van Dijk Wilco W, van Dillen Lotte F, Rotteveel Mark, Seip Elise C
a Department of Social and Organizational Psychology , Leiden University , Leiden , The Netherlands.
b Department of Social and Organizational Psychology , Leiden Institute for Brain and Cognition, Leiden University , Leiden , The Netherlands.
Cogn Emot. 2017 Apr;31(3):616-624. doi: 10.1080/02699931.2015.1129313. Epub 2016 Jan 4.
In the present study, we examined the impact of emotion regulation on the intensity bias in guilt and shame. Fifty-two undergraduates either forecasted their emotions and emotion regulation following a guilt- and shame-eliciting situation or reported their actual experienced emotions and employed emotion regulation. Results showed a clear intensity bias, that is, forecasters predicted to experience more guilt and shame than experiencers actually experienced. Furthermore, results showed that forecasters predicted to employ less down-regulating emotion regulation (i.e. less acceptance) and more up-regulating emotion regulation (i.e. more rumination) than experiencers actually employed. Moreover, results showed that the intensity differences between forecasted and experienced guilt and shame could be explained (i.e. were mediated) by the differences between forecasted and actually employed emotion regulation (i.e. acceptance and rumination). These findings provide support for the hypothesis that the intensity bias can-at least in part-be explained by the misprediction of future emotion regulation.
在本研究中，我们考察了情绪调节对内疚和羞耻强度偏差的影响。52名本科生要么在引发内疚和羞耻的情境后预测自己的情绪和情绪调节方式，要么报告自己实际经历的情绪并采用情绪调节方式。结果显示出明显的强度偏差，即预测者预测自己会比实际经历者体验到更多的内疚和羞耻。此外，结果表明，预测者预计会比实际经历者采用更少的下调情绪调节方式（即更少的接纳）和更多的上调情绪调节方式（即更多的沉思）。而且，结果表明，预测的与实际经历的内疚和羞耻之间的强度差异可以通过预测的与实际采用的情绪调节方式（即接纳和沉思）之间的差异来解释（即被介导）。这些发现为以下假设提供了支持：强度偏差至少在一定程度上可以通过对未来情绪调节的错误预测来解释。
