Motivational Intensity in Emotion Regulation.

Changing how we feel can be adaptive, but it is also difficult and may require effort. There is research on what people want to achieve in emotion regulation (motivational content), but there is little research on how intensely people pursue what they want to achieve (motivational intensity). We tested the role of motivational intensity in emotion regulation, by assessing (Studies 1-2, Ns = 160 and 157) and manipulating (Study 3, N = 250) it in daily life. As predicted, when people were more motivated to make themselves feel better, they engaged more intensely in emotion-regulatory behaviors, experienced more desirable emotional experiences, and reported better psychological health. Furthermore, motivating people to make themselves feel better, increased their emotion-regulatory behaviors and led to better psychological health during COVID-19. Motivational intensity, therefore, may be an understudied factor facilitating emotional well-being.

The Double-Edged Sword of Social Sharing: Social Sharing Predicts Increased Emotion Differentiation When Rumination Is Low but Decreased Emotion Differentiation When Rumination Is High.

Laypeople believe that sharing their emotional experiences with others will improve their understanding of those experiences, but no clear empirical evidence supports this belief. To address this gap, we used data from four daily life studies (N = 659; student and community samples) to explore the association between social sharing and subsequent emotion differentiation, which involves labeling emotions with a high degree of complexity. Contrary to our expectations, we found that social sharing of emotional experiences was linked to greater subsequent emotion differentiation on occasions when people ruminated less than usual about these experiences. In contrast, on occasions when people ruminated more than usual about their experiences, social sharing of these experiences was linked to lower emotion differentiation. These effects held when we controlled for levels of negative emotion. Our findings suggest that putting feelings into words through sharing may only enable emotional precision when that sharing occurs without dwelling or perseverating.

Uncertainty moderates the emotional consequences of reappraisal, social sharing, and rumination in daily life.

People must often wait for important but uncertain outcomes, like medical results or job offers. During such uncertain waiting periods, there is uncertainty around an outcome that people have minimal control over. Uncertainty makes these periods emotionally challenging, raising the possibility that emotion regulation strategies may have different effects while people wait for an uncertain outcome versus after they learn that outcome. To test this possibility, we conducted secondary analyses of an experience sampling study following 101 Belgian University students for 9 days as they waited for (uncertain period), and then received (certain period), consequential exam grades. Across 8,275 observations, we tested the effects of six emotion regulation strategies on positive and negative emotions about anticipated, and then actual, grades. Regardless of uncertainty, acceptance was consistently beneficial for short-term emotional well-being, and expressive suppression was consistently detrimental. However, the consequences of rumination, social sharing, and reappraisal differed when the outcome was uncertain versus certain. Rumination was more detrimental to short-term emotional well-being during the uncertain than certain period, while social sharing and reappraisal were detrimental in the uncertain period but beneficial in the certain period. These findings suggest uncertainty moderates the short-term effectiveness of some emotion regulation strategies in an academic context, which may exacerbate the emotional challenges of uncertain waiting periods. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Why do we engage in everyday interpersonal emotion regulation?

Interpersonal emotion regulation occurs when people influence others' emotions (extrinsic regulation) or turn to others to influence their own emotions (intrinsic regulation). Research on interpersonal regulation has tended to focus on how people regulate emotions, with little interrogation of why people do it, despite the importance of motives in driving emotion regulation goals and strategy selection. To fill this gap, we conducted a systematic exploration of interpersonal emotion regulation motives, employing a participant-driven approach to document the breadth of motives that people hold across different social contexts. Study 1a (N = 100) provided an initial qualitative examination of motives for both intrinsic and extrinsic interpersonal emotion regulation. Study 1b (N = 399) quantitatively catalogued these motives in recalled social interactions. Study 2 (N = 200), a daily diary study, used the motive taxonomy generated in Studies 1a and 1b to understand why people regulated their own and others' emotions in everyday social interactions over the course of 14 days. Together, our findings reveal the diversity of intrinsic and extrinsic interpersonal emotion regulation motives and open avenues to further explore motives both as a precursor to and an outcome of regulatory processes in daily life. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Regulating emotions about secrets.

