Committing to emotion regulation

Today, we‘re reviewing four articles related to emotion regulation. First, Luo, McRae & Waugh (2024) published “Committing to Emotion Regulation: Factors impacting the choice to implement a reappraisal after its generation” in Emotion. Here’s the edited abstract:

Cognitive reappraisal, changing the way one thinks about an emotional event, is one of the most effective and extensively studied emotion regulation strategies. Previous research has dissociated the generation of reappraisals (i.e., generating candidate alternative meanings of the event) from the implementation of reappraisals (i.e., selecting and elaborating on one reappraisal), finding that while generation slightly changes positive feelings, implementation yields the most substantial changes in positive emotion. Because they are two discrete processes, people might not always choose to implement a reappraisal they generated, and it is unclear what factors might influence implementation choice. We addressed this question in three preregistered studies. In Studies 1 (N = 52) and 2 (N = 58), we examined whether people’s choices to implement a generated reappraisal are influenced by (a) their positive emotion after generation and/or (b) the plausibility of that reappraisal (the degree to which a reappraisal reflects what might be actually happening and/or could potentially happen). The results suggest that people monitor their positive emotion when choosing to implement a positive reappraisal, while monitoring plausibility when choosing to implement a negative reappraisal. In Study 3 (N = 134), we found that people primarily monitored their positive emotion (vs. plausibility) both when given a motive to feel better and a motive to understand the stressor. Taken together, we propose that positive emotion after reappraisal generation and reappraisal plausibility are indices of making progress toward the goal of regulation. Our results suggest that these indices influence people’s choice to further implement the reappraisal. Our findings further our understanding of reappraisal generation and reappraisal implementation and reveal how and why people might choose to continue to regulate their emotions. 

I found these three studies fascinating in decoupling identifying a reappraisal and implementing it. It’s clear that positive emotion is most helpful in predicting implementation. Next, we look further at reappraisal and distraction. Petter et al. (2025) published “Emotion Regulation, Fast or Slow: A computational model of strategy choice” in Emotion. The edited abstract follows:

Different emotion regulation strategies have very different consequences. This observation has inspired a growing body of work seeking to identify the factors that predict emotion regulation strategy choice. To explain these findings, several explanatory theories have been proposed. As with most theories in the field of affective science, they are formulated in natural language. Translating these theories into the language of mathematics may bring more clarity to the field and help generate new, testable hypotheses. The present article aimed to formulate more precise theoretical predictions by translating verbal theories about the emotion regulation selection process into formal mathematical language. Specifically, we focused on formally defining a theory that might help to explain the robust finding that people prefer distraction over reappraisal at high emotional intensities but prefer reappraisal over distraction at low emotional intensities. Through the process of theory formalization, we identified hidden assumptions and unanswered research questions, which resulted in a computational model that predicts results that match empirical work. This work demonstrates how theory formalization can accelerate theoretical and empirical progress in affective science. Better explanatory theories can then inform interventions designed to enhance the selection of adaptive regulation strategies.

I find theoretical articles harder to work with than empirical ones, but this study makes sense and the use of different strategies at different emotional intensities also makes sense to me. The next study looks at effects of peers. Hu, Elliot, Wouters, van der Schaaf, Kester & Pekrun (2024) published “Effects of Peers’ Emotions on Students’ Emotions, Achievement Goals, Mental Effort, and Performance” in Journal of Educational Psychology. Here are the edited abstract and impact statement:

Emotion transmission often occurs in social interactions but has attracted limited attention in the education domain. Given the frequent interactions among teachers and students, not only teachers’ emotions but also peers’ emotions may influence students’ learning. This preregistered experimental study investigated how peers’ emotions (either enjoyment, neutral state, or frustration) affect students’ emotion, motivation, and cognition in observational learning of playing a science game. University students (N = 210) watched a video in which a peer model played a game and displayed either enjoyment, a neutral state, or frustration. The data were analyzed by random intercept cross-lagged panel models with Bayesian estimation and generalized order-restricted information criterion approximation. We ran two set of analyses. In Analysis A, we used the peer emotion display that was intended as the condition variable, excluding participants who perceived a different emotion. In Analysis B, we used participants’ perception of the peer emotion as the condition variable. Both Analyses A and B revealed that students exposed to peers’ enjoyment reported higher enjoyment, relaxation, mastery-approach goals, and game performance, and lower frustration, anger, boredom, and mental effort than those exposed to peers’ frustration. We conclude that peers’ emotions affect students’ achievement emotions, mastery-approach goals, mental effort, and game performance differentially. Educators and researchers should attend to emotion transmission among their students and the role of contagion in education. 

Emotion transmission has primarily been studied in social psychology rather than educational psychology. Our findings suggest that emotion transmission occurs among students: Peers’ emotions affect students’ motivation, cognitive processes, and performance. The results of this study advance the field of emotion transmission, achievement emotions, achievement goals, instructional design, and particularly, their interconnection. Our research suggests that educators would do well to attend to the subtle influence of students’ emotions on others in the classroom. 

While this is very different from the first study, I thought it nicely illustrated the power of peer emotions on emotion regulation, especially peers’ expression of enjoyment. The final study turns to intimate partners. Wang, Belu, Allsop & Rosen (2024) “Interpersonal Emotion Regulation during Relationship Conflict: Daily and longitudinal associations with couples’ sexual well-being” in Emotion. Here’s the edited abstract:

Relationship conflicts, which are common among committed couples, provoke negative emotions with implications for sexual well-being (i.e., satisfaction, desire, low distress). Couples might manage these emotions through extrinsic interpersonal emotion regulation (IER; attempting to influence the emotions of a romantic partner). In a preregistered dyadic, daily diary, and longitudinal study, we examined how four distinct IER strategies—responsiveness, cognitive support, physical presence, hostility—perceived by a romantic partner during relationship conflict related to both partners’ sexual well-being. Over 28 days, community couples (N = 122; recruited between 2022 and 2023) completed brief measures of IER and sexual satisfaction, desire, and distress on days of relationship conflict and full versions of these measures 4 months later. Results may be generalizable to community couples in North America; however, improving the diversity of samples in future research would extend generalizability. Generally, greater perceived responsiveness, cognitive support, and physical presence IER on conflict days were each associated with higher daily sexual satisfaction and desire for couples, while greater perceived hostility was associated with lower daily satisfaction and desire. Greater perceived physical presence averaged across diaries was associated with one’s own increased desire 4 months later. Most effects were similar for men and women; however, on days when women perceived greater responsiveness and cognitive support from partners, their partners reported more sexual distress, but there was no association between men’s perceived IER and partners’ distress. Findings expand models of IER to include sexual well-being and support IER as a target for interventions aimed at promoting sexual well-being. 

I think the idea of interpersonal emotion regulation explains the previous peer study as well. The general findings are not at all surprising. I find the final statement in bold intriguing. My cynical response is that, when men respond to and cognitively support their partners, they expect sex as a reward and are distressed when it doesn’t happen immediately – but that’s just an hypothesis.