Scholarlink

Background <p>Emotion regulation (ER) strategies are likely not uniformly adaptive or maladaptive; rather, their effectiveness may depend on contextual factors. Thus, it may be optimal to implement various ER strategies flexibly based on situational demands (i.e., ER flexibility).</p> Methods <p>The present study (<i>N</i> = 129) examined perceived situational controllability (Aim 1) and ER variability (variability in strategy use over time, Aim 2) as predictors of positive and negative affect (PA and NA) in a treatment-seeking adult sample. Participants completed ecological momentary assessments for 10 days.</p> Results <p>For Aim 1, acceptance, reflection, and savoring were more likely to be used in controllable situations, while rumination and suppression were less likely. Distraction predicted lower NA when control was present or absent, but not when control was ambiguous. For Aim 2, ER strategies were grouped into engagement-oriented strategies (i.e., acceptance, reflection, reappraisal, savoring) and avoidance-oriented strategies (i.e., behavioral avoidance, distraction, procrastination, rumination, suppression). Engagement between-strategy variability was associated with lower NA and higher PA. In contrast, within- and between-strategy variability in avoidance strategies was linked to higher NA.</p> Conclusions <p>Findings suggest clinicians should assess clients’ appraisals of situational controllability and support flexible ER strategy use that aligns with those appraisals.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Understanding Emotion Regulation Flexibility and Variability in Daily Life: Findings from a Treatment-Seeking Sample

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年11月18日

查看全文
  • Kiran Kaur,
  • Anu Asnaani,
  • Tierney McMahon,
  • Juhyun Park,
  • Kristin Naragon-Gainey

摘要

Background

Emotion regulation (ER) strategies are likely not uniformly adaptive or maladaptive; rather, their effectiveness may depend on contextual factors. Thus, it may be optimal to implement various ER strategies flexibly based on situational demands (i.e., ER flexibility).

Methods

The present study (N = 129) examined perceived situational controllability (Aim 1) and ER variability (variability in strategy use over time, Aim 2) as predictors of positive and negative affect (PA and NA) in a treatment-seeking adult sample. Participants completed ecological momentary assessments for 10 days.

Results

For Aim 1, acceptance, reflection, and savoring were more likely to be used in controllable situations, while rumination and suppression were less likely. Distraction predicted lower NA when control was present or absent, but not when control was ambiguous. For Aim 2, ER strategies were grouped into engagement-oriented strategies (i.e., acceptance, reflection, reappraisal, savoring) and avoidance-oriented strategies (i.e., behavioral avoidance, distraction, procrastination, rumination, suppression). Engagement between-strategy variability was associated with lower NA and higher PA. In contrast, within- and between-strategy variability in avoidance strategies was linked to higher NA.

Conclusions

Findings suggest clinicians should assess clients’ appraisals of situational controllability and support flexible ER strategy use that aligns with those appraisals.