Emotion regulation (ER) repertoire-the range of different ER strategies an individual utilizes across situations-is assumed to enable more adaptive ER and greater well-being. ER repertoire has been operationalized by a quantitative index (sum of ER strategies across situations) or by applying a person-centered approach to global self-reports of dispositional ER. We aimed to assess ER repertoire in daily life by using an experience sampling methodology (ESM) and a person-centered approach that could account for nested data. We used multilevel latent profile analyses of ESM data (N = 179, 9-10 prompts per day over 21 days) to (a) group the occasions into latent profiles of momentary ER strategies, (b) group individuals whose distributions of ER profiles differed across occasions into latent classes, and (c) examine well-being correlates of class membership at the person level. At the occasion level, we identified nine ER profiles that differed in degree of use (e.g., no use of any vs. strong use of all strategies) and in specific combinations of strategies (e.g., situation selection & acceptance vs. suppression & ignoring). At the person level, we identified five classes of individuals differing in the degree to which they used various momentary ER profiles versus one predominant profile across situations. Wellbeing was highest for individuals who used multiple ER profiles of active strategies and lowest for individuals who used ER profiles focused on suppression. Hence, both ER repertoire width and the specific make-up of the ER repertoire were relevant for the relation between ER repertoire and well-being.

Recent theory conceptualizes emotion regulation as occurring across three stages: (a) identifying the need to regulate, (b) selecting a strategy, and (c) implementing that strategy to modify emotions. Yet, measurement of emotion regulation has not kept pace with these theoretical advances. In particular, widely used global self-report questionnaires are often assumed to index people’s typical strategy selection tendencies. However, it is unclear how well global self-reports capture individual differences in strategy selection and/or whether they may also index other emotion regulation stages. To address this issue, we examined how global self-report measures correspond with the three stages of emotion regulation as modeled using daily life data. We analyzed data from nine daily diary and experience sampling studies (total N = 1,097), in which participants provided daily and global self-reports of cognitive reappraisal, expressive suppression, and rumination. We found only weak-to-moderate correlations between global self-reports and average daily self-reports of each regulation strategy (indexing strategy selection). Global self-reports also correlated with individual differences in the degree to which (a) preceding affect experience predicted regulation strategies (representing the identification stage), and (b) regulation strategies predicted subsequent changes in affective experience (representing the implementation stage). Our findings suggest that global self-report measures of reappraisal, suppression, and rumination may not strongly and uniquely correlate with individual differences in daily selection of these strategies. Moreover, global self-report measures may also index individual differences in the perceived need to regulate, and the affective consequences of regulation in daily life.

The degree to which an identity is an important aspect of one's self-concept (i.e., identity centrality) relates to both health and prejudice experiences of minority groups. Individuals with greater levels of identity centrality view their world through the lens of that identity. This allows them to engage in more positive identity-relevant experiences. However, it could also heighten their perceptions of in-group threat. Among LGBTQ groups, the relationship between identity centrality and psychosocial outcomes is yet to be established. In this paper, we investigated the relationship between LGBTQ identity centrality and psychosocial outcomes via a comprehensive systematic (k = 89, N = 35,950) and meta-analytic (k = 57, N = 26,704) literature review. Results indicated that greater levels of LGBTQ centrality relates to more positive identity-relevant affirmations (.155 ≤ r's ≤ .419), but also greater prejudice/discrimination perceptions and experiences (−.271 ≤ r's ≤ −.128). We found no evidence of a relationship between LGBTQ centrality and health outcomes (−.052 ≤ r's ≤ .040). Importantly, we found that these relationships are more beneficial for some LGBTQ groups (gay men), than for others (bisexual/transgender individuals). Findings from this review provide important and necessary insights on the role of LGBTQ identity centrality and identify crucial gaps in the literature that should be addressed.

No abstract

Emotion regulation researchers often assume that global self-report questionnaires capture momentary emotion regulation processes that occur in everyday life; however, this assumption remains largely untested. To test this assumption, we analyzed data from 10 daily life studies (Total N = 1,198) in which participants reported their use of cognitive reappraisal, expressive suppression, and rumination using both global questionnaires and diary/experience sampling methods. We investigated three forms of global-momentary correspondence. First, we examined how global self-reports of emotion regulation correlated with the stable between-person component of momentary self-reports, labelled mean-level correspondence. Meta-analyses across studies revealed only weak (reappraisal) to moderate (suppression, rumination) mean-level correspondence. Second, we examined how global self-reports correlated with the degree to which momentary emotion regulation is contingent on preceding affect, which we label identification correspondence. Meta-analyses revealed that higher global rumination was associated with momentary use of all three strategies that wasless contingent on preceding negative affect intensity. Finally, we investigated how global self-reports correlated with the effect of momentary regulation on subsequent affect, labelled implementation correspondence. Meta-analyses revealed that higher global reappraisal was associated with larger decreases in negative affect following momentary reappraisal. Taken together, our findings suggest that global self-reports do not always map clearly onto the stable trait component of momentary emotion regulation, but may instead reflect individual differences in the affective antecedents and consequences of emotion regulation.