Editorial overview: New directions in the science of emotion regulation

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.03.009Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Emotion regulation (ER) research has grown exponentially in the past two decades.

  • ER models can be categorized as focusing on either ER strategies or ER abilities.

  • Each model captures a unique and important aspect of the ER construct.

  • There is considerable agreement across extant ER models.

  • This issue highlights the current state and future directions for ER research.

Emotion regulation is one of the fastest growing areas of research within psychology. Yet, despite the rapid growth of this research, there are still many questions to answer. This issue of Current Opinion in Psychology represents the current state of the field for theory and research on emotion regulation and highlights directions for future research. Each article describes groundbreaking research and theory in a particular area: first, emerging topics in emotion regulation research; second, assessment of emotion regulation; third, lifespan and cross-cultural perspectives on emotion regulation; fourth, emotion regulation and psychopathology; and fifth emotion regulation in psychological treatments. In this introduction, we categorize models of emotion regulation based on the extent with which they emphasize emotion regulation strategies versus abilities. We then discuss similarities between these models and how they can inform each other. We then provide an overview of each article, focusing on how they speak to both models.

Introduction

Throughout history, philosophers, clinicians, and researchers have long debated and theorized on the relevance and role of emotion in daily functioning and the pathogenesis of psychiatric disorders. Such work gave rise to pivotal and essential theories on emotion, such as the James–Lange [1, 2], Cannon–Bard [3], and Schachter–Singer [4] theories of emotion. However, through the work of Davidson [5], Ekman [6], Frijda [7], Lang [8], LeDoux [9], Panksepp [10], Plutchik [11], Scherer [12], and many others, the two decades before the turn of the century saw a dramatic increase in research and theory on emotion and, subsequently, the level of sophistication with which we approached, understood, and studied a phenomena that is so meaningful, personal, and perplexing to all of us. Naturally stemming from this work came a desire to understand how we regulate these powerful forces. From the early 1990s, emotion regulation has been one of the fastest growing areas of research in the field of psychology. Yet, despite this exponential growth in research on emotion regulation, there are still many important questions that need to be answered.

First and foremost, researchers tend to use different definitions of ‘emotion regulation.’ That said, closer inspection reveals that the commonalities among the different definitions might be greater than at first thought. One approach is exemplified by JJ Gross’ extended process model of emotion regulation [13]. This model describes the process through which individuals regulate their emotions at different points in the emotion-generative process (e.g. situation selection, situation modification, attentional deployment, cognitive change, and response modulation). According to this model, what emotions one has and how they are expressed are influenced by the type and timing of the emotion regulation strategy an individual uses. JJ Gross’ model [13] shares some similarities with other models of emotion regulation that focus on the strategies individuals use in order to implement some kind of influence on the process through which emotion is generated or manifested in behavior [14, 15].

Alternatively, one can take a step back from the particular emotion regulation strategies an individual uses in any given moment and view emotion regulation from a broader perspective, wherein emotion regulation is conceptualized as the typical or dispositional ways in which individuals understand, regard, and respond to their emotional experience. This approach is consistent with other prominent models of emotion regulation, including KL Gratz and L Roemer's [16] clinically informed model of emotion regulation, as well as Thompson's [17] model of emotion regulation (e.g. particularly the ability to monitor and evaluate emotional responses) and SG Hofmann and TB Kashdan's model of affective styles [18]. Unlike strategy models, these frameworks focus more on one's emotion regulation abilities (or emotion regulation potential) and place an emphasis on the extent to which individuals approach emotions with acceptance, willingness, and tolerance; access to emotion regulation strategies that are perceived as effective and the flexible use of situationally appropriate emotion regulation strategies to modulate emotions in order to meet both the demands of the situation and the individuals’ goals; the ability to monitor, understand, and evaluate emotions; the ability to differentiate between different emotional states; and the ability to control behaviors (e.g. impulsive behaviors, maintain goal-directed behavior) in the context of emotions.

Although emotion regulation abilities and the use of emotion regulation strategies are distinguishable processes, they are nonetheless interconnected. On the one hand, emotion regulation abilities can be considered a higher order process that likely influence the type of emotion regulation strategies an individual uses in any given situation and the ultimate success of those strategies. For example, greater distress tolerance may increase the extent to which an individual is willing to direct attention to and connect with an emotional experience in situations where it would be beneficial to do so. Alternatively, individuals with low distress tolerance may be more inclined to inflexibly use avoidance-oriented strategies to regulate their emotions. Likewise, the repeated use of certain emotion regulation strategies across contexts (when it is not adaptive to use them; e.g. situational or emotional avoidance) may contribute to a reduction in certain emotion regulation abilities, such as emotional awareness or emotional clarity. On the other hand, the use of adaptive emotion regulation strategies may foster an acceptance and understanding of emotions and the situations that elicit them or increase self-efficacy for regulating emotions. Basically, we consider the relationship between emotion regulation abilities and strategies to be bidirectional, wherein feedback loops may be positive or negative (see Figure 1). Thus, although different models of emotion regulation exist, we consider that it is essential not to view them as mutually exclusive or in opposition to one another, as each captures a unique and important aspect of the complex construct of emotion regulation. Rather, we should be looking for ways to integrate current models of emotion regulation. Indeed, all of these models have provided us with a wealth of information on the role of emotion regulation in everyday life and the development, maintenance, and treatment of psychopathology. It is for this reason that we did not ask invited authors to focus on one particular model of emotion regulation, but to simply identify the model they are using.

