The regulation of recurrent negative emotion in the aftermath of a lost election

Mehta, Ashish; Formanowicz, Magdalena; Uusberg, Andero; Uusberg, Helen; Gross, James J.; Suri, Gaurav

doi:10.1080/02699931.2019.1682970

Cited by 16 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous research in daily life, using the experience-sampling method (ESM) or daily diaries, has provided mixed evidence for the notion that ER-strategy use covaries with stressor-related NA. In line with propositions of the ER choice framework, a preferred use of distraction to regulate higher intensity stressor-related NA in everyday life was found in three studies (in adolescents, Lennarz et al, 2019 ; and in adults, Mehta et al, 2020 ; Troy et al, 2019 ). Reappraisal was used more when affective intensity was lower in two of these studies (Mehta et al, 2020 ; Troy et al, 2019 ) and in one additional study (Wilms et al, 2020 ).…”

supporting

confidence: 61%

“…In line with propositions of the ER choice framework, a preferred use of distraction to regulate higher intensity stressor-related NA in everyday life was found in three studies (in adolescents, Lennarz et al, 2019 ; and in adults, Mehta et al, 2020 ; Troy et al, 2019 ). Reappraisal was used more when affective intensity was lower in two of these studies (Mehta et al, 2020 ; Troy et al, 2019 ) and in one additional study (Wilms et al, 2020 ). Furthermore, participants reported more exhaustion after using reappraisal than after using mindfulness (including acceptance) in an ESM study (Wenzel et al, 2021a ).…”

supporting

confidence: 61%

“…Previous research on ER choice in other strategies than distraction and reappraisal is rare, and results are mixed. Whereas the selection of acceptance was not predicted by stressor intensity in a lab study (Mehta et al, 2017 ), it was more strongly endorsed when stressor-related NA was lower in two studies in daily life (Lennarz et al, 2019 ; Mehta et al, 2020 ). For reflection, we are not aware of previous findings regarding its selection in relation to stressor-related NA intensity.…”

mentioning

confidence: 95%

“…In general, a meta-analysis across studies in the lab found that reappraisal, acceptance (here conceptualized as a form of reappraisal), and forms of distraction are effective in reducing NA in general, whereas reflective strategies (including rumination) were associated with increases in NA (Webb et al, 2012 ). In daily life, reappraisal, acceptance, and sometimes distraction were repeatedly shown to be associated with reduced NA in the face of stressors (Lennarz et al, 2019 ; Mehta et al, 2020 ; Troy et al, 2019 ). Reflection and reappraisal were also shown to be associated with increased positive affect in daily life more broadly (Brans et al, 2013 ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

When and How to Regulate: Everyday Emotion-Regulation Strategy Use and Stressor Intensity

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Contextual factors shape emotion regulation (ER). The intensity of emotional stimuli may be such a contextual factor that influences the selection and moderates the effectiveness of ER strategies in reducing negative affect (NA). Prior research has shown that, on average, when emotional stimuli were more intense, distraction was selected over reappraisal (and vice versa). This pattern was previously shown to be adaptive as the preferred strategies were more efficient in the respective contexts. Here, we investigated whether stressor intensity predicted strategy use and effectiveness in similar ways in daily life. We examined five ER strategies (reappraisal, reflection, acceptance, distraction, and rumination) in relation to the intensity of everyday stressors, using two waves of experience-sampling data (N = 156). In accordance with our hypotheses, reappraisal, reflection, and acceptance were used less, and rumination was used more, when stressors were more intense. Moreover, results suggested that distraction was more effective, and rumination more detrimental the higher the stressor intensity. Against our hypotheses, distraction did not covary with stressor intensity, and there was no evidence that reappraisal, reflection, and acceptance were more effective at lower levels of stressor intensity. Instead, when examined individually, reflection and reappraisal (like distraction) were more effective at higher levels of stressor intensity. In sum, stressor intensity predicted ER selection and moderated strategy effectiveness, but the results also point to a more complex ER strategy use in daily life than in the laboratory.

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 61%

supporting

confidence: 61%

mentioning

confidence: 95%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

When and How to Regulate: Everyday Emotion-Regulation Strategy Use and Stressor Intensity

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although each of these strategies are recruited frequently when people face stress in daily life, the strategies differ in how effective they are at helping people feel better. Cognitive reappraisal appears to be particularly useful at helping individuals reduce negative emotion, even in the face of evocative political events (Feinberg et al, 2014;Ford, Feinberg, et al, 2018;Mehta et al, 2020). Distraction -another cognitive form of emotion regulation -also has been found helpful to manage political stress (Mehta et al, 2020).…”

Section: Can People Protect Themselves From Politics?mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Political is Personal: The Costs of Daily Politics

Bq¹,

Feinberg²,

Thai³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Politics and its controversies have permeated everyday life, but the daily impact of politics is largely unknown. Here, we conceptualize politics as a chronic stressor with important consequences for people’s daily lives. We used longitudinal, daily-diary methods to track U.S. participants as they experienced daily political events across two weeks (Study 1: N=198, observations=2,167) and, separately, across three weeks (Study 2: N=811, observations=12,790) to explore how daily political events permeate people’s lives and how they cope with this influence of politics. In both studies, daily political events consistently evoked negative emotions, which corresponded to worse psychological and physical well-being, but also increased motivation to take political action (e.g., volunteer, protest) aimed at changing the political system that evoked these emotions in the first place. Understandably, people frequently tried to regulate their politics-induced emotions; and successfully regulating these emotions using cognitive strategies (reappraisal and distraction) predicted greater well-being, but also weaker motivation to take action. Although people can protect themselves from the emotional impact of politics, frequently-used regulation strategies appear to come with a trade-off between well being and action. To examine whether an alternative approach to one’s emotions could avoid this trade-off, we measured emotional acceptance in Study 2 (i.e., accepting one’s emotions without trying to change them) and found that successful acceptance predicted greater daily well-being but no impairment to political action. Overall, this research highlights how politics can be a chronic stressor in people’s daily lives, underscoring the far-reaching influence politicians have beyond the formal powers endowed unto them.

show abstract

Emotion Duration

Verduyn¹

2021

Affect Dynamics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The regulation of recurrent negative emotion in the aftermath of a lost election

Cited by 16 publications

References 28 publications

When and How to Regulate: Everyday Emotion-Regulation Strategy Use and Stressor Intensity

When and How to Regulate: Everyday Emotion-Regulation Strategy Use and Stressor Intensity

The Political is Personal: The Costs of Daily Politics

Emotion Duration

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About