Wilms Rafael, Lanwehr Ralf, Kastenmüller Andreas
Department of Education Studies and Psychology, University of Siegen, Siegen, Germany.
Department of International Management, South Westphalia University of Applied Sciences, Meschede, Germany.
Front Psychol. 2020 May 19;11:877. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00877. eCollection 2020.
This study addresses three questions: How often and how consistently do predictors for emotion regulation choice occur in daily life? What predicts emotion regulation choice in daily life? How do predictors for emotion regulation choice interact in daily life? We examined emotion regulation goals (i.e., prohedonic and social goals), situational factors (i.e., perceived control, expected reoccurrence, and emotional intensity), and emotion regulation strategies (i.e., active coping, distraction, rumination, cognitive reappraisal, and expressive suppression) in negative emotion events. A total of 110 individuals (65% female) participated in an experience sampling study and received beeps, five times a day over the course of 9 days. We used a random intercept model to estimate our results. Emotion regulation goals and situational factors vary strongly in different events within the same person. Emotion regulation strategies, effective in changing the emotional experience, are crucial for prohedonic goals, whereas expressive suppression is important for social goals. Perceived control was positively associated with putatively adaptive strategies. Emotional intensity and expected reoccurrence were negatively associated with putatively adaptive strategies. Emotional intensity was positively associated with putatively maladaptive strategies. Emotion regulation strategies were not associated with the interaction of emotion regulation goals and situational factors. We conclude that emotion regulation goals and situational factors are extremely context-dependent, suggesting that they should be treated as states. Emotion regulation goals appear to have a functional association with strategies for prohedonic and social goals. The associations between situational factors and strategies in daily life appear to be largely different from the results found in the laboratory, emphasizing the importance of experience sampling studies.
情绪调节选择的预测因素在日常生活中出现的频率和一致性如何？日常生活中是什么预测了情绪调节选择？情绪调节选择的预测因素在日常生活中如何相互作用？我们在消极情绪事件中考察了情绪调节目标（即享乐主义目标和社会目标）、情境因素（即感知到的控制、预期的再次发生和情绪强度）以及情绪调节策略（即积极应对、分心、沉思、认知重评和表达抑制）。共有110名个体（65%为女性）参与了一项经验抽样研究，在9天的时间里每天接收5次提示音。我们使用随机截距模型来估计结果。情绪调节目标和情境因素在同一个人的不同事件中差异很大。对改变情绪体验有效的情绪调节策略对享乐主义目标至关重要，而表达抑制对社会目标很重要。感知到的控制与假定的适应性策略呈正相关。情绪强度和预期的再次发生与假定的适应性策略呈负相关。情绪强度与假定的适应不良策略呈正相关。情绪调节策略与情绪调节目标和情境因素的相互作用无关。我们得出结论，情绪调节目标和情境因素极度依赖于情境，这表明它们应被视为状态。情绪调节目标似乎与享乐主义目标和社会目标的策略存在功能关联。日常生活中情境因素与策略之间的关联似乎与实验室研究结果有很大不同，这强调了经验抽样研究的重要性。
