Individual differences in emotion regulation goals: Does personality predict the reasons why people regulate their emotions?

Abstract

Objective We investigated how the Big Five traits predict individual differences in five theoretically important emotion regulation goals that are commonly pursued—pro‐hedonic, contra‐hedonic, performance, pro‐social, and impression management. Method We conducted two studies: (a) a large survey study consisting of undergraduates (N = 394; 18–25 years; 69% female; 56% European American) and community adults (N = 302; 19–74 years; 50% female; 75% European American) who completed a newly developed global measure of individual differences in emotion regulation goals and (b) a 9‐day daily diary study with community adults (N = 272; 23–85 years; 50% female; 84% European American) who completed daily reports of emotion regulation goals. In both studies, participants completed a measure of the Big Five. Results Across global and daily measures, pro‐hedonic goals and pro‐social goals were positively associated with Agreeableness, performance goals were positively associated with Openness, and impression management goals were positively associated with Neuroticism. Globally, contra‐hedonic goals were also negatively associated with Agreeableness and Conscientiousness. Conclusions The Big Five systematically predict the emotion regulation goals people typically pursue. These findings have important implications for understanding why people engage in certain forms of regulatory behavior and why personality has consequences for well‐being.

Emotion regulation goals: An individual difference perspective

“…Notably, one primary source of confusion in the ER literature is the definition of ER goals, which have ranged from the motivation for regulating (e.g., managing one's impression on others; Eldesouky & English, ) to the act of regulating (Mauss, Cook, & Gross, ) or using specific tactics (e.g., McRae, Ciesielski, & Gross, ; Urry, ). Based on the extended process model (Gross, ), the act of regulating or using specific tactics is not in themselves ER goals because they are actions.…”

“…In the first half of this paper, we used the extended process model (Gross, ) to show that goals are central to all stages of ER. Recent studies indicate that individual difference factors (e.g., personality; Eldesouky & English, ) are important for predicting ER goals across various stages. Furthermore, studies have also shown that people differ in the extent to which they typically pursue various ER goals (e.g., English et al, ; Kalokerinos et al, ).…”

“…Daily ER studies have helped enhance our understanding of stability in ER goals across situations. For instance, they have shown that the reasons why people regulate their emotions (Eldesouky & English, ; English et al, ) can fluctuate across situations. However, it could be useful to also examine how systematic these fluctuations are (i.e., ER flexibility; Aldao, Sheppes, & Gross, ).…”

“…This has important implications for how easy or difficult it may be to change certain ER goals via interventions. For example, given that social goals are less stable across situations than hedonic goals (Eldesouky & English, ), it may be easier to change the social reasons why people regulate, rather than the hedonic reasons. As another example, an ER goal with low rank‐order consistency over time may indicate that it is less stable across individuals and thus, easier to change via interventions.…”

“…Given the centrality of goals to ER, researchers have become increasingly interested in understanding what ER goals are (Tamir, ) and how they operate (e.g., Mauss, Tamir, Anderson, & Savino, ; Tamir, Halperin, Porat, Bigman, & Hasson, ). It has become clear that there are striking differences in which ER goals people pursue (Gross, Richards, & John, ) and the extent to which they pursue them (e.g., Eldesouky & English, ; English, Lee, John, & Gross, ; Kalokerinos, Tamir, & Kuppens, ).…”