Faculty of Education, 5620McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Psychol Rep. 2021 Aug;124(4):1588-1620. doi: 10.1177/0033294120942110. Epub 2020 Jul 16.
Why do some people routinely respond to emotional difficulty in ways that foster resilience, while others habitually engage in responses associated with deleterious consequences over time? This study examined relations between emotion controllability beliefs and goals for emotion regulation (ER) with peoples' multivariate profile of cognitive ER strategy use. Cluster analysis classified 481 university students (81% female) as adaptive, maladaptive, or low regulators based on their multivariate profile of engagement in five adaptive and four maladaptive cognitive ER strategies. A discriminant function analysis predicting the multivariate profiles supported that lower emotion controllability beliefs and lower performance-avoidance goals for ER significantly distinguished maladaptive regulators from adaptive regulators. Moreover, lower learning, performance-avoidance, and performance-approach goals for ER significantly distinguished low regulators from maladaptive and low regulators. Taken together, findings support that emotion-related beliefs and goals may help to clarify why some people habitually engage in more adaptive patterns of cognitive ER in response to negative life events than others.
为什么有些人会习惯性地采取促进适应力的方式来应对情绪困难，而另一些人则会习惯性地采取与长期有害后果相关的应对方式？本研究考察了情绪可控性信念和情绪调节（ER）目标与人们多维认知 ER 策略使用模式之间的关系。聚类分析根据 481 名大学生（81%为女性）在五种适应性和四种适应性认知 ER 策略中的多维参与情况，将他们分为适应性、适应性差或低调节者。预测多维图谱的判别函数分析支持以下观点，即较低的情绪可控性信念和较低的 ER 表现回避目标显著区分了适应性差的调节者和适应性调节者。此外，较低的学习、表现回避和表现接近 ER 目标显著区分了低调节者和适应性差的调节者。总之，研究结果表明，情绪相关的信念和目标可能有助于解释为什么有些人在面对负面生活事件时，会习惯性地采用更适应的认知 ER 模式，而另一些人则不会。
