Introduction
Paranoid thoughts are defined as distressing beliefs that a persecutor is intentionally harming or going to harm the individual in the future (Freeman & Garety,
2000). They are linked to a reduced quality of life (Watson et al.,
2018) and lower psychological well-being (Freeman et al.,
2014). In accordance with the continuum of psychotic experiences (Linscott & Van Os,
2013), paranoid thoughts are also common in non-clinical groups (Freeman et al.,
2019) though attenuated positive psychotic symptoms predict the transition to psychosis in individuals at clinical high risk (for a meta-analysis see Oliver et al.,
2020). To prevent manifest paranoid symptoms, it is thus important to understand the development of paranoid thoughts. One factor, which has been consistently found to predict paranoid thoughts, is negative affect. This is evident in clinical samples (e.g., Ben-Zeev et al.,
2011; Krkovic et al.,
2020; Ludwig, et al.,
2019a) but also in samples across the paranoia continuum (e.g., Kramer et al.,
2014; Krkovic et al.,
2020; Lincoln et al.,
2009; Thewissen et al.,
2011). Therefore, a better understanding of how negative affect can be effectively regulated could be crucial to preventing manifest disorders.
To determine the relevance of emotion regulation strategies for psychotic symptoms such as paranoia, researchers have mainly been looking at how frequently different types of strategies are used and how this is related to negative affect and paranoid thoughts. Cross-sectional studies in general population samples found that suppression and rumination, commonly classified as dysfunctional strategies (Aldao et al.,
2010), were associated with more paranoid thoughts (Grezellschak et al.,
2017; Simpson et al.,
2012), whereas reappraisal and acceptance, commonly classified as functional strategies, were associated with less paranoid thoughts (Osborne et al.,
2017; Perchtold et al.,
2019). Next to questionnaire studies, other studies have made use of experimental designs and experience sampling methods (ESM).
A recent meta-analysis of questionnaire studies examining the frequency of strategies showed that individuals with psychosis typically report to use more dysfunctional and less functional strategies than healthy controls (Ludwig et al.,
2019b). In contrast to the consistent picture presented by these studies, experimental studies that commonly induce affect along with the instruction to use a certain emotion regulation strategy tend to find that individuals with psychosis are as successful as healthy controls in effectively down-regulating their negative affect (Grezellschak et al.,
2015; Opoka et al.,
2020,
2021; Perry et al.,
2012; Van Meer et al.,
2014). Putative reasons for the discrepancy between the findings in questionnaire and experimental studies are a retrospective recall bias in the questionnaire studies and the artificialness of the instructions in the experimental design and the induced emotion, which questions their ecological validity. Studies using an ESM are advantageous in this regard because they can assess both emotion regulation and psychotic symptoms at the point of their occurrence, which minimizes recall biases and enables to analyze predictive relationships. Moreover, ESM was already shown to be highly accepted and feasible in clinical samples (for reviews see Menon et al.,
2017; Myin-Germeys et al.,
2016,
2018; Naslund et al.,
2015). Existing ESM studies observed that individuals with psychotic disorders tend to use emotion regulation strategies more frequently than healthy controls, but yielded mixed results for the effectiveness of these specific strategies in terms of reducing
negative affect (Ludwig et al.,
2020; Strauss et al.,
2019; Visser et al.,
2018). Beyond that, ESM studies focusing on
paranoid thoughts as the dependent variable found that the intensity of the dysfunctional strategies suppression (Nittel et al.,
2018) and rumination (Hartley et al.,
2014) predicted the subsequent occurrence of paranoid symptoms in clinical samples. However, only one study with a time-lagged design included functional strategies and did not find functional strategies to predict a change in paranoid thoughts (Nittel et al.,
2018). To sum up, although the ESM is ideal to study the questions of interest, results are still inconsistent concerning the question of which strategies are effective in regulating negative affect as well as which directly impact on paranoid thoughts. This may be due to the fact that previous studies focused on the absolute intensity of emotion regulation strategies at a given point in time (Hartley et al.,
2014; Ludwig et al.,
2020; Strauss et al.,
2019; Visser et al.,
2018) or the deviation in intensity from the personal average (Nittel et al.,
2018) without evaluating temporal changes or the onset of strategy use. However, for an effective regulation, being able to change the intensity of used strategies from one moment to another, to prioritize between different strategies, and to vary strategies across time is also crucial.