Secrecy is common and psychologically costly. Research shows that secrets have high emotional stakes, but no research has directly tested how people regulate their emotions about secrets. To fill this gap, we conducted an experimental study (Study 1), then moved to studying secrecy "in the wild" to capture regulatory processes as they unfold in everyday life (Studies 2 and 3). In Study 1 (N = 498), people reported using different strategies to regulate emotions about secrets compared to matched nonsecrets. In two daily diary studies (NStudy 2 = 174, 1,059 surveys; NStudy 3 = 240, 2,764 surveys), participants reported engaging in acceptance, distraction, and expressive suppression most-and social sharing least-to manage emotions about secrets. Moreover, in testing which kinds of secrets required most regulation, Study 3 suggested that significant, negative, controllable, and socially harmful secrets were associated with greater use of rumination, distraction, and suppression; perceived immorality of keeping secrets was associated with greater use of reappraisal; and secret discoverability did not differentially predict regulation strategies. Our findings indicate that when regulating emotions about their secrets, people appear to prioritize their intention to keep secret information hidden, despite potential well-being costs that may come with enacting this intention. Understanding the regulatory processes involved in secrecy is a foundation on which future research can build to identify ways of alleviating the burden of secrecy. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Stuck with the foot on the pedal: Depression and motivated emotion regulation in daily life.

According to cybernetic approaches, emotion regulation is motivated by the desire to reduce discrepancies between experienced and desired emotions. Yet, this assumption has rarely been tested directly in healthy or unhealthy populations. In two ecological momentary assessment studies, we monitored motivated emotion regulation in daily life in participants who varied in the severity of their depressive symptoms (Study 1; N = 173) and in clinically depressed and nondepressed participants (Study 2; N = 120). Across studies, associations between motivation in emotion regulation and discrepancies between experienced and desired emotions differed by depression. As expected, as discrepancies between experienced and desired emotions increased, individuals with lower depressive symptoms or without a clinical depression diagnosis were more motivated to regulate their emotions. In contrast, we found no evidence (Study 1) or weaker evidence (Study 2) for sensitivity to the size of the discrepancies between experienced and desired emotions among individuals with higher depressive symptoms or those diagnosed with clinical depression. These individuals were consistently motivated to regulate their emotions, regardless of the size of the discrepancies. These findings suggest that individuals prone to or suffering from depression may be less sensitive than nondepressed individuals to regulatory demands in emotion regulation. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Secrecy in Everyday Life.

Secrecy is common, yet we know little about how it plays out in daily life. Most existing research on secrecy is based on methods involving retrospection over long periods of time, failing to capture secrecy "in the wild." Filling this gap, we conducted two studies using intensive longitudinal designs to present the first picture of secrecy in everyday life. We investigated momentary contextual factors and individual differences as predictors of mind-wandering to and concealing secrets. Contextual factors more consistently predicted secrecy experiences than person-level factors. Feeling more negative about a secret predicted a greater likelihood of mind-wandering to the secret. Interacting with the secret target was linked with a greater likelihood of secret concealment. Individual differences were not consistently associated with mind-wandering to secrets. We conclude that daily experiences with secrets may be better predicted by momentary feelings rather than individual differences such as personality traits.

On liking how you look and feeling sexy: Quantifying the overlap between sexual desirability and body satisfaction in a sample of Australian Grindr users.

The body image field aims to cultivate positive body image. To do so, it must appreciate factors contributing to positive body image. Sexual desirability is one such factor. Using experience sampling data from Australian Grindr users, we aimed to quantify the overlap between sexual desirability and body satisfaction. We found sexual desirability and body satisfaction correlated strongly between- (r = .90) and within-persons (rMedian =.60). Using dynamic structural equation modeling, we analyzed 238 participants' data (T = 9058), finding that sexual desirability and body satisfaction were bidirectionally related - previous sexual desirability predicted current body satisfaction (ß = 0.22) and vice versa (ß = 0.17). Participants' average body satisfaction tended to be higher when sexual desirability contributed more to body satisfaction (r = .31) and was more stable across time (r = .19). We found sexual desirability and body satisfaction overlap considerably and that sexual desirability may contribute more to body satisfaction than vice versa. Our results suggest that (1) sexual desirability and its dynamics across time influence body satisfaction, and (2) research on sexual desirability and its relationship with body image should be a focus for the field. We discuss avenues for future research on sexual desirability.

Does interpersonal emotion regulation effort pay off?