Although the articles included in this Special Issue may refer to different models of emotion regulation, it is promising to see that there are obvious areas of agreement. This is a testament to our development as a field in understanding the value of emotion, emotion regulation, and the human condition. First, across both the strategy and abilities models of emotion regulation there is the recognition that we do not necessarily need to change our emotions in order to be able to respond adaptively to the challenging demands posed by the environment. For example, within the strategy-based process model, in certain situations an adaptive emotion regulation strategy may be one that facilitates or does not interfere with the natural experience, expression, and resolution of an emotion [13]. Likewise, emotion regulation abilities models speak to the benefits of emotional willingness and approaching emotions from an accepting and nonjudgmental stance [16, 19]. Emotional acceptance can change how one relates to emotional experience, reducing motivation to escape, avoid, or control emotions and, instead, allowing emotions to naturally resolve on their own. Emotions are not roadblocks to living a meaningful life. On the contrary, they can provide us with important information that assists us in building the life we want to live.

Along these same lines, it is promising to see that the prominent models of emotion regulation have moved away from the idea that emotion regulation is primarily involved with the elimination, control, or reduction of negative emotion. Instead, according to strategy-based process models of emotion regulation, adaptive emotion regulation may involve seeking out or enhancing a negative emotion or suppressing the expression of a positive emotion [13, 20, 21]. Likewise, the ability to flexibly use emotion regulation strategies in order to modulate emotional responses as needed (which may include the intensification of an emotional response) can facilitate the successful navigation of everyday demands [16, 22, 23, 24].

In addition, there is an inherent understanding that emotion regulation can be separated from the, intensity, quality, or content of an emotion. This notion is at the cornerstone of both strategy [25] and abilities models [26]. However, it has been particularly developed within the abilities models. Although an intense emotion may be a consequence of emotion dysregulation and intense emotions may take longer to return to baseline or be more difficult to regulate, the presence of an intense emotion per se is not necessarily an indication of poor emotion regulation abilities. It is only in the context of other emotion regulation processes (e.g. distress intolerance, emotional nonacceptance) that an intense emotion may be associated with some negative consequence. Specifically, being unwilling to experience an emotion or judging oneself for having a particular emotion may only increase its intensity, making it more difficult to regulate and thus increasing risk for more drastic emotion regulation attempts (e.g. substance abuse).

Moreover, recent theory and research on the process model of emotion regulation speaks to the importance of considering the context and an individual's goals when determining whether a particular emotion regulation strategy is adaptive or maladaptive [13, 22, 27, 28, 29]. Emotion regulation abilities models [16, 17] also discuss the need to consider the demands of a situation and an individual's goals when determining the adaptiveness of responding to an emotion in a particular way. Basically, we cannot evaluate the adaptiveness of emotion regulation in a vacuum. For example, despite an extensive amount of research showing that avoidance is associated with a number of negative consequences [30, 31], it is important for us to consider that there are times in which it may be necessary and functional to temporarily avoid our emotions in order to relegate self-regulatory resources elsewhere to meet the demands of a situation. In addition, even though chronic emotional avoidance in some situations (e.g. in the midst of combat or some other prolonged highly stressful event) may be associated with some long-term negative consequences, those consequences may pale in comparison to the negative consequences that could occur if one were to connect with and express that emotion in the moment. The relevance of context to emotion regulation models is discussed in greater detail by Aldao and Tull [in this issue].

This Special Issue on Emotion Regulation for Current Opinion in Psychology represents how far (and how quickly) we have come in the field of emotion regulation. Each article describes groundbreaking research and theory in a particular area: first, emerging topics in emotion regulation research; second, assessment of emotion regulation; third, lifespan and cross-cultural perspectives on emotion regulation; fourth, emotion regulation and psychopathology; and fifth, emotion regulation in psychological treatments. Below we provide a description of each article. We note the extent to which they rely on strategy or abilities models or they emphasize the bidirectional nature of their relationship.

