Research on emotion regulation

Today, I present three articles addressing different aspects of emotion regulation. First, Ricker, Sanchez, Cooley, Barnett & Gunder (2024) published “Interactive Effects of Parental Support and Psychological Control on Children’s Emotion Regulation” in Journal of Family Psychology. Here’s the edited abstract:

Parents engage in a variety of behaviors that have important impacts on children’s psychosocial functioning, including their ability to effectively regulate emotions. Parental support includes behaviors that convey warmth, love, and acceptance, whereas parental psychological control includes shaming, guilt induction, and love withdrawal. Although the unique effects of these parenting behaviors are most often examined in the literature, it is possible that they may interact with one another to influence child outcomes. The goal of the present study was to examine whether parental psychological control moderated the effect of parental support on children’s emotion (dys)regulation over a 6-month period. Participants included 284 third- through fifth-grade students (51.8% boys; 51.1% Hispanic/Latinx) as well as their homeroom teachers. Children completed self-report measures of parental support, psychological control, and emotion (dys)regulation during the fall and spring semesters of an academic year. Teachers also completed measures of emotion (dys)regulation at each time point. Results indicated that parental psychological control moderated the association between parental support and self-reported emotion regulation over time. Specifically, parental support predicted increases in emotion regulation over time among youth reporting lower levels of psychological control; at higher levels, however, parental support was not associated with emotion regulation. Furthermore, psychological control uniquely predicted increases in child-reported emotion dysregulation, whereas parental support predicted decreases in teacher-reported emotion dysregulation. Findings from this study suggest that psychological control may serve as an important target for future parenting interventions.

I’ve written before about psychological control but thought this interaction was important in highlighting the very negative impact of psychological control even in the context of parental support. The next study looks at college students. Bridges-Curry & Newton (2024) published “Polyvictimization and Emotion Regulation in Daily life: An ecological momentary assessment study of young adults” in Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy. Here are the edited abstract and impact statements:

Individuals who experience polyvictimization, or victimization across multiple life contexts, show particularly severe outcomes across a range of mental health diagnoses, potentially related to difficulties in regulating emotion. However, prior research has been limited by reliance on cross-sectional designs and retrospective trait measures of emotion regulation. The present study used ecological momentary assessment to test associations between polyvictimization and emotion regulation in daily life. After completing a baseline survey assessing trauma exposure, mental health symptoms, and trait emotion regulation, undergraduates (N = 122) completed smartphone surveys assessing state emotion regulation four times per day for 14 days. Low correspondence was observed between trait and state measures of emotion regulation. After accounting for baseline mental health symptoms, polyvictimization independently predicted lower scores on an aggregative measure of putatively adaptive strategies (i.e., reappraisal, acceptance, problem solving) in daily life. However, polyvictimization did not predict aggregate scores of putatively maladaptive strategies (i.e., cognitive and expressive suppression, rumination, impulsive behavior, avoidance). Baseline depression and posttraumatic stress predicted higher use of putatively maladaptive strategies. Results suggest polyvictimization may be associated with less use of adaptive emotion regulation in daily life, whereas mental health symptoms may be associated with more use of maladaptive strategies. These findings highlight the utility of experience sampling approaches for increasing insight into emotion regulation difficulties among trauma survivors.

Our study found that young adults who had experienced many different types of trauma were less likely than those with exposure to fewer traumatic events to use beneficial strategies for responding to emotions. This finding supports the use of interventions designed to bolster emotion regulation skills (e.g., dialectical behavior therapy; Linehan, 2015) among young adults with high levels of trauma exposure. 

While the general findings are not surprising, I found it interesting that the combination of depression and PTSD at baseline predict more use of maladaptive strategies. This study also highlights the value of talking with trauma-exposed clients about the strategies they use. The next study also looks to adults’ experiences. Pauw, Sauter, Van Kleef, Sels & Fischer (2024) published “The Dynamics of Interpersonal Emotion Regulation: How sharers elicit desired (but not necessarily helpful) support” in Emotion. The edited abstract follows:

When in distress, people often seek help in regulating their emotions by sharing them with others. Paradoxically, although people perceive such social sharing as beneficial, it often fails to promote emotional recovery. This may be explained by people seeking—and eliciting—emotional support, which offers only momentary relief. We hypothesized that (1) the type of support sharers seek shapes corresponding support provided by listeners, (2) the intensity of sharers’ emotions increases their desire for emotional support and decreases their desire for cognitive support, and (3) listeners’ empathic accuracy promotes support provision that matches sharers’ desires. In 8-min interactions, participants (N = 208; data collected in 2016–2017) were randomly assigned to the role of sharer (asked to discuss an upsetting situation) or listener (instructed to respond naturally). Next, participants watched their video-recorded interaction in 20-s fragments. Sharers rated their emotional intensity and support desires, and listeners rated the sharer’s emotional intensity and their own support provision. First, we found that the desire for support predicted corresponding support provision. Second, the intensity of sharers’ emotions was associated with an increased desire for emotional and cognitive support. Third, the more accurately listeners judged sharers’ emotional intensity, the more they fulfilled sharers’ emotional (but not cognitive) support desire. These findings suggest that people have partial control over the success of their social sharing in bringing about effective interpersonal emotion regulation. People elicit the support they desire at that moment, explaining why they perceive sharing as beneficial even though it may not engender emotional recovery. 

This one seemed interesting in that it people naturally share emotional experiences and seek emotional support from others. I thought it helpful, though not surprising, to know that desire for support predicts support provision. It’s also interesting to me that accuracy of listening relates to emotional but not cognitive support. Taken together, I thought all three studies were helpful in understanding emotion regulation.