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