Do people choose the same strategies to regulate other people’s emotions as they choose to regulate their own?

How do people choose how to regulate others’ emotional responses? We extended previous work on how the intensity of an emotional situation influences which strategies people choose to regulate their emotions (i.e., intrapersonal emotion regulation choice) to also consider the effect of intensity on which strategies people choose to regulate other people’s emotions (i.e., interpersonal emotion regulation choice). Studies 1a and 1b found that the intensity of the emotional situation influenced whether participants chose distraction or reappraisal in both intrapersonal and interpersonal regulation contexts, but also that the effect of intensity differed between the contexts (participants choose reappraisal more frequently for others in intense situations than for themselves). However, this difference was stronger (or only found) when participants helped the other person to control their emotions first. Two further studies examined whether differences in perceived intensity (Study 2) and/or the anticipated effort or effectiveness of the strategies (Study 3) could explain the difference between intrapersonal and interpersonal contexts. Together, the findings suggest that the regulation strategies that people choose depend on the intensity of the emotional situation, the target of regulation, and whether people choose how to regulate their own emotions before choosing how to regulate another person’s emotions, with preliminary evidence that differences between intrapersonal and interpersonal emotion regulation choice may be associated with differences in the anticipated effort and effectiveness of regulation between these contexts

When ideology meets conflict-related content: influences on emotion generation and regulation

Do rightists and leftists experience information about suffering and harm with differing emotional intensities, depending on the identity of target depicted? Do they consequently choose differently how to regulate or cope with these emotions? Research has identified ideological differences in emotional processes, but it has yet to identify what types of content lead to ideological differences in emotional intensity or whether these content-dependent differences relate to differing preferences for engaging versus disengaging emotion-regulation strategies. We posited that right–left differences in experienced emotional intensity would be context-dependent, emerging mostly in response to depictions of harm to the outgroup, in accordance with the centrality of intergroup attitudes to ideological self-placement in conflict. Study 1 (N = 83) supported this hypothesis, with leftists (vs. rightists) experiencing outgroup harm (but not ingroup harm or conflict-irrelevant harm) with greater emotional intensity. Study 2 (N = 101), which replicated this finding, additionally examined whether behavioral differences in regulatory choice consequently emerge mostly regarding outgroup harm. We tested 2 competing hypotheses as to the nature of these differences: (a) the intensity hypothesis, positing that leftists (more than rightists) would regulate their intensified reactions to outgroup harm through disengagement–distraction (vs. engagement–reappraisal) due to a documented greater preference for disengaging coping strategies as intensity increases, and (b) the motivation hypothesis, positing that leftists (more than rightists) would prefer engagement–reappraisal (vs. disengagement–distraction), consistent with leftists’ documented greater preference for intergroup empathy. Results exclusively supported the intensity hypothesis, and the significance of both studies is discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved)Social decision makin

Identifying the determinants of emotion regulation choice: a systematic review with meta-analysis

Day-to-day life is inundated with attempts to control emotions and a wealth of research has examined what strategies people use and how effective these strategies are. However, until more recently, research has often neglected more basic questions such as whether and how people choose to regulate their emotions (i.e. emotion regulation choice). In an effort to identify what we know and what we need to know, we systematically reviewed studies that examined potential determinants of whether and how people choose to regulate their emotions. Eighteen determinants were identified across 219 studies and were categorised as being affective, cognitive, motivational, individual or social-cultural in nature. Where there were sufficient primary studies, meta-analysis was used to quantify the size of the associations between potential determinants and measures of whether and how people choose to regulate their emotions. Based on the findings, we propose that people’s decisions about whether and how to regulate their emotions are determined by factors relating to the individual doing the regulating, the emotion that is being regulated, and both the immediate situation and the broader social context in which the regulation is taking place

Additional services for Psychological Medicine: Email alerts: Click here Subscriptions: Click here Commercial reprints: Click here Terms of use : Click here Perturbed threat monitoring following a traumatic event predicts risk for post-traumatic stress di

Background. Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a chronic and difficult to treat psychiatric disorder. Objective, performance-based diagnostic markers that uniquely index risk for PTSD above and beyond subjective self-report markers could inform attempts to improve prevention and early intervention. We evaluated the predictive value of threat-related attention bias measured immediately after a potentially traumatic event, as a risk marker for PTSD at a 3-month follow-up. We measured the predictive contribution of attentional threat bias above and beyond that of the more established marker of risk for PTSD, self-reported psychological dissociation. Method. Dissociation symptoms and threat-related attention bias were measured in 577 motor vehicle accident (MVA) survivors (mean age = 35.02 years, 356 males) within 24 h of admission to an emergency department (ED) of a large urban hospital. PTSD symptoms were assessed at a 3-month follow-up using the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale (CAPS). Results. Self-reported dissociation symptoms significantly accounted for 16% of the variance in PTSD at follow-up, and attention bias toward threat significantly accounted for an additional 4% of the variance in PTSD. Conclusions. Threat-related attention bias can be reliably measured in the context of a hospital ED and significantly predicts risk for later PTSD. Possible mechanisms underlying the association between threat bias following a potentially traumatic event and risk for PTSD are discussed. The potential application of an attention bias modification treatment (ABMT) tailored to reduce risk for PTSD is suggested

