Which emotion regulation strategy is efficient for whom? Reappraisal and suppression efficiency for adaptive and maladaptive personality profiles

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to explore the efficiency of different emotion regulation strategies, specifically reappraisal and suppression, in relation to adaptive and maladaptive personality profiles.

Background: Personality conditions emotions and influences emotion regulation. Of the available regulation strategies, reappraisal (reinterpreting the situation) is described as an efficient strategy, whereas suppression (not displaying the experienced emotion) carries higher physiological and cognitive costs. Little is known, however, about the influence of personality on these efficiencies.

Method: We tested the personality structure of 102 participants (Mean_age = 20.75, SD_age = 2.15), based on the Five-Factor Model and the Maladaptive Personality Trait Model. Experience, expressivity, and physiological arousal were recorded during the viewing of emotionally charged positive and negative images while participants reappraised, suppressed, or viewed the images without regulating their emotions.

Results: We identified two clusters for adaptive personality ("Adaptive Resilient" and "Anti-resilient") and two for maladaptive personality ("Maladaptive Resilient" and "Under-controlled"). The major finding was for emotional experience in maladaptive personalities, where reappraisal was efficient in the Maladaptive Resilient profile, while none of the strategies brought relief in the Under-controlled profile.

Conclusion: This study, which systematically contrasts personality and efficiency of emotion regulation strategies, is one of the first attempts to refine the understanding of how personality influences the emotional regulation process.

Keywords: Five‐Factor Model; Maladaptive Personality Trait Model; emotion regulation; personality profiles; psychophysiology; reappraisal; suppression.

FIGURE 1

Summary of the main phases of the experiment, with a focus on the trial sequence. Panel a represents the main factors of the study and how they were tested or implemented in the study. Panel b is a focus of a typical trial sequence.

FIGURE 2

Personality clusters based on the z‐scores of the NEO‐FFI and PID‐5 scores. Panel a: results of adaptive personality profiles based on the NEO‐FFI, with the “Anti‐resilient” and “Adaptive Resilient” profiles. Panel b: results of maladaptive personality profiles based on the PID‐5, with “Maladaptive Resilient” and “Under‐controlled” profiles. Asterisks within or near the bars in both panels represent the independent t‐tests of the same trait between profiles, ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01.

FIGURE 3

DI of experience during negative viewing (Panel a) and during positive viewing (Panel b). Dispersion is indicated with Standard Errors of the Mean. The lines between the conditions in the two panels indicate the difference between reappraisal and suppression. The asterisks within the bars in both panels represent the one‐sample t‐test results, ***p < 0.001.

FIGURE 4

DI of expressivity, measuring strategy efficiency, during negative viewing (Panel a) and positive viewing (Panel b). Dispersions are indicated with Standard Errors of the Mean. The lines between the conditions indicate the difference between reappraisal and suppression. The asterisks within the bars in both panels represent the post hoc analyses measured with one‐sample t‐tests, ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05.

FIGURE 5

DI on experience during negative (Panel a) and positive (Panel b) viewing for each MPTM profile. Lines between conditions and between groups in both panels indicate the significant difference between reappraisal and suppression or a single strategy difference between groups. Dispersions are indicated with Standard Errors of the Mean. The asterisks within or near the bars in both panels represent the one‐sample t‐test results, ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05.