, engendering a plethora of terms and models. In this conceptual analysis, we first aimed to disentangle the puzzle of flexibility by outlining the distinctive cross-domain features of this concept, thus providing a novel comprehensive operationalization. We termed this novel unitary concept "mental flexibility," the general ability to variably adapt to environmental demands. Then, we outlined the interplay between individuals' mental flexibility and affect dynamics by proposing a novel psychometric model of affect dynamics, using Markovian chain.

Reconceptualizing emotion regulation and coping strategy usage in eating disorders research: The utility of a regulatory flexibility framework

Emotion regulation and coping strategies are often conceptualized in eating disorder (ED) research as inherently adaptive or maladaptive, and successful regulation is often defined as greater overall use of adaptive strategies. However, recent empirical work outside of the field of EDs challenges this categorical conceptualization of strategies, demonstrating that adaptiveness is determined by the ability to flexibly implement and adjust strategies based on contextual demands (i.e., regulatory flexibility). Despite evidence that emotion regulation and coping strategies are best conceptualized in terms of flexibility in the broader literature, few ED studies have adopted this model. We review the current conceptual framework of emotion regulation and coping strategies used in ED research and present regulatory flexibility as an alternative approach to conceptualizing these strategies. The lack of research on regulatory flexibility among individuals with EDs limits our understanding of the role of emotion regulation and coping difficulties in ED risk and maintenance. Adopting a regulatory flexibility model of strategies in EDs may extend knowledge of the role of emotion regulation difficulties in the development and maintenance of EDs. We highlight the potential utility of investigating regulatory flexibility and present recommendations for future research on regulatory flexibility in EDs. PUBLIC SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: Research on emotion regulation and coping strategy usage in eating disorders often view regulatory strategies as inherently adaptive or maladaptive. However, recent studies support defining strategies in terms of flexibility. Adopting a regulatory flexibility model of strategies in eating disorders research may advance knowledge of the role of emotion regulation difficulties in the development and maintenance of eating disorders, ultimately enhancing prevention and treatment efforts.

Exploring Biomarkers of Mental Flexibility in Healthy Aging: A Computational Psychometric Study

Mental flexibility (MF) has long been defined as cognitive flexibility. Specifically, it has been mainly studied within the executive functions domain. However, there has recently been increased attention towards its affective and physiological aspects. As a result, MF has been described as an ecological and cross-subject skill consisting of responding variably and flexibly to environmental cognitive-affective demands. Cross-sectional studies have mainly focused on samples composed of healthy individual and of patients with chronic conditions such as Mild Cognitive Impairment and Parkinson's, emphasizing their behavioral rigidity. Our study is the first to consider a sample of healthy older subjects and to outline physiological and psychological markers typical of mental flexibility, to identify functional biomarkers associated with successful aging. Our results reveal that biomarkers (respiratory and heart rate variability assessments) distinguished between individuals high vs. low in mental flexibility more reliably than traditional neuropsychological tests. This unveiled the multifaceted nature of mental flexibility composed of both cognitive and affective aspects, which emerged only if non-linear multi-variate analytic approaches, such as Supervised Machine Learning, were used.

Measuring Emotion Regulation Skill Use During Treatment: A Promising Methodological Approach

Emotion regulation has become ubiquitous in the study of psychopathology and a growing number of treatment outcome studies are collecting data on emotion regulation skill use. However, traditional measures of emotion regulation fail to capture important nuances in emotion regulation processes, their relationship to psychopathology, and how individuals use emotion regulation skills over time and across contexts. Novel methodologies are particularly needed for measuring emotion regulation in the context of treatment studies. In this article, we discuss a proposed methodology, the combination of ecological momentary assessment (EMA), and single-case experimental design (SCED), for measuring emotion regulation strategy use in the context of treatment outcome studies. To inform this discussion, we provide a brief overview of common approaches to assessing emotion regulation skill use in the context of treatment outcome research. We then describe the utility of intensive data capture (EMA) in the context of idiographic treatment studies (SCED), present a case study to illustrate the different uses of data collected through EMA in the context of a SCED study, and discuss considerations for implementing this method in clinical practice.

Problem-Focused Coping Strategies Used by Victims of Gender Violence Across the Stages of Change

This study compares the problem-focused emotion regulation strategies used by 200 female survivors of intimate partner violence (age: M = 40.16, SD  =  11.27, 18 - 66 years) to cope with violence throughout various stages of change (SOC). It examines the relationship between problem-focused coping strategies and positive and negative affect, and the impact of these variables on the different SOC. Results suggest that victims differ and are flexible in the use of strategies throughout the various SOC. During the initial stages, victims tend to use passive/maladaptive behaviors that hamper change, while in the later stages they use more active/adaptive strategies to leave the abusive relationship.