Lai Marcus, Qiu Larissa Shiying, Li Haoxiang, Liddell Belinda J, Koike Asami, Wong Joshua, Wong Joshua, Lies July, Lau Winnie, Bryant Richard A, Jobson Laura
Turner Institute for Brain and Mental Health and School of Psychological Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, Australia.
Shapes and Sounds Pty Ltd, North Melbourne, Australia.
Eur J Psychotraumatol. 2025 Dec;16(1):2518813. doi: 10.1080/20008066.2025.2518813. Epub 2025 Jun 30.
Confucianist, Buddhist and Taoist teachings offer insight into emotion processing for members of East Asian cultures. Emerging research also suggests distinguishing Confucianism into restrictive (focused on restricting self-needs for the greater good), and empowering (emphasising self-improvement) facets, and this distinction may be relevant for emotional processes. However, research has not considered how endorsement of these teachings influence emotion regulation among East Asian trauma survivors. This study presents a secondary analysis from a larger study on cultural differences in emotion regulation, and explored how levels of adherence to these teachings influence daily emotion regulation and affective outcomes among Chinese Australian trauma survivors. Chinese Australian trauma survivors ( = 49) completed a baseline questionnaire assessing trauma exposure, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptomatology and endorsement of Confucianism (restrictive and empowering), Buddhism, and Taoism. Participants then completed ecological momentary assessments (EMA) measuring daily use of suppression, acceptance and interpersonal emotion regulation and both positive and negative affect over seven days. First, Taoism was positively associated with the use of daily acceptance, and Buddhism was positively associated with daily use of interpersonal emotion regulation. Second, Taoism moderated the positive relationship between acceptance and positive affect, whereby the strength of this association increased as Taoism endorsement increased. Taoism also moderated the relationship between interpersonal emotion regulation and both positive and negative affect, such that the associations were only significant for participants with higher levels of Taoism. Both restrictive and empowering Confucianism also moderated the negative association between acceptance and negative affect, with this association only being significant for individuals with low levels of empowering Confucianism and high levels of restrictive Confucianism. Our findings provide preliminary indications that the Three Teachings of East Asia may influence emotion regulation and associated affective outcomes among Chinese trauma survivors, highlighting a need for further research.
儒家、佛教和道教教义为东亚文化成员的情绪处理提供了深刻见解。新出现的研究还建议将儒家思想分为约束性（专注于为了更大的利益而限制自我需求）和赋能性（强调自我提升）两个方面，这种区分可能与情绪过程相关。然而，研究尚未考虑对这些教义的认同如何影响东亚创伤幸存者的情绪调节。本研究是一项关于情绪调节文化差异的更大规模研究的二次分析，探讨了对这些教义的遵循程度如何影响华裔澳大利亚创伤幸存者的日常情绪调节和情感结果。华裔澳大利亚创伤幸存者（n = 49）完成了一份基线问卷，评估创伤暴露情况、创伤后应激障碍（PTSD）症状以及对儒家思想（约束性和赋能性）、佛教和道教的认同。参与者随后完成了生态瞬时评估（EMA），测量了七天内抑制、接受和人际情绪调节的日常使用情况以及积极和消极情绪。首先，道教与日常接受的使用呈正相关，佛教与人际情绪调节的日常使用呈正相关。其次，道教调节了接受与积极情绪之间的正相关关系，即随着道教认同度的增加，这种关联的强度也增加。道教还调节了人际情绪调节与积极和消极情绪之间的关系，使得这种关联仅在道教水平较高的参与者中显著。约束性和赋能性儒家思想也调节了接受与消极情绪之间的负相关关系，这种关联仅在赋能性儒家思想水平较低且约束性儒家思想水平较高的个体中显著。我们的研究结果提供了初步迹象，表明东亚三教可能会影响中国创伤幸存者的情绪调节和相关情感结果，凸显了进一步研究的必要性。
