Cargando…
When and How to Regulate: Everyday Emotion-Regulation Strategy Use and Stressor Intensity
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...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer International Publishing
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9382984/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36042783 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s42761-021-00087-1 |
_version_ | 1784769378361802752 |
---|---|
author | Blanke, Elisabeth S. Bellingtier, Jennifer A. Riediger, Michaela Brose, Annette |
author_facet | Blanke, Elisabeth S. Bellingtier, Jennifer A. Riediger, Michaela Brose, Annette |
author_sort | Blanke, Elisabeth S. |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s42761-021-00087-1. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9382984 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Springer International Publishing |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-93829842022-08-29 When and How to Regulate: Everyday Emotion-Regulation Strategy Use and Stressor Intensity Blanke, Elisabeth S. Bellingtier, Jennifer A. Riediger, Michaela Brose, Annette Affect Sci Research Article 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. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s42761-021-00087-1. Springer International Publishing 2021-12-10 /pmc/articles/PMC9382984/ /pubmed/36042783 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s42761-021-00087-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Research Article Blanke, Elisabeth S. Bellingtier, Jennifer A. Riediger, Michaela Brose, Annette When and How to Regulate: Everyday Emotion-Regulation Strategy Use and Stressor Intensity |
title | When and How to Regulate: Everyday Emotion-Regulation Strategy Use and Stressor Intensity |
title_full | When and How to Regulate: Everyday Emotion-Regulation Strategy Use and Stressor Intensity |
title_fullStr | When and How to Regulate: Everyday Emotion-Regulation Strategy Use and Stressor Intensity |
title_full_unstemmed | When and How to Regulate: Everyday Emotion-Regulation Strategy Use and Stressor Intensity |
title_short | When and How to Regulate: Everyday Emotion-Regulation Strategy Use and Stressor Intensity |
title_sort | when and how to regulate: everyday emotion-regulation strategy use and stressor intensity |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9382984/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36042783 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s42761-021-00087-1 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT blankeelisabeths whenandhowtoregulateeverydayemotionregulationstrategyuseandstressorintensity AT bellingtierjennifera whenandhowtoregulateeverydayemotionregulationstrategyuseandstressorintensity AT riedigermichaela whenandhowtoregulateeverydayemotionregulationstrategyuseandstressorintensity AT broseannette whenandhowtoregulateeverydayemotionregulationstrategyuseandstressorintensity |