Unique and interactive effects of emotion regulation difficulties and perceived stress on COVID-19 traumatic stress, anxiety, and safety behavior use: A four-year prospective study.

Given that emotion regulation difficulties confer risk for poor responses to stress, they may predict who is at risk for adverse psychological reactions to major, chronic stressors such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Specific adverse reactions to the pandemic may include more severe traumatic stress, anxiety, and excessive safety behavior use (i.e., hand washing). While emotion regulation difficulties may be a diathesis for adverse reactions to chronic stressors, the context(s) by which they may confer elevated risk is unclear. Accordingly, the present longitudinal study examined the interaction between pre-pandemic emotion regulation difficulties and early pandemic perceived stress in predicting subsequent COVID-related traumatic stress, anxiety, and safety behavior use over 32 weeks of the pandemic. Community adults (N = 145) who completed a measure of emotion regulation in 2016 as part of a larger study were recontacted at the start of the pandemic (March 2020) and assessed every two weeks for 32 weeks. Consistent with a diathesis-stress model, the interaction between difficulties in emotion regulation and perceived stress was significant in predicting COVID-19 anxiety (p = 0.003, d = 0.52) such that at high, but not low, levels of perceived stress, difficulties in emotion regulation in 2016 significantly predicted higher COVID-19 anxiety in 2020. The interaction between difficulties in emotion regulation in 2016 and perceived stress early in 2020 approached significance in predicting COVID-19 traumatic stress (p = 0.073, d = 0.31) and safety behavior use (p = 0.069, d = 0.31). These findings highlight that current perceived stress is an important context that potentiates the effects of preexisting emotion regulation difficulties on the emergence of anxiety-related symptoms during COVID-19, which has important implications for diathesis-stress models of adverse reactions to chronic stressors.

Linking a latent variable trait-state-occasion model of emotion regulation to cognitive control.

Emotion dysregulation (ED) is a vulnerability factor for affective disorders that may originate from deficits in cognitive control (CC). Although measures of ED are often designed to assess trait-like tendencies, the extent to which such measures capture a time-varying (TV) or state-like construct versus a time-invariant (TI) or trait-like personality characteristic is unclear. The link between the TV and TI components of ED and CC is also unclear. In a 6-wave, 5-month longitudinal study, community participants (n = 1281) completed the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS-16), a commonly used measure of ED and measures of CC. A latent variable (trait-state-occasion) model showed that the proportion of TI factor variance (.80) was greater than the TV factor variance (.19). Although TV factor stability was significant, the coefficients were small in magnitude. Furthermore, regression weights for the ED TI factor (average ß = -.62) were significant and larger than those for the TV factor (average ß = -.10) in predicting latent CC at each of the six-time points. These findings suggest that ED, as assessed by the DERS-16, is largely TI and this TI component is more strongly linked to CC than the TV component.

Intolerance of Uncertainty and Worry Prospectively Predict COVID-19 Anxiety and Distress: A 4-Year Longitudinal Study.

The COVID-19 pandemic precipitated an uptick in poor mental health outcomes, including coronavirus-related anxiety and distress. Preliminary research has shown that intolerance of uncertainty (IU) and worry proneness, two transdiagnostic risk factors for anxiety and related disorders, are associated cross-sectionally with pandemic-related fear and distress. However, the extent to which IU and worry proneness prospectively predict coronavirus-related anxiety and distress is unclear. Whether IU and worry may also interact in prospectively predicting coronavirus-related anxiety and distress is also unknown. To address this knowledge gap, the present study examined IU and trait worry as prospective predictors of the level and trajectory of coronavirus anxiety and COVID stress syndrome over time, as well as the extent to which worry moderated the relation between IU and pandemic-related outcomes. Participants (n = 310) who completed self-report measures of IU and trait worry in 2016 were contacted following the onset of COVID-19 in 2020 and completed biweekly measures of coronavirus anxiety and COVID stress syndrome for 30 weeks. Multilevel models revealed that IU assessed in 2016 significantly predicted the severity of both coronavirus anxiety and COVID stress syndrome throughout the study period in 2020. Worry also moderated the link between IU and coronavirus anxiety, such that individuals with high levels of trait worry and high IU in 2016 experienced the most coronavirus anxiety in 2020. Results suggest that IU and worry functioned as independent and interactive vulnerability factors for subsequent adverse psychological reactions to COVID-19. Clinical implications and future directions are discussed.

Specific emotion regulation difficulties and executive function explain the link between worry and subsequent stress: A prospective moderated mediation study.

BACKGROUND: Worry is a transdiagnostic risk factor for stress-related mental health complaints such as anxiety, depression, and insomnia. Although worry may function as a form of avoidance of unwanted emotions and accordingly interfere with adaptive emotion regulation, the specific domains of emotion regulation that are perturbed by excessive worry to confer risk for stress-related symptoms are unclear. Further, it is unknown if cognitive control mechanisms that underlie successful emotion regulation influence the effect of worry on stress. The present study addressed these gaps in the literature by examining specific emotion regulation difficulties as mediators of the relationship between worry and subsequent stress, as well as executive function as a moderator of the mediated effects. METHOD: 656 community adults were assessed for trait worry, emotion dysregulation, stress, and executive dysfunction once per month for three months (time 1 - time 3). RESULTS: The effect of worry (time 1) on subsequent stress (time 3) was partially mediated by difficulties with emotional clarity and difficulty engaging in goal-directed behavior when upset (time 2) after controlling for age, gender, and baseline stress. Moderated mediation models revealed that the indirect effect of worry on stress via difficulty with goal-directed behavior was significantly moderated by executive dysfunction, such that fewer executive function difficulties acted as a buffer against the harmful effects of worry. LIMITATIONS: Limitations include reliance on self-report measures, lack of experimental manipulation, and a nonclinical sample. CONCLUSIONS: Findings point to specific domains of emotion regulation as treatment targets for individuals with high worry proneness.

Psychometric properties of a daily obsessive-compulsive symptom scale for ecological momentary assessment.

Despite growing interest in ecological momentary assessment (EMA) in psychopathology and clinical observation of day-to-day fluctuations in obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) symptoms, there is not a standardized EMA measure of such symptoms that can guide systematic research. In the absence of such a measure, prior EMA research in OCD has utilized heterogeneous approaches to sampling momentary and daily OCD symptoms, which limits the ability to compare results between studies. The present study sought to examine the psychometric properties of a daily OCD symptom (d-OCS) measure that assesses common OCD symptom themes (e.g., contamination, checking, intrusive thoughts) in a sample of adults with OCD (n = 20), psychiatric controls (n = 27), and healthy controls (n = 27). Participants completed the d-OCS 3 times per day for 1 week. The d-OCS distinguished those with OCD from psychiatric controls and healthy controls. The d-OCS demonstrated good internal consistency, adequate test-retest reliability, and good convergent validity. These findings offer initial psychometric support for the use of the d-OCS in EMA research examining day-to-day fluctuations in symptoms of OCD. Additional investigation is needed to examine the discriminant validity of the d-OCS and generalize these findings to more diverse samples.