It is increasingly discussed that not only the overreliance on dysfunctional and the neglect of functional strategies, but also a rigid and inflexible pattern of regulation could have a negative impact on behavioral and emotional functioning (Coleman & Oliveros,
2020; Kobylińska & Kusev,
2019). Because the functionality of emotion regulation strategies also depends on whether they are implemented in response to the context (Aldao & Nolen-Hoeksema,
2012; Bonanno & Burton,
2013; Gross,
2015; Ma et al.,
2018), purely considering the average amount of the use of single strategies is likely to be overly simplistic. To better capture moments in which the intensity of a strategy is acutely increased, it may be advantageous to focus on time points at which the employment of a strategy is changed compared to the moment before. For an adaptive response to a changing environment, it is also necessary to prioritize single strategies over others at one emotional episode (i.e., between-strategy variability), and to vary the intensity of a particular strategy across time (i.e., within-strategy variability; Aldao et al.,
2015; Blanke et al.,
2020). By using data from various ESM studies in non-clinical samples, Blanke et al. (
2020) recently found that higher between-strategy variability was linked to lower levels of negative affect suggesting that prioritizing strategies may be effective for regulating affect. Similarly, higher within-strategy variability was associated with lower levels of negative affect. Until now, no studies have addressed the role of acute increases in the intensity of emotion regulation strategies and their variability in relation to paranoia. Examining these characteristics of emotion regulation could help to gain a consistent picture of the role of specific strategies for the regulation of negative affect and paranoid thoughts and thus to optimize therapy and prevention programs.
The aim of the study is therefore to investigate whether acute increases in the intensity of emotion regulation strategy use (I), and the variable use of strategies (II + III) predict negative affect and paranoid thoughts in daily life. We investigate this question in a subclinical sample using a prospective design with the ESM and assessing emotion regulation, negative affect, and paranoid thoughts nine times a day over the course of one week. We hypothesize that (Ia) acute increases in the intensity of acceptance and reappraisal from one measurement point to the next, are predictive of lower levels of negative affect and paranoid thoughts, whereas (Ib) acute increases in the intensity of rumination and suppression are predictive of higher levels of negative affect and paranoid thoughts. Furthermore, we expect that (II) more between-strategy variability at one measurement point is predictive of less negative affect and paranoid thoughts at the subsequent measurement point and (III) more within-strategy variability of a single strategy during one day predict lower levels of negative affect and paranoid thoughts during the same day.
Discussion
In this study, we investigated whether acute increases in the intensity of emotion regulation strategies and their variable use predict negative affect and paranoid thoughts in daily life. As expected, acute increases in the intensity of emotion regulation strategy use were associated with negative affect and paranoid thoughts. However, our results neither confirmed the assumption that between-strategy variability would predict subsequent negative affect and paranoid thoughts, nor that within-strategy variability would be associated with negative affect and paranoid thoughts at the same day.
By examining acute increases in the intensity of strategy use, we showed that the acute onset of emotion regulation strategy use is related to negative affect. We found that negative affect was low following an increase in the intensity of acceptance and reappraisal. Moreover, levels of negative affect were high when rumination and suppression were increased since the previous time point. Thus, when investigating possible deficits in emotion regulation in individuals with psychotic symptoms in future studies, it could prove useful to include the aspect of temporal changes in strategy use and not only focus on the intensity and frequency of single strategies. To explain the puzzling finding that individuals with psychosis showed increased levels of negative affect although reporting to use emotion regulation strategies more frequently than healthy controls (Ludwig et al.,
2020; Visser et al.,
2018), it may be helpful to focus on deficits in the targeted use of strategies. Therefore, future studies should investigate not only whether functional strategies are employed but whether their intensity is increased acutely in response to environmental demands.
Additionally, acute increases in the intensity of emotion regulation strategies were directly linked to the occurrence of paranoid thoughts. Rumination and suppression were already found to predict more paranoid thoughts in clinical samples (Hartley et al.,
2014; Nittel et al.,
2018), which we could now show in individuals with subclinical psychotic experiences. Furthermore, we found that acute increases in acceptance predicted fewer paranoid thoughts. Existent cross-sectional studies had already indicated an association of acceptance with positive outcomes, such as quality of life and low distress, in individuals experiencing psychotic symptoms (Osborne et al.,
2017; Vilardaga et al.,
2014). Until now, it had remained unclear whether acceptance is related to paranoid thoughts in daily life. Therefore, our results extend findings from previous studies by not only showing that rumination and suppression predict paranoia in individuals with subclinical psychotic experiences but also that intensifying acceptance towards the emotional experience is associated with less paranoid thoughts.
Against our expectation, increases in the intensity of reappraisal were not linked to paranoid thoughts. Reappraisal is commonly considered a functional emotion regulation strategy (Webb et al.,
2012), but recently it was discussed that its use is not always beneficial (Ford & Troy,
2019). Some studies have even found reappraisal to be associated with more pronounced paranoid thoughts (Kimhy et al.,
2020; Westermann et al.,
2012) and to increase negative affect during psychotic experiences (Strauss et al.,
2019). For determining the functionality of reappraisal, the reappraised thought contents and the context, in which it is used, may need to be considered. If the alternative thoughts involved blaming others or self-blaming, this could even trigger delusional interpretations. This is supported by a finding by Westermann et al. (
2013) showing that the emotion regulation strategy of self-blame predicted paranoid thoughts one month later while controlling for paranoia at baseline. Furthermore, evidence shows that in some contexts, for example when a situation is perceived as controllable (Haines et al.,
2016) or has a high emotional intensity (Hay et al.,
2015; Scheibe et al.,
2015; Shafir et al.,
2016), reappraisal is not the best choice. Assessing the content of thoughts and the context could contribute to answering how and when a targeted use of reappraisal can help to deal with paranoid thoughts.