Section snippets

Emerging areas in the study of emotion regulation

First, although numerous advancements have been made in the study of emotion regulation in the past decade, there are still many areas in need of attention. First, much of the research on emotion regulation to date has focused on the regulation of negative emotions. The assumption is often made that there is no need or desire to regulate positive emotions. TB Kashdan, KC Young, and KA Machell [in this issue] address myths about the regulation of positive emotion, with a particular emphasis on

Advances in the assessment of emotion regulation

The vast majority of research on emotion regulation to date utilizes self-report measures to assess emotion regulation. Although these measures have provided us with important information on the correlates of emotion regulation and dysregulation [26, 33], they are associated with some important limitations [34]. Thus, there is a need to develop new methods for assessing emotion regulation in ways that maximize internal validity (i.e. emotion regulation in the laboratory) and external validity

Emotion regulation across the lifespan and cultural considerations

Just as we must consider the immediate context when determining whether an emotion regulation strategy is adaptive or maladaptive, we must also consider the larger context in which emotion regulation occurs. How individuals understand their emotions and the specific goals that drive emotion regulation strategy use are going to be greatly influenced by the cultural context in which these experiences occur. Most emotion regulation research to date has been conducted within Western cultures.

Emotion regulation, related constructs, and clinically relevant behaviors

As stated previously, a wealth of research has shown that emotion regulation is a core feature of multiple forms of psychopathology and maladaptive behaviors [26, 35]. However, whereas a great deal of research has been conducted on the role of emotion regulation in certain forms of psychopathology (e.g. borderline personality disorder [36, 37], posttraumatic stress disorder [38, 39]) and maladaptive behaviors (e.g. eating disordered behavior [40, 41], nonsuicidal self-injury [42, 43]), there is

The relevance of emotion regulation for prevention and intervention

Given evidence that emotion regulation underlies numerous clinical difficulties, the past decade has seen a rise in the development of interventions that specifically target this underlying mechanism. First, M Berking and CA Lukas [in this issue] describe the utility of Affect Regulation Training as a transdiagnostic approach to the prevention and treatment of psychiatric disorders. Next, from an emotion regulation abilities perspective, KL Gratz, NH Weiss, and MT Tull [in this issue] review

Conclusion

In looking at the theory and research presented in these articles, we agree with Dr. Arvid Kappas, President of the International Society for Research on Emotion, that we are definitely in the Golden Age of Emotion Research [46]. It is important to note that the articles in this Special Issue constitute about half of the topics that we originally identified. Although there is no doubt that these articles represent important areas of investigation in the field of emotion regulation, they are by

Matthew T. Tull, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor and Director of Anxiety Disorders Research in the Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior at the University of Mississippi Medical Center. His research focuses on the role of emotion dysregulation in the anxiety disorders, with a particular focus on posttraumatic stress disorder. His research also explores emotion dysregulation as a mechanism underlying the development and maintenance of maladaptive behaviors, such as substance abuse.

References (46)

  • C.G. Lange

    Über Gemütsbewegungen

    (1887)
  • W.B. Cannon

    The James–Lange theory of emotion: a critical examination and an alternative theory

    Am J Psychol

    (1927)
  • S. Schachter et al.

    Cognitive, social, and physiological determinants of emotional state

    Psychol Rev

    (1962)
  • R.J. Davidson

    Affect cognition hemispheric specialization

  • P. Ekman et al.

    Autonomic nervous system activity distinguishes among emotions

    Science

    (1983)
  • N.H. Frijda

    The Emotions

    (1986)
  • P.J. Lang

    A bioinformational theory of emotional imagery

    Psychophysiology

    (1979)
  • J.E. LeDoux

    Cognition and emotion: processing functions and brain systems

  • J. Panksepp

    Toward a general psychobiological theory of emotions

    Behav Brain Sci

    (1982)
  • P. Plutchik

    Emotion: A Psychobioevolutionary Synthesis

    (1980)
  • K.R. Scherer

    On the nature and function of emotion: a component process approach

  • J.J. Gross

    Emotion regulation: current status and future prospects

    Psychol Inq

    (2015)
  • P.M. Cole et al.

    The development of emotion regulation and dysregulation: a clinical perspective

    The Development of Emotion Regulation: Biological and Behavioral Considerations

    Monogr Soc Res Child Dev

    (1994)
  • Cited by (0)

    Matthew T. Tull, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor and Director of Anxiety Disorders Research in the Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior at the University of Mississippi Medical Center. His research focuses on the role of emotion dysregulation in the anxiety disorders, with a particular focus on posttraumatic stress disorder. His research also explores emotion dysregulation as a mechanism underlying the development and maintenance of maladaptive behaviors, such as substance abuse.

    Amelia Aldao, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor and Director of the Psychopathology and Affective Sciences Lab at The Ohio State University. Her research focuses on the role of emotion regulation in anxiety and mood disorders, with a particular emphasis on identifying contextual influences on the adaptiveness (and maladaptiveness) of regulation processes. Dr. Aldao utilizes an experimental psychopathology approach to identify mechanisms underlying the selection, implementation, and consequences of emotion regulation processes across contexts in healthy, anxious, and depressed populations.

    View full text