Emotion regulation research links regulatory responding to important outcomes in psychological well-being, physical health, and interpersonal relations, but several fundamental questions remain. As much of the previous research has addressed generalized regulatory habits, far less is known about the ways in which individuals respond to emotions in daily life. The literature is particularly sparse in explorations of positive emotion regulation. In the current study, we provide an assessment of naturalistic experiences and regulation of emotion, both positive and negative in valence. Using an electronic experience sampling methodology, participants reported on their use of 40 regulatory strategies in response to 14 emotions for 10 consecutive days. On average, participants used 15 different regulatory strategies in response to negative emotions over this time, most frequently relying on acceptance, behavioral activation, and rumination. Participants used a similarly large repertoire of strategies, approximately 16 total, in response to positive emotions, particularly savoring, future focus, and behavioral activation. Participants' mood ratings following strategy use, however, indicated that the most frequently used strategies were often not the most effective strategies. The results of this study provide estimates of the frequency and effectiveness of a large number of emotion regulation strategies in response to both negative and positive emotions. Such findings characterize naturalistic emotion regulation, and estimates of normative emotion regulation processes are imperative to determining the ways in which deviations (e.g., small emotion regulation repertoires, insufficient attention to regulation of positive emotions) impact emotional functioning.

The Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES–D) is one of the most widely used measures of depressive symptoms in research today. The original psychometric work in support of the CES–D (Radloff, 1977) described a 4-factor model underlying the 20 items on the scale. Despite a long history of evidence supporting this structure, researchers routinely report single-number summaries from the CES–D. The research described in this article examines the plausibility of 1-factor model using an initial sample of 595 subjects and a cross-validation sample of 661. After comparing a series of models found in the literature or suggested by analyses, we determined that the good fit of the 4-factor model is mostly due to its ability to model excess covariance associated with the 4 reverse-scored items. A 2-factor model that included a general depression factor and a positive wording method factor loading only on those 4 items had fit that was nearly as good as the original 4-factor model. We conclude that although a 1-factor model may not be the best model for the full 20-item CES–D, it is at least plausible. If a unidimensional set of items is required (e.g., for a unidimensional item response theory analysis), by dropping 5 items, we were able to find a 1-factor model that had very similar fit to the 4-factor model with the original 20 items.

Researchers have examined how several contexts impact the effectiveness of emotion regulation strategies. However, few have considered the emotion-to-be-regulated as a context of interest. Specific emotions are important contexts because they may require particular responses to internal and external stimuli for optimal regulation. Ninety-two undergraduates completed 10 days of ecological momentary assessment, reporting their current mood, recent emotions, and emotion regulation strategies three times per day. The frequency with which certain emotion regulation strategies were used (i.e., acceptance, positive refocusing, reappraisal, problem-solving, and other-blame) differed by the specific emotion experienced. Acceptance and positive refocusing were associated with better mood regardless of emotion, while substance use was associated with worse mood regardless of emotion. Reappraisal was associated with better mood in response to anger than anxiety or sadness, while emotional suppression and other-blame were associated with worse mood in response to anger. These results suggest some emotion regulation strategies exhibit emotion-invariant effects while others depend on the emotion-to-be-regulated.

Objective: For the past two decades, hope theory (Snyder, 1994) has been an important framework for conceptualizing goal pursuits. Surprisingly, however, there has been little effort to test the underlying suppositions of hope theory or to further validate the measurement of hope with the Hope Scale (Snyder et al., 1991). Method: In Study 1, participants (N = 162, Mage = 19, 61% female) completed the Hope Scale (Snyder et al., 1991) and nominated goals they would like to accomplish in the next few months. Goals were coded on several dimensions. In Study 2, participants (N = 118, Mage = 19, 59% female) completed the Hope Scale, measures of optimism and self-efficacy, and generated workable pathways (i.e., routes) for achieving standardized goals. Results: Hope scores predicted setting objectively important, prosocial, long-term, and challenging goals. Hope (but not optimism or self-efficacy) was associated with generating more pathways for standardized goals. Conclusions: The results of these studies generally support the tenets of hope theory and provide further validation evidence for the Hope Scale. As expected, people with higher hope were more likely than their lower-hope counterparts to engage in what has traditionally been considered successful goal-setting behavior. Hope is associated with important goal-relevant behaviors and efforts to increase hopeful thought may be important in helping individuals to move toward important life outcomes.