Interpersonal emotion regulation shapes people's emotional and relational experiences. Yet, researchers know little about the regulation processes that influence these outcomes. Recent works in the intrapersonal emotion regulation space suggest that motivational strength, or effort, people invest in regulation might be the answer. We applied this motivated approach for the first time in the interpersonal space-looking at both intrinsic and extrinsic forms of interpersonal emotion regulation-in order to identify the potential emotional and relational outcomes of putting effort into regulating one's own emotions through others, and regulating others' emotions. In daily diary (N = 171) and experience sampling (N = 239) studies, we examined participants' interpersonal emotion regulation behaviors and socioemotional experiences in everyday social interactions over the course of 1 week. These methods allowed us to examine effort at both momentary and person levels. We found that people who habitually put in more intrinsic effort to feel better through others felt worse overall. People also felt worse on occasions when they put in more effort to extrinsically help others feel better, although at the person level extrinsic effort was associated with higher interaction quality. Together, our findings suggest that interpersonal emotion regulation success is not simply a matter of trying hard. This observation opens new research avenues to investigate the interplay of different factors that determine when, and for whom, investing effort in interpersonal emotion regulation pays off. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Flexibility or instability? Emotion goal dynamics and mental health.

Emotion goals (i.e., what people want or do not want to feel) have important implications for emotional and mental health because they can shape whether, when, and how people regulate their emotions. Although research has shown that emotion goals vary across individuals and situations, we know relatively little about the dynamic changes in emotion goals in daily life and their potential implications. Given the dynamic features of emotions and emotion regulation, emotion goals may also fluctuate across time and their fluctuations may be critically linked to mental health. This research assessed the everyday dynamics of emotion goals, in particular, variability and inertia, and their associations with mental health. In two studies (N = 56 in Study 1 and N = 173 in Study 2), we included different indices of mental health and used Ecological Momentary Assessments to measure both pleasant and unpleasant emotion goals and experiences at a momentary level in daily life. We found that variability in unpleasant, but not pleasant, emotion goals was linked to better mental health outcomes, even after controlling for the mean levels of emotion goals, and the variability and mean levels of the corresponding emotional experiences. Emotion goal inertia was unrelated to mental health. These findings suggest that emotion goal variability is an important novel factor that may contribute to or reflect mental health. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Mapping Interpersonal Emotion Regulation in Everyday Life.

The growing literature on interpersonal emotion regulation has largely focused on the strategies people use to regulate. As such, researchers have little understanding of how often people regulate in the first place, what emotion regulation goals they have when they regulate, and how much effort they invest in regulation. To better characterize features of the regulation process, we conducted two studies using daily diary (N = 171) and experience sampling methods (N = 239), exploring interpersonal emotion regulation in the context of everyday social interactions. We found people regulated others' emotions nearly twice a day, regulated their own emotions through others around once a day, and regulated both their own and others' emotions in the same interaction roughly every other day. Furthermore, not only did people regulate others' emotions more often than regulating their own emotions through others, but they also put in more effort to do so. The goals of regulation were primarily to make themselves or others feel better, most often through increasing positive emotions, rather than decreasing negative emotions. Together, these findings provide a foundational picture of the interpersonal emotion regulation landscape, and lay the groundwork for future exploration into this emerging subfield of affective science. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s42761-023-00223-z.

Assessing Validity and Bias of Within-Person Variability in Affect and Personality.

Within-person variability in affect (e.g., Neuroticism) and personality have been linked to well-being. These are measured either by asking people to report how variable they are or to give multiple reports on the construct and calculating a within-person standard deviation adjusted for confounding by the person-level mean. The two measures are weakly correlated with one another and the links of variability with well-being depend on which measure researchers use. Recent research suggests that people's repeated ratings may be biased by response styles. In a 7-day study (N = 399) with up to five measurements per day, we confirmed that the measures of variability lacked sufficient convergent validity to be used interchangeably. We found only 1 significant correlation (of 10) between variability in repeated ratings of affect or personality and variability in repeated ratings of a theoretically unrelated construct (i.e., features of images). There was very little evidence supporting the response styles hypothesis.

Emotion regulation strategy use in PTSD: A daily life study.