In contrast to our hypothesis, when individuals prioritized strategies (i.e., high between-strategy variability) instead of simultaneously using all strategies to the same extent, they did not have lower levels of subsequent negative affect and paranoid thoughts. This was unexpected given that previous studies have found that using multiple strategies at once is associated with more negative affect (Aldao & Nolen-Hoeksema,
2013) and that clinical samples report to use more strategies simultaneously than healthy controls (Gruber et al.,
2013; Ludwig et al.,
2020), which was not only explained by a higher emotional reactivity (Gruber et al.,
2012). However, previous work also found that employing several strategies at once that were experienced as helpful was found to benefit mood (Heiy & Cheavens,
2014) and combining the strategies of accepting and tolerating emotions with comprehending the emotional experience was related to less subsequent paranoid thoughts (Wittkamp et al.,
2021). This indicates that a pure assumption of “less is more” is too simplified and the effectiveness of combinations of strategies may depend crucially on which specific strategies are combined.
Furthermore, we did not find that individuals who applied the same emotion regulation strategy at differing intensities during one day (i.e., high within-strategy variability) had lower levels of negative affect and less paranoid thoughts. Thus, considering a high global variability irrespectively of the need and context as functional may be too short-sighted. Rather, in line with the extended process model of emotion regulation (Gross,
2015), it needs to be taken into account whether stopping, switching, and maintaining of strategies fits the context. When regulation is stopped before the emotion is effectively downregulated or when switching between strategies does not follow a temporal order in search for the best fitting strategy but proceeds chaotically, high variability may reflect a highly unstable and rather ineffective regulation pattern. Therefore, neither extremely high variability nor high inertia in the use of strategies may be advantageous to regulate emotions effectively but an optimal level of moderate variability (Blanke et al.,
2020). In line with that, it is supposed that in a stable context, maintaining one strategy can be even more adaptive than a switch of strategy (Pruessner et al.,
2020). A direct examination of whether changes in the intensity of the strategies covary with environmental changes (see Aldao et al.,
2015) and investigating the temporal sequences of switches between strategies could help to further determine the effectiveness of the variable use of emotion regulation strategies.
Some limitations of our study need to be considered. First, since we did not assess the regulatory context, we cannot answer the question whether the intensity of strategies was increased in order to encounter environmental demands. In future studies, an assessment of context variables and regulatory goals would be beneficial to further investigate the effectiveness of the intensity of and variability within emotion regulation strategies. As the choice of emotion regulation strategies depends on regulatory goals (e.g., Eldesouky & English,
2019; English et al.,
2017; Tamir & Ford,
2012; Wilms et al.,
2020), it should be examined whether the effectiveness of specific strategies for reducing negative affect and paranoid thoughts depends on which goal is currently activated. Second, we focused on the self-report of emotion regulation, negative affect, and symptoms. Deficits in emotion awareness were reported even in subclinical samples (Kimhy et al.,
2016), which renders the additional assessment of psychophysiological variables worthwhile. Third, we only investigated the four most commonly investigated emotion regulation strategies, although other strategies, such as distraction (Martinelli et al.,
2013) or social support (Ludwig et al.,
2020; Nittel et al.,
2018), may also be relevant to the questions of interest. Forth, as we based our power calculations on the assumption of medium effect sizes, we acknowledge that we could have missed smaller effects. Finally, to address which deviations of emotion regulation are ultimately predictive of eventually developing a clinical disorder, examining samples at clinical high risk in a longitudinal design would be informative.
Notwithstanding these limitations, our study strengthens the view that emotion regulation is linked to the occurrence of paranoid thoughts in individuals with subclinical paranoia. More precisely, acute increases in the intensity of the usage of single strategies were found to relate to the experience of negative affect and paranoid thoughts. In light of our study’s results, it seems recommended to further investigate whether emotion regulation plays a causal role in the development of paranoia. For this purpose, it can be helpful to apply ecological momentary interventions (EMI), which deliver psychological interventions in the daily life of participants (Myin-Germeys et al.,
2016) and could thereby change emotion regulation when it takes place. By testing whether these changes in the regulation of negative affect directly lead to a sustainable reduction of psychotic symptoms, EMI can evaluate causal relationships between regulation, negative affect, and paranoid thoughts (i.e., ecological interventionist causal models, Reininghaus et al.,
2016). This could shed light on the question whether emotion regulation interventions may help to prevent paranoia in the future.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.