Emotion regulation has been examined extensively with regard to important outcomes, including psychological and physical health. However, the literature includes many different emotion regulation strategies but little examination of how they relate to one another, making it difficult to interpret and synthesize findings. The goal of this meta-analysis was to examine the underlying structure of common emotion regulation strategies (i.e., acceptance, behavioral avoidance, distraction, experiential avoidance, expressive suppression, mindfulness, problem solving, reappraisal, rumination, worry), and to evaluate this structure in light of theoretical models of emotion regulation. We also examined how distress tolerance-an important emotion regulation ability -relates to strategy use. We conducted meta-analyses estimating the correlations between emotion regulation strategies (based on 331 samples and 670 effect sizes), as well as between distress tolerance and strategies. The resulting meta-analytic correlation matrix was submitted to confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses. None of the confirmatory models, based on prior theory, was an acceptable fit to the data. Exploratory factor analysis suggested that 3 underlying factors best characterized these data. Two factors-labeled Disengagement and Aversive Cognitive Perseveration-emerged as strongly correlated but distinct factors, with the latter consisting of putatively maladaptive strategies. The third factor, Adaptive Engagement, was a less unified factor and weakly related to the other 2 factors. Distress tolerance was most closely associated with low levels of repetitive negative thought and experiential avoidance, and high levels of acceptance and mindfulness. We discuss the theoretical implications of these findings and applications to emotion regulation assessment. (PsycINFO Database Record

Existing structural analyses of emotion-regulation (ER) strategies have relied on retrospective, dispositional assessments, ignoring the within-person structure (i.e., intraindividual strategy groupings based on momentary covariances) and variability in strategy use across time and contexts. We conducted multilevel exploratory factor analyses on self-reported daily use of 11 strategies (i.e., acceptance, behavioral avoidance, distraction, experiential avoidance, expressive suppression, procrastination, reappraisal, reflection, rumination, savoring, social support) in clinical ( N = 129) and student ( N = 109) samples with intensive longitudinal designs. At the between-person level, two factors—Engagement and Avoidance—emerged in both samples. A different structure was found at the within-person level, with four factors in the student sample (i.e., Attentional Shift, Acceptance, Avoidance, Emotional Expression) and three in the clinical sample (i.e., Attentional Shift, Avoidance, Emotional Expression). The validity of these factors was examined via their associations with daily internalizing symptoms and affect. Implications for naturalistic ER strategy use and clinical assessment/intervention are discussed.

Research on emotion regulation (ER) strategies has often relied on trait self-report measures, where individuals retrospectively report their tendency to engage in a specific strategy. Although this method is convenient and useful in many clinical and research settings, it is subject to a number of response and memory biases and may not accurately reflect ER as it is naturalistically employed in daily life. We examined the ecological validity of 10 self-report measures of ER strategies (i.e., acceptance, behavioral avoidance, experiential avoidance, expressive suppression, procrastination, reappraisal, reflection, rumination, savoring, social support) with their reported daily use in intensive longitudinal designs in two samples (109 students, 135 treatment-seeking adults). Zero-order correlations revealed convergence between most trait measures and their daily ER strategy counterparts. However, analyses evaluating the specificity of trait measures in their associations with daily ER strategies (both zero-order and multivariate) did not support trait measures' discriminant validity. Rather, correlations between trait measures and factors of the between-person variance in daily ER strategies suggest that most ER trait measures may reflect broader tendencies to use or not use avoidance strategies in daily life. Implications for research using trait measures of ER strategies and recommendations for ER strategy assessment are discussed. Public Significance StatementTrait measures are a common form of assessing ER strategy use in both research and clinical settings. This study examines how well trait measures map onto naturalistic ER strategy use. Findings suggest that trait measures of ER strategies may reflect broad tendencies in daily ER strategy use, but do not generally detect the use of specific strategies used in daily life.

No abstract

Dysfunctional affective processes are central to the experience of internalizing disorders (e.g., depression, anxiety, and related disorders). Specifically, extreme positive affect and elevated negative affect each have unique and robust patterns of associations with internalizing symptoms This article examines affect as both an individual difference and a within-person dynamic process that unfolds over time. Recent research is reviewed that clarifies the hierarchical structure of affect and facet-level associations with symptoms, affect-laden traits that confer risk for internalizing psychopathology, models of emotion regulation, and how emotion regulation abilities and strategies contribute to or detract from psychological well-being. Several measurement challenges in this literature are identified and discussed, including possible conceptual and content overlap, mood-state distortion, naturalistic assessment in daily life, and the benefits and limitations of self-reported affective experience.