Effectiveness of emotion regulation strategies measured by self-report and EMG as a result of strategy used, negative emotion strength and participants' baseline HRV

Abstract

We investigated how emotion regulation (ER) effectiveness-on both a self-reported rating as well as emotional expression (corrugator supercilii muscle activity) level-is affected by the characteristics of the situation (low vs. high negativity), the strategy used (reinterpretation, distraction, suppression, no regulation control condition) and individual dispositions (low vs. high baseline Heart Rate Variability) as well as their interaction. For this purpose, 54 adult women participated in a laboratory study. All the included factors significantly influenced both corrugator activity and appraisals of pictures' negativity (in specific experimental conditions). For example, for high HRV participants, (1) distraction, suppression and reinterpretation significantly decreased corrugator activity compared to the control condition, and (2) distraction decreased appraised picture negativity for high negativity photos. For low HRV participants, distraction and suppression were most effective in decreasing corrugator responses, while suppression was more effective than reinterpretation in decreasing perceived picture negativity in the high negativity condition. Subjectively reported effort and success in applying ER strategies were also dependent on manipulated and dispositional factors. Overall, our results lend support to the flexible emotion regulation framework, showing that emotion regulation effectiveness relies on situational context as well as individual dispositions and their interaction.

Figure 1

Example of a single experimental trial. The picture originates from the Open Affective Standardized Image Set and serves only as an example.

Figure 2

Corrugator supercilii activity. (a) Corrugator supercilii response (median) corresponding to low or high negativity stimuli in different emotion regulation conditions and low or high baseline HRV groups. (b) Pairwise contrasts of the corrugator supercilii response between emotional regulation conditions corresponding to low or high negativity stimuli in the low or high HRV group. (c) Contrasts of the corrugator supercilii response between low and high negativity stimuli across emotional regulation conditions in the low or high HRV group. (d) Contrasts of the corrugator supercilii response between low versus high baseline HRV groups. Corrugator supercilii activity is expressed in millivolts (mV) and has been rescaled to a range between 0 and 1. Error bars represent 95% CI of the corresponding estimate. *, significant contrast.

Figure 3

Perceived picture negativity. (a) Perceived picture negativity (median) corresponding to low or high negativity stimuli in different emotion regulation conditions and low or high baseline HRV groups. (b) Pairwise contrasts of the perceived picture negativity between emotional regulation conditions corresponding to low or high negativity stimuli in the low or high HRV group. (c) Contrasts of the perceived picture negativity between low and high negativity stimuli across emotional regulation conditions in the low or high HRV group. (d) Contrasts of the perceived picture negativity scores between low versus high baseline HRV groups. Behavioral responses have been rescaled to a range between 0 and 1. Error bars represent 95% CI of the corresponding estimate. *, significant contrast.

Figure 4

Perceived effectiveness in applying experimental instructions. (a) Perceived effectiveness in applying experimental instructions (median) corresponding to low or high negativity stimuli in different experimental conditions and low or high baseline HRV groups. (b) Pairwise contrasts of the Perceived effectiveness in applying experimental instructions between emotional regulation conditions corresponding to low or high negativity stimuli in the low or high HRV group. (c) Contrasts of the Perceived effectiveness in applying experimental instructions between low and high negativity stimuli across emotional regulation conditions in the low or high HRV group. (d) Contrasts of the Perceived effectiveness in applying experimental instructions between low versus high baseline HRV groups. Behavioral responses have been rescaled to a range between 0 and 1. Error bars represent 95% CI of the corresponding estimate. *, significant contrast.

Figure 5

Perceived effortfulness. (a) Perceived effortfulness scores (median) corresponding to low or high negativity stimuli in different experimental conditions and low or high baseline HRV groups. (b) Pairwise contrasts of the Perceived effortfulness between emotional regulation conditions corresponding to low or high negativity stimuli in the low or high HRV group. (c) Contrasts of the Perceived effortfulness between low and high negativity stimuli across emotional regulation conditions in the low or high HRV group. (d) Contrasts of the Perceived effortfulness between low versus high baseline HRV groups. Behavioral responses have been rescaled to a range between 0 and 1. Error bars represent 95% CI of the corresponding estimate. *, significant contrast.