BACKGROUND: Posttraumatic Stress Disorder is associated with emotion regulation difficulties. However, our understanding of these difficulties has been limited by the reliance of previous work on retrospective trait self-reports, which are unable to capture dynamic, ecologically-valid use of emotion regulation strategies. METHODS: To address this issue, this study used an ecological momentary assessment (EMA) design to understand the impact of PTSD on emotion regulation in daily life. We conducted an EMA study in a trauma exposed sample with varying levels of PTSD severity (N = 70; 7 days; 423 observations). RESULTS: We found that PTSD severity was linked to greater use of disengagement and perseverative-based strategies to manage negative emotions, regardless of emotional intensity. LIMITATIONS: Study design did not allow investigation into the temporal use of emotion regulation strategies and small sample size. CONCLUSIONS: This pattern of responding to emotions may interfere with engaging with the fear structure and thus impair emotion processing in current frontline treatments; clinical implications are discussed.

Everyday emotional functioning in COVID-19 lockdowns.

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, policy makers have tried to balance the effectiveness of lockdowns (i.e., stay-at-home orders) with their potential mental health costs. Yet, several years into the pandemic, policy makers lack solid evidence about the toll of lockdowns on daily emotional functioning. Using data from two intensive longitudinal studies conducted in Australia in 2021, we compared the intensity, persistence, and regulation of emotions on days in and out of lockdown. Participants (N = 441, observations = 14,511) completed a 7-day study either entirely in lockdown, entirely out of lockdown, or both in and out of lockdown. We assessed emotions in general (Dataset 1) and in the context of social interactions (Dataset 2). Lockdowns took an emotional toll, but this toll was relatively mild: In lockdown, people experienced slightly more negative and less positive emotion; returned to a mildly negative emotional state more quickly; and used low-effort emotion-regulation strategies (i.e., distraction). There are three interpretations for our findings, which are not mutually exclusive. First, people may be relatively resilient to the emotional challenges posed by repeated lockdowns. Second, lockdowns may not compound the emotional challenges of the pandemic. Third, because we found effects even in a mostly childless and well-educated sample, lockdowns may take a greater emotional toll in samples with less pandemic privilege. Indeed, the high level of pandemic privilege of our sample limits the generalizability of our findings (e.g., to people with caregiving roles). (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Do emotion intensity, variability, differentiation, co-occurrence, and positive-negative ratios make unique contributions to predicting longitudinal change in psychological distress and well-being?

A burgeoning array of affective indices are proposed to capture features of affect that contribute to mental health and well-being. However, because indices are often investigated separately, it is unclear what-if any-unique role they have. The present study addresses this question in a high-stress naturalistic context by prospectively testing the relative contributions of eight affective indices to psychological outcomes during the first acute lockdown phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Across six fortnightly waves of data collection, participants (N = 613, aged 19 to 87 years) reported how much they experienced five positive and five negative emotions in response to images showing the health and social impacts of the pandemic. We used these ratings to calculate participant-level indices of intensity, variability, and differentiation for positive and negative emotions separately, and positive-negative co-occurrence and ratios. Psychosocial outcome measures were general psychological distress, loneliness, work, and social impairment specifically due to the pandemic, well-being, and coping. On average, psychosocial functioning improved across the lockdown period, and, for most affective indices, bivariate relationships with psychosocial functioning supported existing theory and empirical work. However, multiple regression analyses suggested that the contributions of the individual indices were rarely unique, with most of the change in psychosocial functioning over time being explained by affect intensity and variability. These findings highlight that affective indices should be studied in concert to build a comprehensive and integrated understanding of their role in mental health and well-being. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Emotion Appraisals and Coping with Secrets.

Secrecy is both common and consequential. Recent work suggests that personal experiences with secrets (i.e., mind-wandering to them outside of concealment contexts), rather than concealment (within conversations), can explain the harms of secrecy. Recent work has also demonstrated that secrecy is associated with emotions that center on self-evaluation-shame and guilt. These emotions may help explain the harms of secrecy and provide a point of intervention to improve coping with secrecy. Four studies with 800 participants keeping over 10,500 secrets found that shame surrounding a secret is associated with lower perceived coping efficacy and reduced well-being. Moreover, shifting appraisals away from shame improved perceptions of efficacy in coping with secrets, which was linked with higher well-being. These studies suggest that emotions surrounding secrets can harm well-being and highlight avenues for intervention.

Emotion regulation in everyday life: Mapping global self-reports to daily processes.