“Trait EI in the relationship between needs fulfilment and symptoms and attitudes associated with EDs”

Eating disorders (EDs) are a set of pathologies, which have been increasing in prevalence in the recent years, suggesting the importance of studying symptoms and attitudes associated with EDs in depth. Several studies have showed that both psychological basic needs and trait emotion intelligence (trait EI) are relevant aspects of EDs, however these two aspects were never tested concurrently. Previous studies have shown that self-determined motivation could be a plausible antecedent that may account for individual variation in trait EI, and for this reason, it seems to be extremely relevant to integrate trait EI in a Self-Determination Theory (SDT) framework. The aim of this study is to test a mediation model of trait EI in the relationship between need fulfilment and eating disorders. In a sample of 159 females aged between 16 and 22 years old (M = 18.71; SD = 1.98) instruments were administered to measure the basic psychological needs, trait EI, and eating disorders. Results of this study showed that need fulfilment was negatively related to eating disorders and positively related to trait EI, whereas trait EI was negatively related to eating disorders. Furthermore, trait EI has shown a mediation role in the relation between basic psychological needs and eating disorders

“Trait EI in the relationship between needs fulfilment and symptoms and attitudes associated with EDs”

Eating disorders (EDs) are a set of pathologies, which have been increasing in prevalence in the recent years, suggesting the importance of studying symptoms and attitudes associated with EDs in depth. Several studies have showed that both psychological basic needs and trait emotion intelligence (trait EI) are relevant aspects of EDs, however these two aspects were never tested concurrently. Previous studies have shown that self-determined motivation could be a plausible antecedent that may account for individual variation in trait EI, and for this reason, it seems to be extremely relevant to integrate trait EI in a Self-Determination Theory (SDT) framework. The aim of this study is to test a mediation model of trait EI in the relationship between need fulfilment and eating disorders. In a sample of 159 females aged between 16 and 22 years old (M = 18.71; SD = 1.98) instruments were administered to measure the basic psychological needs, trait EI, and eating disorders. Results of this study showed that need fulfilment was negatively related to eating disorders and positively related to trait EI, whereas trait EI was negatively related to eating disorders. Furthermore, trait EI has shown a mediation role in the relation between basic psychological needs and eating disorders

Understanding the relationship between suicidality, current depressed mood, personality, and cognitive factors

Objectives: Links between suicidality and depressed mood are well established. There is, however, little information about the emotional regulation processes that underlie the relationship between suicidality and current low mood, and how these processes differ between groups of never-suicidal (NS), suicidal ideators, and suicide attempters. As suicidality and depression are heterogeneous constructs, this study aimed to conduct within- and between-group comparisons of known suicide risk factors that are associated with emotion regulation (neuroticism, trait aggression, brooding, impulsivity, and overgeneral autobiographical memories). Design: Correlational design using between- and within-group comparisons from self-report measures. Methods: Inter- and intragroup differences were identified using Pearson's correlation coefficients and tests of difference. An analysis of indirect effects was used to investigate whether the relationship between suicidality and current low mood was mediated by neuroticism, trait aggression, brooding, impulsivity, and overgeneral autobiographical memories, and if this relationship varied according to group type. Results:  Brooding appeared to be a consistent feature of all three groups and was closely related to current low mood. Compared to the NS group, the relationship between suicide attempts and current low mood showed greater associations with brooding, trait aggression, and overgeneral autobiographical memories. Compared to the NS group, the suicidal ideation group showed stronger associations with neuroticism and impulsivity, but these factors did not correlate with low mood. Conclusion: These results suggest a need for larger studies to focus on heterogeneity within suicidal populations and consider how different combinations of risk factors may heighten or reduce suicide risk. Practitioner points: * It is well known that the severity and intensity of suicide and depressed presentations vary because of underlying dispositional and contextual factors (Fried & Nesse, ) which, in turn, affect how events are interpreted and responded to. Despite this, there is little research about how these mechanisms operate in different types of suicide groups, and their influence on the relationship between suicidality and current low mood. * Understanding interrelationships that affect current low mood is of clinical significance because past suicidal history and deteriorations in already negative mood are linked to repeated suicide attempts and completion. * Our findings show that ruminative brooding, defined as a tendency to repeatedly think about emotional aspects of an event, consistently correlates with current low mood across different types of suicidal groups (NS, suicidal ideators, and suicide attempters), and across analyses. * Findings also show that suicidal ideation and attempt groups were associated with specific personality characteristics that increased the propensity of emotional responding and interpretation compared to the NS group. The relationship between suicide attempt and current low mood had a higher propensity to be influenced by trait aggression, brooding, and overgenerality compared to the NS group. In contrast, although the suicidal ideation group correlated more strongly with neuroticism and impulsivity, these factors did not influence current low mood. * In terms of clinical practice, these findings imply that specific styles of interpretation and thinking may maintain the relationship between suicidality and current low mood. Given the cross-sectional nature of the study, however, it is not possible to imply causality. Nevertheless, the findings obtained provide some support for transdiagnostic models of cognitive-behavioural processes that could be developed further.PostprintPeer reviewe