The temporal deployment of emotion regulation strategies during negative emotional episodes.

Abstract

Time is given a central place in theoretical models of emotion regulation (Gross, 1998, 2015), but key questions regarding the role of time remain unanswered. We investigated 2 such unanswered questions. First, we explored when different emotion regulation strategies were used within the course of an emotional episode in daily life. Second, we investigated the association between the temporal deployment of strategies and negative emotional experience. We conducted a daily diary study in which participants (N = 74) drew an intensity profile depicting the temporal unfolding of their negative emotional experience across daily events (N = 480), and mapped their usage of emotion regulation strategies onto this intensity profile. Strategies varied in their temporal deployment, with suppression and rumination occurring more at the beginning of the episode, and reappraisal and distraction occurring more toward the end of the episode. Strategies also varied in their association with negative emotion: rumination was positively associated with negative emotion, and reappraisal and distraction were negatively associated with negative emotion. Finally, both rumination and reappraisal interacted with time to predict negative emotional experience. Rumination was more strongly positively associated with negative emotions at the end of the episode than the beginning, but reappraisal was more strongly negatively associated with negative emotion at the beginning of the episode than the end. These findings highlight the importance of accounting for timing in the study of emotion regulation, as well as the necessity of studying these temporal processes in daily life. (PsycINFO Database Record

The Political is Personal: The Costs of Daily Politics

“…Examining the emotion regulation people use to cope with daily political events, therefore, provides a novel real-world context for testing and understanding emotion regulation "in the wild" (Brans et al, 2013;Kalokerinos et al, 2017). Our results coincide with a number of key findings from existing studies.…”

Using reappraisal to regulate negative emotion after the 2016 U.S. Presidential election: Does emotion regulation trump political action?

“…In this case, political action itself could represent emotion regulation as individuals attempt to change the situation itself as a way to change their emotions (e.g., situation modification; Gross, 1998). The present pattern of findings could also be understood from an emotion regulation dynamics perspective, wherein individuals may attempt multiple forms of emotion regulation within a given emotional episode (e.g., Kalokerinos, Résibois, Verduyn, & Kuppens, 2017). If individuals initially attempt reappraisal and are successful in this attempt, there is no need to engage in additional forms of regulation (such as political action, if individuals indeed consider action as a form of regulation).…”

A Day in the Life of Borderline Personality Disorder: A Preliminary Analysis of Within-Day Emotion Generation and Regulation

“…It should be noted that there is a burgeoning literature on the contextual factors that influence when and for whom any given emotion regulation strategy is effective in the immediate term (i.e., whether a strategy reduces negative affect immediately after being used; Aldao, 2013;Webb et al, 2012). Researchers have demonstrated that a multitude of factors can influence a given strategy's effectiveness (e.g., situational goals; English et al, 2017; perceived controllability of a stressor; Haines et al, 2016; timing of strategy use; Kalokerinos et al, 2017), which may call into question whether strategies can be reliably distinguished as adaptive or maladaptive. However, researchers studying BPD, and psychopathology more broadly, have consistently found empirical evidence that putatively adaptive and putatively maladaptive strategies can be differentiated based on individual differences (e.g., Aldao & Nolen-Hoeksema, 2012;Naragon-Gainey et al, 2017;Neacsiu et al, 2010;Southward & Cheavens, 2020) and within-person patterns of use (e.g., McMahon & Naragon-Gainey, 2019).…”