Recent theory conceptualizes emotion regulation as occurring across three stages: (a) identifying the need to regulate, (b) selecting a strategy, and (c) implementing that strategy to modify emotions. Yet, measurement of emotion regulation has not kept pace with these theoretical advances. In particular, widely used global self-report questionnaires are often assumed to index people's typical strategy selection tendencies. However, it is unclear how well global self-reports capture individual differences in strategy selection and/or whether they may also index other emotion regulation stages. To address this issue, we examined how global self-report measures correspond with the three stages of emotion regulation as modeled using daily life data. We analyzed data from nine daily diary and experience sampling studies (total N = 1,097), in which participants provided daily and global self-reports of cognitive reappraisal, expressive suppression, and rumination. We found only weak-to-moderate correlations between global self-reports and average daily self-reports of each regulation strategy (indexing strategy selection). Global self-reports also correlated with individual differences in the degree to which (a) preceding affect experience predicted regulation strategies (representing the identification stage), and (b) regulation strategies predicted subsequent changes in affective experience (representing the implementation stage). Our findings suggest that global self-report measures of reappraisal, suppression, and rumination may not strongly and uniquely correlate with individual differences in daily selection of these strategies. Moreover, global self-report measures may also index individual differences in the perceived need to regulate, and the affective consequences of regulation in daily life. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Ready for the worst? Negative affect in anticipation of a stressor does not protect against affective reactivity.

INTRODUCTION: Lay wisdom suggests feeling negative while awaiting an upcoming stressor-anticipatory negative affect-shields against the blow of the subsequent stressor. However, evidence is mixed, with different lines of research and theory indirectly suggesting that anticipatory negative affect is helpful, harmful, or has no effect on emotional outcomes. In two studies, we aimed to reconcile these competing views by examining the affective trajectory across hours, days, and months, separating affective reactivity and recovery. METHODS: In Study 1, first-year students (N = 101) completed 9 days of experience sampling (10 surveys/day) as they received their first-semester exam grades, and a follow-up survey 5 months later. In Study 2, participants (N = 73) completed 2 days of experience sampling (60 surveys/day) before and after a Trier Social Stress Test. We investigated the association between anticipatory negative affect and the subsequent affective trajectory, investigating (1) reactivity immediately after the stressor, (2) recovery across hours (Study 2) and days (Study 1), and (3) recovery after 5 months (Study 1). RESULTS: Across the two studies, feeling more negative in anticipation of a stressor was either associated with increased negative affective reactivity, or unassociated with affective outcomes. CONCLUSION: These results run counter to the idea that being affectively ready for the worst has psychological benefits, suggesting that instead, anticipatory negative affect can come with affective costs.

Social Support Predicts Differential Use, but not Differential Effectiveness, of Expressive Suppression and Social Sharing in Daily Life.

While emotion regulation often happens in the presence of others, little is known about how social context shapes regulatory efforts and outcomes. One key element of the social context is social support. In two experience sampling studies (Ns = 179 and 123), we examined how the use and affective consequences of two fundamentally social emotion-regulation strategies-social sharing and expressive suppression-vary as a function of perceived social support. Across both studies, we found evidence that social support was associated with variation in people's use of these strategies, such that when people perceived their environments as being higher (vs. lower) in social support, they engaged in more sharing and less suppression. However, we found only limited and inconsistent support for context-dependent affective outcomes of suppression and sharing: suppression was associated with better affective consequences in the context of higher perceived social support in Study 1, but this effect did not replicate in Study 2. Taken together, these findings suggest that the use of social emotion-regulation strategies may depend on contextual variability in social support, whereas their effectiveness does not. Future research is needed to better understand the circumstances in which context-dependent use of emotion regulation may have emotional benefits, accounting for personal, situational, and cultural factors. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s42761-022-00123-8.

Some Recommendations on the Use of Daily Life Methods in Affective Science.

Real-world emotions are often more vivid, personally meaningful, and consequential than those evoked in the lab. Therefore, studying emotions in daily life is essential to test theories, discover new phenomena, and understand healthy emotional functioning; in short, to move affective science forward. The past decades have seen a surge of research using daily diary, experience sampling, or ecological momentary assessment methods to study emotional phenomena in daily life. In this paper, we will share some of the insights we have gained from our collective experience applying such daily life methods to study everyday affective processes. We highlight what we see as important considerations and caveats involved in using these methods and formulate recommendations to improve their use in future research. These insights focus on the importance of (i) theory and hypothesis-testing; (ii) measurement; (iii) timescale; and (iv) context, when studying emotions in their natural habitat.